From my understanding of Mumby and Putnam’s article, it exposes the tendency of organizations to condition organizational members to express emotion based on the prescribed goals of the overall organization by separating mind and body. In particularly, they refer to Simon’s “reformulation of rationality that employs a mind-body dualism by subordinating choice to organizational goals.”
1. Although this is taking a feminist lens to bounded rationality, Mumby and Putnam sometimes give the impression that all members of organizations are emotional beings and simply control them due to organizational rationalities. Is that fair assumption for them to make? Does this not take away agency from organizational members?
Pg. 479
“Thus, through an emphasis on bounded emotionality, the marginal aspects of organizational experiences can be recaptured (namely, the private, the informal, the physical, and the emotional). Bounded emotionality also may aid in creating different gender identities for women and men because it may help to develop alternative modes of organizational discourse.”
Both last week’s articles and this week’s articles take a feminist lens to analyzing structures that are problematic within organizations. From a black feminist standpoint, I am not sure if the idea of bounded emotionality (nurturance, caring, community, supportiveness, and interrelatedness pg. 474) supports some of the dispositions toward emotion that may be natural to some but contradict this ideology. By its very definition, it may create another structure within the organization that bounds members just the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment