Abstract
In the following paper, I present the hero-villain-fool narrative construction method in order to assess hidden organizational phenomena. Psychologists can analyze organizations in two ways either by focusing upon formal networks (e.g. organigram) or by taking a closer look into informal networks. The present paper tries to help organizational psychologists to generate meaning making within informal networks. These informal networks are important semiotic spaces where knowledge is generated that lies in the taboo zone of talking for the formal networks. Thus, my open interview guide proposes a flexible method that can reverse the taboo zone of talking and expand the talkability zone. As a consequence, meaning making is generated that bears conflicts showing urgent – yet not fulfilled – needs within the organization. The proposed method is instanced by a microgenetic analysis of a single case study showing that the hero works as a meta-organizer for adaptive trajectories that lead into a multilateral negotiation of concrete strategies fulfilling urgent pressing needs within organizations. Limitations are made explicit such as by arguing for expanding the research design into focus groups inviting various employees and leaders to the generation of meaning making that operates between the talkability and taboo zone of talking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Notes
There is always a huge debate about the notion of semiosphere as indicated by Lotman (1990). While there are some social scientists such as Valsiner (2014) arguing that the concept of semiosphere means the totality of the signs and sign-making processes of all individuals and groups, Lotman himself (1990) was not shy in arguing that the semiosphere exists of different sub-semiospheres. The organizational domain of living is such a wholistic but independent action domain (Handlungsbereich) of specific signs that stand for work-related issues. I use the notion of specific semiosphere to underline a specific action domain that uses particular signs being distinct to other domains such as one’s leisure time, for example.
I am following here Valsiner ‘s (2017) definition of a sign when he argues that a signs represents something for someone. Thus, we are in accordance with Peirce triadic notion of a sign when object, interpretant and sign are strongly interconnected with each other (see Valsiner, 2014). Within the present manuscript, I mostly speak of symbolic signs relying on Cassirer’s work of symbols (2015). The German philosopher argues that a symbol works at the cleavage of a what-is condition and a what-should-be condition uniting personal fantasems (Boesch, 2021) with a sensorical entity (the sign). Fantasems indicate personological ideas about I-world-equilibriums and the trajectories to reach those.
With semiotic spaces, I mean spaces of meaning generation of multiple people implied. Importantly, these semiotic spaces are openly structured which means that people can relate to social meanings with personal sense. Here, we are in line with Boesch (1975) and Mead (2015) arguing that the individual is the higher function of the social. When I speak about semiotic spaces, I want to indicate the opportunity of an individual personality expanding and transforming a given social meaning which alters the social meaning, personologically (Stern, 2020).
Gegenstand can be translated by object (Valsiner, 2014). But an object bears not only denotative (its material, for instance) but also connotative meaning (Boesch, 1991). Let’s take a chair, for example: A chair is a thing I can sit on. It consists of a specific material that can hold a person’s weight by its particular construction. However, a chair is also a thing to relax on, for instance if I come back from work fully exhausted. We interact with objects due to urgent needs. We structure the environment based on our needs and goals (Lewin, 1926) and the environment bears different meaning depending on shifting needs – figure/ground relationship. A blank paper is another example that can bear different meaning depending on urgent needs. It can become a contract in a specific situation; it can be used as a paper plane by children; it can be used to escort a bee to the garden and so forth. The Gegenstand gets transformed by its personal appropriation (Lewin, 1933a, 1933b).
The mechanism of overcoming the unknown and conquering it which makes the unknown known territory might need further clarification: The hero is thrown in a particular situation that becomes unbearable for him (Peterson, 2002). The present – what is condition – becomes stressful when relying on psychological termini. Thus, the hero decides that the status quo needs to be changed because it means suffering not only for himself but for a bigger social group. For that purpose, he gathers his strength in order to leave known territory and face some challenges in order to fight for a specific what-should-be condition. For sure, there are obstacles and enemies on his way that want to see him fail during his journey because they profit or enjoy the status quo. To remain in Gestalt psychological theory, the hero realizes that his present environment cannot address his urgent needs, so that he needs to change the social field in order to make other need fulfillment strategies more likely (see also von Fircks, 2022a). The outer world is changed to make it more compatible with one’s inner world (Boesch, 2005).
This needs some further explanation. Structure in an interview is guaranteed by specific questions that are orientated by specific themes, theory-wise. However, this structure needs to be understood in an open way: Participants are allowed to follow the lead as they understand the question, personally. This means they deviate from the structure in very personally peculiar ways. The interviewer will then take up this deviation and adapt his further questions accordingly. This is in contrast to standardized interviews that deny any deviation from pre-given questions (Valsiner, 2017).
Humor is a sort of critique (Bachtin, 2010). It makes fun of a given object (for example leadership at work) which might underline encrusted routines at the work place that are at the heart of a joke or a parody. Thus, humor is a meta-perspective onto a specific Gegenstand, a personal comment of conduct.
References
Adams, M. (2019). Existential-Phenomenological Therapy: Method and Practice. In E. van Deurzen, E. Craig, K. Schneider, D. Tantam, & S. du Plock (Eds.), The Wiley World Handbook of Existential Therapy (pp. 167–181). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons LTD.
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 141–168.
Bachtin, M. M. (2008). Chronotopos. Aus dem Russischen von Michael Dewey. Suhrkamp (Frankfurt am Main)
Bachtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of texas Press
Baldursson, E. & Schmitt, C. (2023). Beyond Hierarchical Power in Organizations – a perspective from critical cultural psychology [Manuscript submitted for publication]. In E. von Fircks (Ed.), Culture and Leadership: From Approximation Towards Symbiosis. IAP
Boesch, E. E. (2021). Musik. Psychosozial-Verlag.
Boesch, E. E. (1971). Zwischen zwei Wirklichkeiten: Prolegomena zu einer ökologischen Psychologie [Between two realities: Prolegomena for an ecological psychology]. Huber. (Original work published 1963)
Boesch, E. E. (1975). Zwischen Angst und Triumph: Über d. Ich u. seine Bestätigungen. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien: Huber
Boesch, E. (1977). Konnotationsanalyse: zur Verwendung der freien Ideen-Assoziation in Diagnostik und Therapie. Verlag für Medizinische Psychologie im Verlag Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Boesch, E. E. (1991). Symbolic Action Theory and Cultural Psychology. New York, NY: Springer New York
Boesch, E. E. (1998). Sehnsucht: Von der Suche nach Glück und Sinn [Longing: On the search of joy and meaning] (1st ed.). Huber
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning: Four lectures on mind and culture (Vol. 3). Harvard University Press
Bruner, J. S. (1997). Sinn, Kultur und Ich-Identität: Zur Kulturpsychologie des Sinns (1st ed.). Carl Auer
Buck, C. & Lee, J. (2017). Frozen [Film]. Disney
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2011). Assessing ‘good’ qualitative research in the work psychology field: A narrative analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02009.x
Cassirer, E. (2015). Versuch über den Menschen: Einführung in eine Philosophie der Kultur (Vol. 488). Felix Meiner Verlag
Clayton, J. B. (1991). Influence and intertextuality in literary history. Univ of Wisconsin Press
Clement, J., & Puranam, P. (2018). Searching for structure: Formal organization design as a guide to network evolution. Management Science, 64(8), 3879–3895.
Coleman, P. T., & Deutsch, M. (2015). Morton Deutsch: A Pioneer in Developing Peace Psychology. SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice: Vol. 30. Cham: Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15440-4
Cross, R., Prusak, L., & Parker, A. (2002). Where work happens: The care and feeding of informal networks in organizations. Institute for Knowledge-based Organizations.
Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and power: Understanding relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(4), 449–487.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409143
Engeström, Y., & Engeström, R. (1986). Developmental work research: The approach and an application in cleaning work. Acta Psychologica Fennica, 11, 211–227.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Entwickelnde Arbeitsforschung: Die Tätigkeitstheorie in der Praxis (Vol. 25). Lehmanns Media
Fircks, E. F. (2021a). Culture and Leadership: a Lewinian Perspective of Organizational Problem Solving. Human Arenas. 1–14 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-021-00256-5
Fircks, E. F. von (2021b). Cultural Resources for Leadership: When a Banana is More than a Banana. Human Arenas, 1–18 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-021-00231-0
von Fircks, E.(2022a). Setting the Seeds for a Normative Expansion of Lewinian Field Theory for Cultural-Psychological Practitioners. Human Arenas. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-022-00307-5
von Fircks, E. (2022b). Advocating a Valid Cultural Alltagspsychologie. Trends in Psychology, 1–20
von Fircks, E. (2022c). Interdependence and Cultural Resources to Mediate Change: What Was Missing in Engeström’s Third Generational Activity Theory. Human Arenas, 1–13
James, W. (2009). Pluralistic Universe by William James. International Business Publications Usa
Johner, P., Bürgi, D., & Längle, A. (2018). Existential Leadership zum Erfolg. Philosophie und Praxis der Transformation. Haufe.
Lang, A. (1988). Die kopernikanische Wende steht in der Psychologie noch aus! Hinweis auf eine ökologische Entwicklungspsychologie [The Copernican revolution still lacks in psychology! Advices for an ecological psychology]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 47(2/3), 93–108.
Lang, A. (1992). On the Knowledge in Things and Places. In M. von Cranach, W. Doise, & G. Mugny (Eds.), Social representations and the social basis of knowledge (pp. 76–83). Hans Huber.
Lang, A. (1993). Non-Cartesian Artefacts in Dwelling Activities: Step towards a Semiotic Ecology. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 52(2), 138–147. Retrieved from http://www.langpapers.org/pap2/1993-01noncartesartefact.htm
Lewin, K. (1926). Vorsatz Wille und Bedürfnis: Mit Vorbemerkungen über die psychischen Kräfte und Energien und die Struktur der Seele [Purpose, will and need: With a preliminary remark about the psychological powers and energies and the structure of the mind]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50826-4
Lewin, K. (1933b). Environmental forces. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 591–625). Oxford University Press.
Lewin, K. (1933a). Environmental forces. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook
Lotman, Y. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. Indiana University Press
Marrow, A. J. (1957). Making management human. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Marrow, A. J. (1964). Risks and uncertainties in action research. Journal of Social Issues, 20(3), 5–20.
Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind. Self & Society.
Orbach, M., Demko, M., Doyle, J., Waber, B. N., & Pentland, A. (2015). Sensing informal networks in organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(4), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642145568
Peterson, J. B. (2002). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. Routledge
Rank, O. N. (2008). Formal structures and informal networks: Structural analysis in organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(2), 145–161.
Sander, F. (1928). Experimentelle Ergebnisse der Gestaltpsychologie. G. Fischer
Sato, T., Hidaka, T., & Fukuda, M. (2009). Depicting the Dynamics of Living the Life: The Trajectory Equifinality Model. In J. Valsiner, N. Chaudhary, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Dynamic Process Methodology in the Social and Developmental Sciences (pp. 217–240). Springer.
Sato, T., & Tanimura, H. (2016). The Trajectory Equifinality Model (TEM) As a General Tool for Understanding Human Life Course Within Irreversible Time. In T. Sato, N. Mori, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Making of the Future: The Trajectory Equifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology (pp. 21–43). Charlotte, NC: IAP
Stern, W. (2020). Die menschliche Persönlichkeit. Intank
Stevenson, W. B. (1990). Formal structure and networks of interaction within organizations. Social Science Research, 19(2), 113–131.
Valkiainen, V. & Jakobs, C. (2023). The impact of radical self-management: the formation of organisational culture that supports the satisfaction of basic human needs in Holacracy. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. In E. von Fircks (Ed.) Culture and Leadership: From Approximation Towards Symbiosis. IAP
Valsiner, J. (2005). May). A cultural-psychological view on persons-in-society. In Symposium Risk, Trust, and Civility.
Valsiner, J. (2017). From methodology to methods in human psychology. Springer.
Valsiner, J., & Sato, T. (2006). Historically Structured Sampling (HSS): How can psychology’s methodology become tuned in to the reality of the historical nature of cultural psychology. In J. Straub, D. Weidemann, C. Kölb, & B. Zielke (Eds.), Pursuit of meaning (pp. 215–251). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript
Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. Los Angeles: SAGE
Valsiner, J. (2018). Beyond methods to open-systemic methodology in contemporary cultural psychologies [Lecture]. https://www.ccp.aau.dk/digitalAssets/370/370573_valsiner-lecture-two-feb-27-2018.pdf
von Fircks, E. F. (2020). Existential Humanistic Leadership (EHL) as a Dialogical Process: Equality of the Non-equality in Organizations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09560-1
von Fircks, E. (2022d). Cultural psychological implications of Hermann Hesse’s Glasperlenspiel (glass bead game). Advanced Online Publication.
Zittoun, T., & Valsiner, J. (2016). Imagining the Past and Remembering the Future: How the Unreal Defines the Real. In T. Sato, N. Mori, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Making of the Future: The Trajectory Equifinality Approach in Cultural Psychology (pp. 3–21). Charlotte, NC: IAP
Zweig, S. (2013). Sternstunden der Menschheit: vierzehn historische Miniaturen. Reclam Verlag
Acknowledgements
Für Jaan, in Dankbarkeit für seine kreative Führung.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The article is a single contribution of Enno Freiherr von Fircks.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical Approval
The article is on the elaboration of theoretical issues of a joint conversation and does not need approval.
Consent to Participate and Publish
The participant has given prior consent to the conversation and to the submission of the joint conversation to the journal.
Conflict of Interest/ Funding
The author declares no conflict of interest as well as not having received funding.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Transcript
I: What is one of your major conflicts at work, for example between you and the leader or between you and a colleague?
P: What I think does not go without any conflicts?
I: Do you have a specific situation?
P: I believe open communication is one point that is very important. I have one situation in my mind where one colleague was transferred to another store, and she should change the store, or it was planned that she should go to another location. But this was not communicated to her. Yet another colleague that has strong ties with our boss, she knew that it was planned and then she spread the message. We talked as a team about that and within the team the message was spread. However, the person concerned did not know about the respective transfer. And it was planned by the boss. (…) Yet, this person was the last one to get that information. And that colleague was really upset because she was disappointed by her boss not communicating with her as well as my friends in the team, they should have talked to me. And she was upset about both the supervisor and her colleagues. That’s why communication is central. Moreover, she did not want to go to another store.
I: What would you say to the colleague if no one of your leaders were listening to you? What would you say to her?
P: What do you mean if she does not listen to me?
I: If you were in a one-to-one meeting with her?
P: With my supervisor?
I: No, with your colleague and you know that no one listens to you.
P: I would say that this is shit and that this is not okay. This is not how you deal with your employees because you are the one working in another store and you need to feel comfortable and make your money. (…) I am the opinion that you deal not with employees like that no matter whether this is a friend or an employee. It is important to talk openly especially when it concerns you. And I told that to my colleague.
I: How did she react?
P: She said, this is how I felt. She felt betrayed and this is not okay how people deal with me.
I: Did she try to talk to the leader?
P: I do not know. I think she was not brave enough. I guess she did not.
P: And there is another situation concerning me: In my work schedule, it was planned for me to work in another store but this was not communicated to me. This was not that bad because it was only four hours. But I was confused because it was in our application because we have an online system, but no one told me about that or tried to communicate with me. It was just decided. And no one talked to you. I did not like that.
I: If we take a look back, what would you say about a hero narrative? What would a hero do in order to solve the conflict?
P: You mean when the conflict has emerged?
I: The conflict has already emerged? But what would a hero do to address the conflict?
P: He would talk to the boss, sit her down with all the colleagues implied, especially with the employee concerned as well as her friend to whom she was talking. It would be important to talk with all people that were involved in the conflict. And then, the hero would do some straight talking (Tacheles). What did go wrong? What was not that cool? In order for the boss to understand and that the employee could say I felt bad in that situation. Maybe she thinks it is not a problem to change the store. The boss should know this was a strange situation for me.
I: That you let the boss experience your situation?
P: Yeah, that she gets aware that this situation was shit for me. And that maybe next time you phone her and ask if the colleague works and that you then talk to her, openly (quatschen).
I: (…) What is the villain narrative in order to let the conflict escalate? How would a person behave in a contradictory manner?
P: Then you would decide everything top bottom without talking to anyone and without getting to know another opinion despite them not working at the front and having another perspective. She just sees the numbers but does not know how it is like to stand there and to sell baked goods and which products are asked for. And this boss would only decide based on her knowledge. And this is not always good. She has her particular lens.
I: Without referring to other opinions?
P: She would not be interested in other opinions. And she would decide all alone.
I: What would you say to the villain?
P: Listen to me, it would be good to look right and left and to take off your glasses because we all do have blind spots. And we are not alone in this world. And we only get to the best results if we have the same target and work for that in common.
I: Now, we get to another, more complex question. How could one joke about the situation? Is there something funny in your experience? Could you joke about some participants of the situation for example the boss?
P: Of course. Humor is a particular way to deal with difficult situations, especially when dealing with clients. But in regards to our supervisor, I would joke about her openly with my colleagues. For example, if boss XY says that we need to do that. Because sometimes we have formal things to execute without us seeing the personal sense for that purpose. But if they say that from the top without them knowing the front, then of course we do that (funny, ironic voice). So, we joke about the blind spots. And we joke about the meaninglessness of our work even if we have to do that and even if we wanted to act differently. So, you are in a conflict with yourself, but you do it, nonetheless. However, you can do that. No fucks given. It does not make any sense, but we do that.
I: So, you do use irony? (…).
P: Correct. This is really important. We do that all the time.
I: How do you do that when dealing with clients?
P: We are aping our clients and aping our mistakes from their perspective. example: Pay attention how you wrap up the cake (ironic voice) and we are aping such conduct because one time one client showed us how we needed to wrap up the cake. So, she took the cake and showed us how to do that. That was funny. And we thought who is behind the shelter? You or me? Do you want to come over and show me (ironic voice)? And then we are joking about that. This is so funny.
I: That’s all. Thanks a lot.
P: Thank you.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Freiherr von Fircks, E. The Hero-Villain-Fool Narrative Construction Method: Assessing hidden organizational phenomena. Integr. psych. behav. 57, 1198–1222 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09766-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09766-z