Kafka Bureaucracy

7/27/2019 Kafka Bureaucracy

1/22

http://hum.sagepub.com/Human Relations

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/4/523The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0018726711430558

2012 65: 523 originally published online 14 March 2012Human RelationsIain Munro and Christian Huber

Kafka's mythology: Organization, bureaucracy and the limits of sensemaking

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 14, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 10, 2012Version of Record>>

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on October 20, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/4/523http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/4/523http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/13/0018726711430558.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/13/0018726711430558.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/4/523.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/4/523.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/13/0018726711430558.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/4/523.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/4/523http://hum.sagepub.com/


2/22

human relations65(4) 523544

The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0018726711430558

hum.sagepub.com

human relations

Kafkas mythology:

Organization, bureaucracy

and the limits of sensemaking

Iain MunroUniversity of Innsbruck, Austria

Christian HuberHelmut-Schmidt-University University of the Federal Armed Forces, Germany

Abstract

Franz Kafka merits special consideration among the writers of the 20th century for hisportrayal of organizational life and the ambivalent character of the social institutionsthat ostensibly exist to help us. In this article we will draw on his works to enrich

our understanding of organizations in three key respects: i) in terms of his creation ofa mythology of organization; ii) by developing the concept of counter-mythology to

extend existing theory on narrative approaches to organization studies; and iii) drawingon these counter-mythologies to expose the limits of sensemaking in organizations.Using Kafkas counter-mythologies as a framework, this analysis reveals a bias towards

plausibility in the existing sensemaking literature, in contrast to which we suggest thedevelopment of more counterinductive approaches to the study of organization.

Keywords

communication, identity, myth, organizational culture, organizational theory,

sensemaking

Introduction

Kafkaesque: . . . (of a situation, atmosphere, etc.) impenetrably oppressive, nightmarish, in a

manner characteristic of the fictional work of Franz Kafka. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Corresponding author:

Iain Munro, Department of Organization and Learning, University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstrasse

15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.

Email: [email protected]

430558HUM65410.1177/0018726711430558Munro and HuberHuman Relations2012


3/22

524 Human Relations65(4)

Nothing, you know, gives the body greater satisfaction than ordering people about, or at least

believing in ones ability to do so. (Franz Kafka, Letters to Felice)

This article explores Franz Kafkas work and its significance for contemporary scholars

of organization. In the realm of literary fiction, Kafka is perhaps the 20th Centurys mostprofound commentator on organizational life, but his works have so far received only

sporadic attention in our field (Keenoy and Seijo, 2009; Kornberger et al., 2006; Pelzer,

2002; Warner, 2007). There are already numerous experiments with literature as a

resource to enrich our understanding of organizations and to develop novel concepts for

the study of organization (Czarniawska, 1999; De Cock, 2000; De Cock and Land, 2005;

Gabriel and Griffiths, 2004; Whyte, 1956). The present study will pursue the signifi-

cance of Kafkas stories in terms of his development of an organizational mythology.

This builds on the existing work on Kafka within the field and draws extensively on

Kafkas primary texts as well as the exemplary commentaries provided by Adorno (1997[1967]), Benjamin (1999 [1968]), Canetti (1974), Deleuze and Guattari (1986), and

others. This article will develop the concept of counter-mythologies in order to enrich

existing narrative approaches to organization theory, and it will show how Kafkas coun-

ter-mythologies can be used to explore organizational rationality and, more specifically,

the limits of sensemaking in organizations.

Warner (2007) has already introduced the work of this important writer to the study

of organization by taking a somewhat biographical approach to this work. In addition to

drawing upon relevant biographical and theoretical resources, the present study explores

the richness of Kafkas works themselves. We demonstrate the significance of Kafkasmythology for scholars of organization in two key respects. First, he develops a dysto-

pian counterweight to managerialist views on organizational rationality by creating a

mythology of organization, and more specifically of bureaucracy. It is this position of

Franz Kafkas literary work and its closeness to the Weberian theory of bureaucracy

(Warner, 2007) that makes him distinctively interesting to organization studies and the

focus of this article. In this respect, this article will develop the concept of counter-

mythology to extend existing narrative approaches to organization theory. Second, his

mythology of organization, and his stories more generally, provide a rich source of

material for understanding processes of sensemaking, which extends his critical

approach to social relations well beyond the study of bureaucratic organizations.

Kafkas distinctive style highlights the limitations of sensemaking and the variety of

traps that one may be drawn into by these very processes. By drawing upon Kafkas

work we are able to problematize the Weickian conception of sensemaking, and thus

further develop these key ideas. In this article we argue that Kafkas work can be under-

stood as an original mythology that provides a unique contribution to our understanding

of organizations. This contribution is thus twofold, providing a novel inquiry into the

significance of mythology for the study of organizations in terms of the concept of

counter-mythology, and then developing a critique of the limits of sensemaking in

terms of the counter-mythologies of Kafka.The article is structured in three main sections: first, we will outline the relationship

between literature and organization theory and the significance of the genre of mythol-

ogy to this relationship. Second, we will develop the concept of counter-mythology


4/22

Munro and Huber 525

with a focus on the way Kafkas literary creations exemplify a counter-mythology of

organization. And finally, we will explore characteristics of these counter-mythologies

in more detail by contrasting the distinctive account of sensemaking given in Kafkas

stories with the Weickian conception of sensemaking, exposing the mythological

aspects of this theory and thus highlighting the limitations of the existing sensemakingliterature.

Mythology, epistemology and organization

In the present section we will explore the significance of mythology within organiza-

tion theory. This will begin with an analysis of the relationship between literature and

organization theory and then situate the concept of mythology with respect to the

existing narrative approaches within this field. The distinctive significance of Kafkas

work will be explained with particular focus on his role as a counter-mythologist oforganization.

Literature and organization theory

There has been a plethora of different approaches to the use of literature within organi-

zation studies, among which mythology has been a relatively under-explored genre.

Many scholars have argued that literature can provide rich material for organizational

analysis; for example, Beyes (2009) has recommended that literature can be used for

the purposes of a symptomatology of society, and Rhodes (2009: 397) observes thatliterature can give us insight into the realm of exemplary experience. Land and Sliwa

(2009) have argued that it is precisely the unreality of literature that gives utopian

novels their value as spaces for experimentation and learning within organization the-

ory. Rhodes and Browns (2005: 179) review of narrative approaches to organization

theory has argued that narrative methods have a key methodological advantage over

other methods because they are able to engage reflexively with the lived experience of

work. Common to such arguments is an appreciation that literary fiction can reveal

important truths about organizational life without recourse to the representation of

factual events. Narrative approaches to management research can serve a variety ofroles within the field of organization theory in terms of complementing, illustrating

and scrutinizing logico-scientific forms of reporting (Czarniawska, 1999: 23). In her

bookWriting Management, Czarniawska extends this logic to its extreme, arguing that

organization theory is more of a literary genre than it is a scientific discipline. This

work proposes that polyphonic realism can provide a model for narrative approaches

to organizational research, where the ideas and scenarios found in literature do not

necessarily serve as accurate models of the world but as sources of inspiration.

Czarniawska explains that polyphonic realism allows the multiplicity of voices that

characterize the everyday reality of collaborative projects to be heard, where undersuch circumstances, [t]he simultaneous presence of contradictory narratives creates a

permanent state of paradox (1999: 61). This approach to organization theory is pre-

cisely the condition of organizational life as it is encountered in the novels and stories

of Franz Kafka.


5/22


De Cock and Land (2005) have summarized three broad ways in which literature has

been appropriated within the field of organization studies: i) the use of literary theory to

provide new theories and concepts to enrich organizational analysis; ii) the use of literary

genres to provide alternative modes for the presentation of research findings; and iii) the

use of literary fiction itself as a tool for illustrating organizational theory. These authorsalso developed a new category of their own, which entails employing literature for a

kind of viral contagion between the two domains (2005: 518). The stories of Franz

Kafka are particularly relevant for this last type of research, given that few authors of

fiction have had such a profound affect on our everyday understanding of organizations,

to the extent that Kafkas own name has itself become an adjective for dysfunctional and

oppressive situations. De Cock and Land explain the relationship between literature and

organization in the following terms: [literature] gives us other worlds and becomings

and does so not by being a copy of the actual world but by extending the virtual tenden-

cies of the given world (2005: 526). The approaches developed by Czarniawska (1998,1999) and De Cock and Land (2005) both explore the virtual tendencies of literature in

the creation of concepts and new ways of framing the world in which we live. These

perspectives on the relationship between the domains of organization studies and litera-

ture are particularly apposite for the work of Kafka and his stories about the labyrinthine

workings of ostensibly rational organizations. The virtual tendencies of Kafkas stories

are precisely the most forceful elements of his stories the labyrinthine buildings and

sets of rules, the animal-becomings, and the everyday misunderstandings between the

various characters. It is these virtual tendencies that constitute a mythology of bureau-

cracy, which while being generally complementary to Webers theory of bureaucracy,bears its own disctinctive characteristics.

For scholars of organization, Kafka stands out among novelists of the 20th century

for a number of reasons. Within the field of organization theory, Parker (2005: 160) has

observed that Kafkas works are of central importance to the study of 20th Century

organizational gothic, but as yet there has been little sustained analysis of this author

within this field. Most importantly, he deals with issues that lie at the heart of the con-

temporary study of organization: rationality, bureaucracy, power, resistance/escape,

domination and, as we argue in this article, sensemaking. Many commentators have

noted that Kafka wrote at the dawn of modernity. Writing in 1934, Walter Benjamincalled him a prophetic author (1994 [1934]: 462). Kafka has been held up as being an

exemplary critic of modernity and a harbinger of post-modern thought. Warner (2007:

1020) remarks that Kafka articulated a reaction of deep cultural pessimism . . .

derived from the onset of modernization (involving more specifically, contemporary

organizational structures and processes). Litowitz (2002: 104) comments: Although

Kafka has been dead for more than 75 years, he is widely recognized throughout

Western culture as a representative man who captured the anxieties of the modem

age . . . and heralded the emergence of postmodernism. For the present analysis,

Kafkas importance is his originality as a creator of counter-mythologies about

organizational life. This article will develop the concept of counter-mythologies, not

only to explore the notion of organizational mythology, but also the limitations of

sensemaking within organizations.


6/22

Munro and Huber 527

Mythology in organization theory

Mythology has yet to be fully developed into an analytic concept for the study of organ-

ization and management. The crucial importance of myth in understanding social

organization has received greater attention in other social sciences such as anthropol-ogy, psychology, sociology, history and semiology, in the works of Freud (2002 [1930]),

Levi-Strauss (1962), Adorno and Horkheimer (1972 [1944]), Finley (1990), and Barthes

(2009 [1957]), to name just a few prominent exemplars. The term myth first entered

the English language in the 19th century, deriving from the original Greek word,

mythos, for fable or story (Williams, 1983). Despite its different usage across a variety

of academic disciplines, there is a broad agreement that a myth is a kind of story. In his

analysis of the social and epistemological status of ancient Greek myths, Veyne (1988)

gave an elementary definition of myth as being information that has been obtained and

passed on by somebody else. Other scholars have noted that myths serve a variety ofimportant social and psychological functions, chief among which is that they provide

foundation stories that act as guides for action and help us in our search for meaning

(Armstrong, 2005; Bowles, 1989; Veyne, 1988). Myths tend to be highly repetitive. The

same events may appear in different forms, giving rise to any number of variations

(Calasso, 2005; Levi-Strauss, 1978). The existence of different variants of a given myth

raises clear problems with respect to the supposed truth value of myths. Levi-Strauss

(1955: 436) observed that, [t]here is no one true version of which all the others are but

copies or distortions. Ambiguity is thus a defining feature of myth. Despite this problem,

the notion of truth remains an important concern for the study of myth. For instance,

Levi-Strauss (1978) argued that mythology and history formed a continuum where each

is concerned that the future remains faithful to the past. Paul Veynes (1988: 15) com-

mentary on ancient Greek myth explains that both history and myth contain their own

truths where, truth means many things . . . and can even encompass fictional literature.

Czarniawska (1998) draws upon Veynes analysis of mythology in her problematization

of the relationship between fact and fiction as a means for better understanding our

experience of organizational life. Myths may thus be recognized as having some kind

of truth claim, even if they are heavily fictionalized accounts of past events.

Bowles (1989) essay on the significance of mythology to organization studies found

that where it has been discussed within the literature it has tended to be understood asan entirely negative phenomenon. There is already research within the area of manage-

ment and organization that has developed the concept of mythology into a positive

analytic tool to better understand how organizations work, particularly with respect to

the crucial significance of narrative and storytelling within organizations (Gabriel,

2003). In this respect the concept of mythology has been adapted for the analysis of a

variety of organizational issues, including the creation of an organizational identity

(McWhinney and Batista, 1988), the meaning of modern work (Bowles, 1989), the

appeal to an organizational mythology in the management of organizational change

(Cummings and Brocklesby, 1997), and the cathartic effects of myths within organiza-tions (Gabriel, 1991). Mythology is closely allied to storytelling as an object of research

within management and organization studies (Gabriel, 1991, 2004). As Levi-Srauss has

explained, the significance of a myth does not lie in its style, its original music, or its


7/22


syntax, but in the story which it tells (1955: 430, original emphasis). Gabriel and

Griffiths have cautioned that when looked at in terms of mythology, stories from organ-

izational life may appear mundane, lifeless, and unimaginative (2004: 123). Kafkas

stories are distinctive in this respect because rather than focusing upon acts of heroism

and excellence as did ancient myths, they create an unusual form of mythology out ofthe mundane events of everyday life both at the workplace and in the family.

Organizational counter-mythologies

The mythical aspects of Kafkas work have been discussed by numerous commentators

including Adorno (1997 [1967]), Benjamin (1999 [1968]), Calasso (2005) and Deleuze

and Guattari (1986). On the whole, these thinkers point out that while Kafkas stories

appear to take on many of the characteristics of myth, they simultaneously undermine

and dispel the bourgeois myths under which we are currently labouring. For example,Adorno described Kafkas stories as a reaction to the enlightenment and to its rever-

sion to mythology (1997 [1967]: 268). Adorno argued that Kafka was a rationalist who

had attempted to write a corrective to the enlightenment myths, such as mans mastery

over nature and its domination through rationality. In this regard Adorno explained that,

[t]he variations of myths which were found in his unpublished writings bears witness

to his efforts in search of such a corrective (1997 [1967]: 268). For example, in Kafkas

variation of the Poseidon myth, he describes the god as a deskbound bureaucrat, whose

time is completely absorbed in going over his accounts and occasionally reporting to

his boss, Jupiter. Owing to his work commitments this modernized god rarely finds thetime to go cruising through the waves with his trident and is deeply irritated by the

many rumours he hears to the contrary (1999b: 435). Sitting at his desk Poseidon looks

forward to the end of the world when there might be a quiet moment . . . [to] make a

quick little tour. Kafka produced many remarkable variations on the ancient myths

such as the Tower of Babel (in The Great Wall of China), The Hunter Gracchus,

Prometheus,Poseidon and The Silence of the Sirens and much of his work exhibits a

similar mythological structure. In this way, Kafka forged a weapon against modern

myths of the Enlightenment by using what Adorno termed the reflected image of myth

(1997 [1967]: 270).In his extended essay on Kafka, Calasso (2005) shows how the structure of Kafkas

writing bears many of the characteristics of a mythology. Calasso explains that:

As Kafka found his narrative substance in something that preceded even the division of gods

and demons, indeed of the powers in general, so the narration itself seems to have gone back

with him to the origin of the variants, to that most mysterious of points where every story

begins to branch and proliferate, while still remaining the same story. Such branching is the

lifeblood of every mythology. (Calasso, 2005: 39)

The animal-becomings in stories, such as The Transformation,A Report to an Academyand Josephine the Songstress or: The Mouse People, provide lines of escape from the

organizing myths of the family and the modern bureaucracy. Both Adorno (1997 [1967])

and Deleuze and Guattari (1986: 26) agree that these are by no means optimistic and they


8/22

Munro and Huber 529

do not herald our salvation we will no longer be saved by culture or by myth. It is in

this respect that Deleuze and Guattari claim that Kafka was concerned with the problem

of lines of flight and escape rather than that of liberty. Benjamins (1999 [1968]) essay

on Kafka also picked up on this underlying theme of escape and the mythological

resources that he employs for precisely this purpose. Benjamin describes Kafkas storiesas being part mythology, part fairy tale in which Kafka, inserted little tricks into them;

then he used them as proof that inadequate, even childish measures may also serve to

rescue one (1968: 114). His stories employ various mythological devices such as

branching stories, metamorphoses, animal-becomings, flight and escape. By incorporat-

ing these mythological devices into his tales, Kafka was able to develop counter-mythol-

ogies, a warning of the dangers of the bureaucratic forms and ever more rational systems

of organization, operating simultaneously on the level of great literature, as a modern

fairy tale and as a significant contribution to the art and science of organization.

A key methodological guideline employed throughout this article is taken fromCanettis own study of Kafka, which observed that:

There are writers, admittedly only a few, who are so entirely themselves that any utterance one

might presume to make about them must seem barbarous. Franz Kafka was such a writer;

accordingly one must adhere as closely as possible to his own utterances, with the risk that one

might seem slavish. (1974: 30)

Following Canettis insight we aim to respect the distinction between organization theory

and literature, thus preserving some of the quality of Kafkas unique voice.1 De Cock and

Land (2005) have also argued that in order to preserve the insights of the original works,

literature must not be subordinated to the demands of organizational theory, particu-

larly in its more managerialist forms. They are concerned that we are in danger of doing

a disservice to the original texts by subordinating literature to the ends of organization

theory, which leads them to propose the relationship be investigated in terms of what the

two domains might do to each other through a process of mutual contamination (2005:

518). As such, they stress the need to preserve the distinction between the two domains.

In the terminology of Deleuze and Guattari (1986) a line of flight can be said to pass

between literature and organization theory, which in the case of Kafka is characterized

by a concern for the victims of prevailing power structures of organizations.2 Whilerecognizing that both literature and organization theory deal with common problems,

literature does not have to surrender to the strictures of the social sciences in order for us

to learn from it. A second related methodological guideline for this article concerns the

difficulties of interpreting his stories. To some extent we agree that Kafkas biographical

context is important, as has been aptly demonstrated by Warners (2007) comparison

between the lives and works of Kafka and Weber. An early interpreter of Kafka, Walter

Benjamin, observed that, his parables are never exhausted by what is explainable; on the

contrary, he took all conceivable precautions against the interpretation of his writings

(1999 [1968]: 120). As such, it is hardly surprising that Kafka has spawned so manydiverse interpretations (Kundera, 1996). We can draw on Benjamins insight in our

approach to this work where Kafka himself makes clear that the process of interpretation

or sensemaking is itself highly problematic, even in mundane everyday encounters.


9/22


The present study will explore the concept of counter mythologies as a way of

intepreting the mythological aspects of everyday life. In Canettis account ofKafkas

Other Trial, a number of common themes are highlighted that appear in both Kafkas life

and literature, without stipulating any simple relationship in either direction. For Kafka,

life and literature are not neatly distinguishable realms, and in his letters he explains thisrelationship in the following way: I dont have literary interests, Im made of literature,

Im nothing else and can be nothing else besides (Kafka quoted in Calasso, 2005: 117).

It is in the intersection and imbrication of life and literature that leads Canetti to describe

Kafka as engaged in creating counter-mythologies. Several other commentators upon

Kafkas work have also remarked upon its counter mythological elements, particularly

Adorno (1997 [1967]), Benjamin (1999 [1968]) and Calasso (2005). This approach echoes

Barthes (2009 [1957]: 135) conception of mythologies where he explains that: Truth to

tell, the best weapon against myth is perhaps to mythify it in its turn, and to produce an

artificial myth. Barthes employed the term counter myth to describe literary works thatsatirized and undermined the prevalent bourgeois myths of their age. Barthes analysis

revealed the existence of contemporary myths in fragments of everyday discourse, in

magazine advertisements, in national stereotypes, in wrestling matches where the roles

of good and evil heroes are acted out before the audience, and even in the circulation of

scientific ideas in popular culture. He argued that modern myths are a form of depoliti-

cized speech, where colonial history and political struggles are glossed over in what he

described as a privation of history (Barthes, 2009 [1957]: 178). What is thus historical

and culturally contingent appears in mythical form as if it were universal and natural,

where the very principle of myth . . . [is that] it transforms history into nature (Barthes,2009 [1957]: 154). Thus, Barthes proposed the use of counter-mythology as an effective

antidote to these myths and the creation of alternative artificial myths to attack and

undermine the dominant mythology. These methodological guidelines may be seen to be

an extension of Gabriels (2004: 872) pioneering study of organizational mythology,

which recommended that, like all myths, [organizational myths] must be approached

with suspicion. Counter-mythologies are something that only literature can produce,

where Kafka can be seen as an exemplary exponent of such an approach.3 This form of

literature openly confronts the issue of polyphony, creating a parody of dominant social

myths and giving voice to the marginalized. We will now show that Kafka is a master ofsuspicion and explain his own distinctive organizational counter-mythologies that he

created to better understand our experience of the modern world.

A mythology of bureaucracy: Reality as an error

Whereas Webers historical studies developed a theory of bureaucracy, Kafkas work

may be described as a mythology of bureaucracy. In Kafkas work bureaucracy is not

simply one system of organizing among others, it is the organization of reality itself.

This is clear precisely in the confusion between nomos (social laws) andphysis (natural

laws) within these stories; for example, in The Trial, the Law of the legal system is

treated as if it were a law of nature akin to the law of gravity or magnetism, in which the

officers of the Court gravitate naturally towards the guilty. The equation of human

conventions with natural law is made at the very start ofThe Trial:


10/22

Munro and Huber 531

Our officials, so far as I know them, and I know only the lowest grades among them, never go

hunting for crime in the populace, but, as the law decrees, are drawn towards the guilty and

must then send out us warders. That is the Law. How could there be a mistake in that? I dont

know this Law, said K. (1999a [1925]: 12)

Barthes (2009 [1957]) described such a view of society, where social rules that are con-

tingent upon history and culture are understood by those who apply them as being uni-

versal, natural laws, as the mythology of social conventions.

While Kafka seems to be writing about a peculiarly modern, bureaucratic conception

of the law, we can find related issues raised by the ancients; take for instance the follow-

ing description of the operation of the law in AristotlesNicomachean Ethics:

all law is universal, and there are some things about which it is not possible to pronounce

rightly in general terms; therefore in cases where it is necessary to make a general pronouncement,

but impossible to do so rightly, the law takes account of the majority of cases, though not

unaware that in this way errors are made. And the law is none the less right; because the error

lies not in the law nor in the legislator, but in the nature of the case; for the raw material of

human behaviour is essentially of this kind. (Aristotle, 1976: 199)

As in Kafka, we hear the assertion that if there is such a thing as error it cannot be found

in the law itself, which is universal and, one might add, infallible. Like Kafka, Aristotle

asserts that error exists only in reality, in the nature of the case, and not in the law.

Kafka exaggerates this elementary problematic, so that the case is not only the source of

error, but becomes identical with it. This is not merely a literary device but springs fromthe fact that the Court derives its authority from the law, and to the extent that it identifies

with the law, it can admit to no error.4 We are confronted with such situations throughout

the texts of Kafkas novels. Consider, for instance, the following example from The

Castle, where the storys protagonist, K., asks the Superintendent of the Castle whether

a mistake might not have been made:

Only a stranger could ask a question like yours. Is there a Control Authority? There are only

control authorities. Frankly, it isnt their function to hunt out errors in the vulgar sense, for

errors dont happen, and even when once in a while an error does happen, as in your case, who

can say finally that its an error? (Kafka, 2000 [1915]: 6667)

In this story, as in many of Kafkas tales, it is difficult for the protagonist to discover

whether or not he is the victim of an error, not least because the formal rules of the

organization appear to be impenetrable. The authorities are unwilling to reveal the

rules, even in the case of a supposed violation, and it is not clear whether they really

know them. A key element of Kafkas counter-mythologies is that the rules are them-

selves often unclear and ambiguous, exacerbating problems relating to their interpreta-

tion. In The Castle it takes a long time for K. to even begin to grasp the various

organizing principles of the castle, some of which are formal and others rather informalrelating to the villagers everyday dealings with the castle. Likewise in the novel

Amerika, Karl begins to appreciate a whole world of informal rules that may be subject

to sanction, where he reflects that, [t]here was probably no actual rule . . . but that was


11/22


only because the unimaginable was not expressly forbidden (Kafka, 2007 [1996]: 114).

A key mechanism that facilitates the operation of formal systems of organization within

his stories is the role of informal networks of communication. For instance, in The Trial

the Defence is not even a part of the formal legal system: the Defence was not actually

countenanced by the Law, but only tolerated . . . Strictly speaking, therefore, none of theAdvocates was recognized by the Court (1999a [1925]: 128). If you wanted a defence

at all, then you must by necessity appeal to informal means to obtain it. Kafkas pro-

tagonists are often confronted with formal systems of organization that are realized

only by means of an evasive, sometimes imaginary informal system that functions

through a widespread complicity. Another example of the crucial role of informal sys-

tems of organization is the social exclusion of Amelia and her family in The Castle.

After declining a sexual offer by the official Sortini, the townsfolk push her familys

business into bankruptcy, her father towards insanity, and they stigmatize her and her

family in fear of retribution by the officials of the castle. However, no official or unof-ficial attempts to exact punishment are made by the members of the castle, casting

doubt over whether there is any genuine reason for the villagers anxiety beyond their

own paranoia.

Organization theory comes closest to mythology when dealing with this relationship

between the informal and formal dimension of organization. The way in which rules

become distorted in practice has been the subject of some of the earliest research

within organization theory into the latent functions of rules and other bureaucractic

dysfunctions (Gouldner, 1954; Merton, 1957). The informal system appears to be

necessary for the functioning of the formal one (Blau and Scott, 1962), but at the sametime, it has a distorting effect upon this system. In Kafkas stories, the formal and infor-

mal systems of organization are very closely interwoven to the extent that they take on

absurd and oppressive characteristics far from their ostensible goals. For instance, in

The Trial, Josef K. comes to understand that there is nothing outside of the trial, which

appears to be omnipresent, extending throughout all aspects of social life. As we shall

see in the analysis that follows, Kafkas work embodies a mythology in which the

forces of organization confront us as if they were inescapable laws of nature, as

compared with the reality of our own circumstances, which appear as little more than

sources of confusion or, as Aristotle would have it, error.It may well be true, as Weber observed, that bureaucratic rationalization is leading to

a disenchantment of the world, but for Kafka mythologies still persist within this disen-

chanted world. While Kafkas counter-mythology is very pessimistic, it is by no means

passive. Wasserman (2001) has shown that Kafkas literary concerns for alienation and

repression were mirrored by a range of active engagements in the world in his role as a

key industrial reformer of his time and in his position as a lawyer working for a large

workers insurance company. Drawing on his experiences of working in a bureaucracy,

Kafka wrote fictional accounts of rational organization in his novels The Trialand The

Castle, which show how rational organizations grow into indecipherable labyrinths and

how these same organizations turn against the very people they are supposed to serve.

Within these organizations, rationality takes on a circular, labyrinthine form, as for

instance in The Trialwhere, [i]t is just as possible for the acquitted man to go straight

home from the Court and find officers already waiting to arrest him again (Kafka, 1999a


12/22

Munro and Huber 533

[1925]: 216). His novels are counter-myths that undermine the enlightenment myth of a

world organized according to the unambiguous rules of rationality. Kafkas approach to

storytelling is very much in line with Barthes theory of mythology, which argues that the

best way to fight the bourgeois mythologies of capitalism is to invent new subversive

mythologies. We may appreciate Kafkas stories in precisely this manner, as a weaponagainst the mythologies of the new bureaucratic order. These stories may be fiction, but

as a new mythology they have served to extend the virtual tendencies of literature,

helping us to cast a critical eye upon the blind spots of both organizational rationality and

its underpinning theory. We shall now turn to an analysis of a key theme of this disquiet-

ing mythology, the failed attempts of sensemaking, which are so characteristic of many

of his stories, and highlight several lessons that we can learn to enrich our conception of

storytelling and sensemaking in organization studies.

The limits of sensemaking

In this section we will demonstrate the powerful critique of organizational rationality

inherent to Kafkas counter-mythology by drawing on his portrayal of processes of sense-

making, which are such a prominent feature of his stories. Kafkas work is an immensely

rich source of material for the processes of sensemaking, particularly concerning the dif-

ficulties we face within organizations and in our everyday personal encounters. In this

section we shall outline some of the most significant themes in Kafkas work; first, in

terms of the limits of sensemaking owing to disruptive ambiguity, second, in terms of

sensemaking based on wrong maps, and, third, in terms of a bias towards plausibility,which may unnecessarily restrict the analysis of cases using the sensemaking approach.

In each of these discussions we can see how Kafka characterizes the limits of sensemak-

ing, without allowing us a comfortable escape from these limits.

Sensemaking and disruptive ambiguity

Kafkas conception of the process of sensemaking is extraordinary. This appears both in

his stories and in his letters. He often complained of his difficulties in communicating

with others, which one might think remarkable given his mastery of the written word.The situations in which he finds himself appear to be ambiguous or impossible to grasp

owing to their continual metamorphosis; he writes that, The trouble is, I am not at peace

with myself; I am not always something, and if for once I am something, I pay for it

by being nothing for months on end (Kafka quoted in Canetti, 1974: 33). His efforts

to make sense of his relations with other people appeared futile to him, where in one

letter he despaired that, I really do believe I am lost to all social intercourse (Kafka

quoted in Canetti, 1974: 32). This continual struggle and inability to make sense of ones

circumstances is a motif that runs throughout his letters and his stories. Misunderstandings

proliferate within Kafkas stories, especially in his novels. He portrays a world in whichmiscommunication is the norm, a world in which one misunderstanding leads to yet

another, without resolution excepting for eventual death. Perhaps you misunderstand

me, says K. to the police Inspector in The Trial(1999a [1925]: 17). And shortly there-

after the Inspector responds to K. with the counter-accusation that, You are labouring


13/22


under a great delusion (1999a [1925]: 18). Later, the Inspector again tells K., You have

misunderstood me (1999a [1925]: 21), also accusing him of being a quibbler over

words (1999a [1925]: 22). The dialogue between the various characters is written with

exceptional clarity, and the misunderstandings do not arise from noise in the commu-

nication channel, but are inherent in the communication itself. This novel and provoca-tive conception of communication could have significant implications for organization

studies given the absolutely crucial role that communication is held to play in the act of

sensemaking within organizations (Weick et al., 2005). The characters of Kafkas stories

are continually misinterpreting each other, taking a casual remark too seriously, missing

the intention of a flirtatious comment, being candid when they should be tactful, and on

and on. The will to make sense out of this babble, this undifferentiated flux, is not an

innocent tool of rational inquiry, but is essential to the whole mechanism ofThe Trial,

The Castle or whichever system within which one is embroiled. The process of

sensemaking and the promise of an answer is precisely what draws the protagonistever onwards, deeper and deeper into the labyrinthine mechanisms of the social and

mythological order.

The categorical nature of this miscommunication in Kafkas work is perhaps best

expressed in a conversation in The Trial between Frau Grubach and K., where he

explains to her that, I didnt mean what I said so terribly seriously either. We misun-

derstood each other. That can happen occasionally even between old friends (1999a

[1925]: 87). This admission that misunderstandings can happen even between old

friends stands out precisely because it is happening more or less continuously, not

incidentally. Deleuze and Guattari call this the informational myth of language, i.e.that it exists purely to transmit information. To undermine this myth they explain that

Kafka worked to become a stranger within his own language (1986: 26), which he

saw as the language of the masters. Adorno also picked up on the peculiar role of

language as a communicational tool in Kafkas work in his analysis of the prominent

role of bodily gestures within these stories. Owing to what Adorno describes as the

second Babylonian confusion of language, the gesture takes on a pre-eminent role in

communication between the characters, whether it was a laugh, a glance, an embrace,

a tussle or a crawl. Spoken language takes on an ambiguous role because language, the

configuration of which should be truth, is, as a broken one, untruth (Adorno, 1997[1967]: 249). According to Adorno, Kafka revealed the deeply flawed and, in his

words, broken qualities of language. Communication thus entails misunderstanding,

not exceptionally, but essentially.

One of the few uses of Kafkas work within the field of organization studies has

focused on the pitfalls of communication by drawing upon his reworking of the myth

of the Tower of Babel(Kornberger et al., 2006) but has taken quite a different approach

from the one that we have outlined here. The interpretation offered by Kornberger et al.

highlights the Babylonian confusion, which they suggest provides a rich fictional char-

acterization of the modern world. However, they offer a far more optimistic way out of

this problem than does Kafka, recommending that translation can be used to over-

come the polyphony of voices inherent in interpersonal communication. We would

argue that while this is a fruitful exploration of Kafkas work for organization studies,

it mistakes Kafkas formulation of the problem for its solution. Czarniawska (1999)

has also explored the issue of polyphony in the myth of the Tower of Babel, but without


14/22

Munro and Huber 535

reference to Kafkas own variant story. Her approach identifies exactly the kind of

problems of translation highlighted here, but she does not propose translation as a

solution, presenting it in more ambivalent terms as an uneasy task that organization

scholars must address. Following Adornos interpretation of the story, we suggest that

the interpretation offered by Kornberger et al. relies for its efficacy upon the existenceof an unbroken language that can be employed for the purposes of a successful trans-

lation. Otherwise, what would be the point of translating from one language into

another, where misunderstandings persist and proliferate with each attempted transla-

tion. If we were to attempt such a thing, we would be living in precisely the same

world that is portrayed by Kafka, where polyphony is essential rather than incidental

and where misinterpretation is inevitable.

In certain respects Weick et al. (2005: 413) have defined the role of sensemaking in

very Kafkaesque terms, highlighting its genesis in disruptive ambiguity. Many of

Weicks stories contain incidents where sensemaking begins as a result of a breakdownof normal routines, after which misunderstandings begin to proliferate, for instance,

in the use of the ambiguous phrase we are now at takeoff by the pilot at a crucial point

in the Tenerife air disaster (Weick, 1990), or in the misperception of the course of the fire

in the Mann Gulch disaster (Weick, 1993). The limitations of sensemaking are further

reinforced by the fact that, [p]eople may get better stories, but they will never get the

story (Weick et al., 2005: 415). Thus, Weick suggests that the best that people can strive

for in the stories they tell is plausibility rather than any accuracy. We would agree

with Weicks cautious evaluation of the limitations of sensemaking but with the addi-

tional proviso that sensemaking is understood primarily as a problematic rather thannecessarily moving towards a solution. Weick has himself been criticized for his ambigu-

ous usage of the term sensemaking, where sensemaking plays seemingly contradictory

roles in the evolution of organizational crises (Maitlis and Sonenschein, 2010: 565).

Weick has analysed numerous cases where the processes of sensemaking reinforced the

poor decision making of people confronted with exceptional events (Weick, 1990, 1993;

Weick and Sutcliffe, 2003). In the Mann Gulch case he argues that, [w]hen meaning

becomes problematic and decreases, this is a signal for those people to pay more atten-

tion to their formal and informal social ties and to reaffirm and/or reconstruct them

(1993: 646). Weick takes the view that a sudden loss of structure can lead to a loss ofmeaning and should thus prompt a re-evaluation of the situation and an affirmation of the

need for more (perhaps different) structure. While this is an insightful observation

regarding the psychology of problem solving, Kafka takes a rather different view. For

him, structure is not necessarily the solution to a situation and, in contrast to Weicks

stories, his tales show how the search for structure can itself lead to an ever increasing

sense of meaninglessness. Kafkas stories contain a polyphony of voices, in which the

loss of meaning appears to be intimately linked to the proliferation of meanings as these

stories progress.5 For Kafka, the desire for meaning and structure is not a solution to such

problems, but is a part of their very constitution.

Sensemaking with the wrong map

Let us pick up once again the theme of failed attempts at sensemaking, and the prolifera-

tion of misunderstandings that characterize so many of Kafkas stories. Through the


15/22


seminal works of Weick, scholars of organization have learnt that success does not

depend solely on the accuracy of their sensemaking, a point that Weick illustrates on

many occasions by drawing an analogy between managing and map-making (Weick,

1983, 1987, 1990). In particular, he draws upon the story of a small group of Hungarian

soldiers who had become lost in the Alps on military manoeuvres during the SecondWorld War (Weick takes this story from a poem by Miroslav Holub titledBrief Thoughts

on Maps). After a few days the group of soldiers began to despair of ever finding their

way back to their rendez-vous point. By luck one of its members found a map in his

pocket, which was then used to find the way back to their detachment. Later, however,

they discovered that the map that they had used was not a map of the alpine mountain

range in which they had been lost, but a map of the Pyrenees. Weick concludes from this

story that the map was important for the group because it served to get them moving

rather than because it was accurate in any respect (Weick, 1983). Questioning the pri-

macy of planning over acting he asserts that we often lack the means of communicationto make sense of unexpected events, which is a major obstacle in the prevention of fail-

ure. However, he proposes that we can make sense of our environment as we interact

within it, constantly adjusting our mental interpretations and thereby learning to be

mindful and thus prevent mistakes (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2007). The story of the wrong

map holds particular prominence in Weicks explanation of sensemaking and he draws

on it on no less than six occasions in the explanation of his theories (Basbll and Graham,

2006). In this example we can see certain similarities between Kafkas work and that of

Weick, not just in the use of narrative to explore the process of sensemaking but in the

problematization of the function of cognitive maps within organizational life.The stories of both Weick and Kafka tend to focus on tales of failed sensemaking.

However, in contrast to Weick, Kafka denies the very possibility of unambiguous

communication, and instead his characters often cause and amplify misconceptions.

Whereas Weick et al. (2005) appeal to the plausibility of a story as a possible way

through any given problem, Kafka sees such plausibility as a means of drawing us

ever deeper into the labyrinthine folds of an indecipherable social order. Kafkas novels

are often punctuated by moments where, after encountering a disorientating situation,

the protagonists set out in search of a plausible explanation for their circumstances.

As the main character ofAmerika reflects, Its just a matter of knowing how its done(Kafka, 2007 [1996]: 80). Here we are witness to a typical scene where the novels

protagonist expresses their commitment to understanding and following the prevailing

social order. However, as the story unfolds we come to appreciate the impossibility of

discovering this underlying order. One merely moves from one misunderstanding to

another. The idea of an underlying mythological order to the world is itself turned on its

head. The social world as such is constituted by a web of misunderstandings. This is

very much at the heart of Kafkas counter-mythologies. In Weicks terminology, we

might say that the search for plausibility is revealed to be groundless. Kafkas work thus

emphasizes a very different aspect of the process of sensemaking than does Weicks,

being far more ambivalent about the possible functions of maps and leaving the reader

uncertain as to existence of a clear path to safety.

Kafka and Weick both problematize the function of cognitive maps within organi-

zational life, but in slightly different ways. In Weicks story of the map, the actors


16/22

Munro and Huber 537

appreciated their good fortune when it becomes possible for them to realize they had

not been using an accurate map of their situation, but had been relying on the wrong

map. In contrast to this, in Kafkas stories there is no point at which the actors see

themselves from a gods eye position, realizing the folly of their blinkered views. Each

of them continues to be trapped within the labyrinthine folds of their own stories, eachwith their own peculiar map.

Sensemaking, myth and counter-myth

Thus far we have highlighted the fact that Weick and Kafka share a number of similarities

in their approach to constructing narratives about organizational sensemaking, especially

with respect to the primacy of storytelling in ordering the world and the absolutely

crucial role that disruptive ambiguity plays in triggering sensemaking. However, Weick

attributes sensemaking with a much greater problem-solving potential than does Kafka,for whom death or metamorphosis are the only lines of escape from the organizations

and institutions that tyrannize over us. At this point in the argument we shall build on the

concepts that we have developed in the preceding sections to evaluate sensemaking in

terms of the concept of counter-mythology. In order to sketch out such a critique the

key question that we wish to pursue is, to what extent can Weick be understood as being

either a mythologist or a counter-mythologist?

Weick has been praised as being a superlative storyteller and foremost among the

practitioners of the narrative approach to organization studies (Czarniaswska, 1999,

2005; Van Maanen, 1995). Within the confines of our own field of study, it would be hardto dispute the claim that Weick has proved a formidable creator of stories, passing on

variants of existing stories that contain important lessons, which it is believed will pro-

vide useful guides for action.6 Weick himself tends to use the term myth in its pejorative

sense, for instance, in a cautionary note about the use of plausible stories by managers he

warns that, [m]yth can sneak through reality checks as well as imagined realities

(Weick, 1989: 528). He gives a nod in the direction of mythology in his characterization

of so-called cosmology episodes in which the presumed cosmic order is seen to break

down during an unfolding disaster (Weick, 1993: 633). In fact, a number of similarities

can be identified between mythology and Weicks approach to organization studies: i)storytelling is a means of expression; ii) stories are used as a guide for action; iii) there

is a focus on stories that raise questions about the identity of the characters involved; iv)

the stories often concern a search for meaning in ambiguous situations; v) plausibility is

given primacy over accuracy; and vi) there is a proliferation of variant stories in Weicks

work as well as in mythology. Some have seen the proliferation of variant stories as a

cause for concern about the scholarship of this research (Basbll, 2010; Basbll and

Graham, 2006), although it is not necessary to agree with this particular line of critique

in order to recognize the mythological elements of Weicks narrative approach.7

The divide between Weicks approach and that of Kafkas counter-mythology is most

clearly apparent in their conception of plausibility. For Weick, plausibility is a key

characteristic of sensemaking where, [i]f accuracy is nice but not necessary in sense-

making, then what is necessary? The answer is something that preserves plausibility and

coherence (Weick, 1995: 60). Here the emphasis of the narrative approach of Weicks


17/22


stories may be seen to diverge from that of Kafkas in an important respect. Whereas

Weicks stories may be characterized in terms of the search for plausibility, Kafkas can

be characterized as breaking through the plausibility barrier in a fusion of dream and

reality (Kundera, 1996: 5253).

As an organization theorist Weick chooses to focus on the search for plausible storiesto make his point, in contrast to Kafka the novelist, who focused on the significance of

the implausible to underline the ambivalent features of modern institutional life. We can

see this contrast most clearly in Weicks (1989) essay on disciplined imagination in

which he suggests that plausibility is, or should be, a substitute for theoretical validity.

He explains that plausibility plays a crucial part in theory generation where an anecdote

can be used to generate a plausible theory, and a theory judged to be more plausible

and of higher quality if it is interesting rather than obvious irrelevant or absurd . . . or

correspondent with presumed realities (Weick, 1989: 517). We might think of this as

expressing a bias towards plausibility because it tends to favour the status quo withinthe academic community to the extent that this community constitutes and frames

prevailing ideas of what might be considered plausible theory. Weick himself raises this

issue noting that there is a thin line between what is plausible and what people want to

hear. While he is aware of this limitation, his proposal to develop plausible theory

clearly distances his approach from counter-mythologies such as Kafkas, which force us

to re-evaluate our situation precisely because of their implausibility. This issue is not

simply a matter of literary technique. The role of implausibility in the history of science

is a key feature of Paul Feyerarbends (1993) critique of the idea of scientific method.

In this critique he demands that, We must invent a new conceptual system that suspends,or clashes with, the most carefully established observational results, confounds the most

plausible theoretical principles, and introduces perceptions that cannot form part of the

existing perceptual world (1993: 2223, emphasis not in original). Thus, he argues

that implausibility and what he terms counterinduction are necessary elements in the

development of major scientific advances and can be seen in the work of scientists from

Galileo to Einstein.8 With regard to our own field of study, Kafkas stories might be seen

as a literary form of such counterinduction.

Drawing on Kafkas rich description of the process of sensemaking, it can thus be

understood more in terms of the formulation of a problem than in terms of establishinga solution. Kafkas work provides us with important insights into the limits of sense-

making, in which the interruption of sense that is experienced by his characters leads us

on a journey that causes us to confront the very limits of sensible experience (Panagia,

2009). This can be seen in at least three respects: i) in terms of how sensemaking leads

us from one misinterpretation to another, where their disruptive ambiguity highlights

a polyphony of voices rather than reconciling or translating them; ii) in terms of the

limitations of sensemaking with the wrong map; and iii) in terms of the bias towards

plausibility in the creation of stories and myths in sensemaking that may unnecessarily

restrict the analysis of cases using this approach. Brown et al. (2008) have remarked on

the limitations of the existing literature on sensemaking stating that, most interpretive

case-based research still culminates in a single, homogenized account. By attending to

individual differences in sensemaking we may ultimately be better able to explain how

organized activities emerge from dissensus, ambiguity and disagreement (p. 1057).


18/22

Munro and Huber 539

This characterization of the limitations of the literature on sensemaking and the role

of dissensus and ambiguity is very much in the spirit of Kafkas own world view.

In keeping with this sentiment, we have drawn on Kafkas literature to outline the limi-

tations of the processes of sensemaking and while we have not developed improvements

to the sensemaking process, we have shown how Kafkas parables give us valuableinsights into the dangers that appear to be inherent to sensemaking and organizing.

Conclusion

We have argued that Kafka merits special consideration among the novelists of the 20th

century with respect to his remarkable portrayal of organizational life. His work is unique

in the way in which it highlights the ambivalence of the social institutions that ostensibly

exist to help us, whether it be our system of justice, our family or our work organizations.

In this article we have begun to develop the potential of Kafkas work for scholars oforganization in three key respects: i) by outlining his development of a mythology of

organization; ii) by developing the concept of counter-mythology to extend existing

theory on narrative approaches to organization studies; and iii) drawing upon aspects of

these counter-mythologies that expose the limits of sensemaking. For organization

studies, Kafkas work provides a literary counterpoint to Webers historical analysis of

different organizational forms, but whereas Weber observed the emergence of a disen-

chanted world, Kafka exposed the mythological elements at work underneath rational

organization and created his own counter-mythologies. The organizational counter-

mythologies that have been identified within this analysis include the myth of organiza-tional rationality presented as an unending labyrinth, the myth that errors exist only in the

reality of cases but not in the rules themselves, the myth of communication understood

as a continual proliferation of misunderstandings, and the myth that plausibility is less a

means of sensemaking or escape than it is a means of drawing us deeper into an indeci-

pherable social order. We have argued that counter-mythologies can provide an insightful

contribution to the existing work on mythology and storytelling within organization

studies, particularly in terms of its virtual tendencies, which exist in exaggerated form

in Kafkas stories, but nonetheless resonate with our everyday experience.

Kafkas stories provide excellent examples of what Karl Weick has termed disrup-tive ambiguity, which often initiate the stories and the process of sensemaking itself.

However, in contrast to Weicks own approach, the search for plausibility in Kafkas

world leads to a further proliferation of misunderstandings. Kafka thus provides us

with an exemplary study of the limits of sensemaking, where the process of sensemak-

ing is understood more as a problematic than as a means of resolution. In his stories,

every attempt at escape only leads to further entanglement within the bureaucracy.

Behind every office lies another office. Escape is found only in extremis, through radi-

cal transformation or death. Kafkas work displays a great deal of scepticism regarding

our modern institutions and even the pursuit of knowledge itself. In many respects his

literary counter-myths echo the genealogical themes of Foucaults work, demonstrat-

ing the ways in which the will-to-knowledge is itself drawing us further into a kind

of administrative trap (Miller and Rose, 2008). With the disciplines of the human sci-

ences people have increasingly become an object of information to be categorized


19/22


and administered accordingly (Foucault 1977, 1981). In terms of future research, this

article has opened up a space in which mythology may be seen as playing an equally

important role in our understanding of organization theory. The limits of sensemaking

that have been outlined here reveal a bias towards plausibility in the existing theory,

in contrast to which we suggest the development of more counterinductive approachesto organizational research. In this respect, we have also opened up the exploration of

counter-mythologies within the study of organization, a further development on

Gabriels (1991) advice that we must treat organizational myths with suspicion. In

terms of the relationship between literature and organization theory it would be fruit-

ful to explore other authors who have developed counter-myths of organizations, the

more obvious examples being Orwells 1984 or Hellers Catch 22, both of which are

works that have also affected the popular imagination.9 Kafkas work is important, not

simply in terms of the many theoretical insights that we may derive from it, but

because his counter-mythologies have already seeped into our everyday understandingof organizational and social life.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Silvia Jordan, Darren McCabe and Greg Vit

who commented on an earlier draft of this paper.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or

not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1 We have been only partially successful in this endeavour, being subject to the limitations of the

journal article format. However, we hope to have avoided the pitfalls of what Kundera (1996)

has criticized as Kafkology by avoiding an interpretation overly determined by a biographical

or psychological reading.

2 We would like to thank the reviewer who pointed out the importance of the concept of Kafkas

minor literature in this regard.

3 The novels of Gustave Flaubert are also highlighted by Barthes (2009 [1957]) as being coun-ter-mythologies and we might consider others such as those of Joseph Heller and George

Orwell.

4 In Kafkas novels this is true for both bureaucratic rules of organizations and the law itself.

5 Writing in the same period, Weber (1991 [1915]: 357) remarked upon a similar characteristic

in modern culture wherecultures every step forward seems condemned to an ever more

devastating senselessness.

6 With respect to the role of myths as a guide for action, one might usefully compare Armstrongs

(2005) description of mythology with Czarniaswskas (1998) discussion of Weicks own

approach.

7 In this respect, it is interesting to compare Czarniaswskas (1998) discussion of the role ofreferencing within the academic discourse, which describes the prevailing fashion for exces-

sive referencing as interfering with the aesthetic qualities of the discourse in favour of lending

it a superficial gloss of rigour, with that of Basbll (2010) and Basbll and Graham (2006) who

frame referencing very much in terms of the hallmark of good scholarship.


20/22

Munro and Huber 541

8 Of significance to the present analysis Feyerarbend (1993: 21) also remarks upon the role that

myth plays in the generation of scientific theory by means of the process of counterinduction,

in which he describes knowledge as an ever increasing ocean of mutually incompatible

alternatives, each single theory, each fairy-tale, each myth that is part of the collection forcing

the others into greater articulation.9 Existing research by Willmott (1993) may be seen as offering elements of this kind of

counter-mythology.

References

Adorno T (1997 [1967])Prisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adorno T and Horkheimer M (1972 [1944])Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso.

Aristotle (1976)Nichomachean Ethics. London: Penguin.

Armstrong K (2005)A Short History of Myth. London: Canongate.

Barthes R (2009 [1957])Mythologies. London: Penguin.

Basbll T (2010) Softly Constrained imagination: Plagiarism and misprision in the theory of

organizational sensemaking. Culture and Organization 16(2): 163178.

Basbll T and Graham H (2006) Substitutes for strategy research: Notes on the source of Karl

Weicks anecdote of the young lieutenant and the map of the Pyrenees. Emphemera: Theory

and Politics in Organization 6(2): 194204.

Benjamin W (1994 [1934]) The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 19101940 (Scholem G and

Adorno TW, eds). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Benjamin W (1999 [1968])Illuminations. London: Pimlico.

Beyes T (2009) An aesthetics of displacement: Thomas Pynchons symptomatology of organiza-

tion.Journal of Organizational Change Management22(4): 421436.

Blau P and Scott WR (1962) Formal Organizations. A Comparative Approach. San Francisco,

CA: Chandler.

Bowles M (1989) Myth, meaning and work organization. Organization Studies 10(3): 405421.

Brown A, Stacey P and Nandhakumar J (2008) Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human

Relations 61(8): 10351062.

Calasso R (2005)K. London: Jonathon Cape.

Canetti E (1974)Kafkas Other Trial: the Letters to Felice. New York: Schocken Books.

Cummings S and Brocklesby J (1997) Towards demokratia: Myth and the management of

organizational change.Journal of Organizational Change Management10: 7396.

Czarniawska B (1998)A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. London: SAGE.

Czarniawska B (1999) Writing Management: Organization theory as a literary genre. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Czarniawska B (2005) Karl Weick: Concepts, style and reflection. Sociological Review 53: 267278.

De Cock C (2000) Reflections on fiction, representation, and organization studies: An essay with

special reference to the work of Jorge Luis Borges. Organization Studies 21(3): 589609.

De Cock C and Land C (2005) Organization/literature: Exploring the seam. Organization Studies

27(4): 517535.

Deleuze G and Guattari F (1986)Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Feyerarbend P (1993)Against Method. London. Verso.

Finley MI (1990) The Use and Abuse of History. London: Chatto & Windus.Foucault M (1977)Discipline & Punish: The Birth of The Prison. London: Penguin.

Foucault M (1981) The Will to Knowledge: History of Sexuality Volume 1. London: Penguin.

Freud S (2002 [1930]) Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Penguin.


21/22


Gabriel Y (1991) On organisational stories and myths: Why it is easier to slay a dragon than to kill

a myth.International Sociology 6(4): 427442.

Gabriel Y (2003) Your home, my exile: Boundaries and otherness in antiquity and now.

Organization Studies 24(4): 619632.

Gabriel Y (ed.) (2004)Myths, Stories, and Organizations: Premodern Narratives for Our Times.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gabriel Y and Giffiths D (2004) Stories in organizational research. In: Cassell C and Symon G

(eds)Essential Guide to Qualtitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: SAGE,

98113.

Gouldner AW (1954)Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Kafka F (1999a [1925]) The Trial. London: Penguin.

Kafka F (1999b) The Complete Short Stories of Franz Kafka. London: Vintage.

Kafka F (2000 [1915]) The Castle. London: Penguin.

Kafka F (2007 [1996])Amerika: The Man Who Disappeared. London: Penguin.

Keenoy T and Seijo G (2009) Re-imagining e-mail: Academics in The Castle. Organization 17(2):177199.

Kornberger M, Clegg S and Carter C (2006) Rethinking the polyphonic organization: Managing as

discursive practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management22(1): 330.

Kundera M (1996) Testaments Betrayed: Essay in Nine Parts. New York: Harper Perennial.

Land C and Sliwa M (2009) The novel and organization: Introduction from the editors.Journal of

Organizational Change Management22(4): 349356.

Levi-Strauss C (1955) The structural study of myth. The Journal of American Folklore 68: 428444.

Levi-Strauss C (1962) Totemism. London: Merlin Press.

Levi-Strauss C (1978)Myth and Meaning. London: Routledge.

Litowitz D (2002) Franz Kafkas outsider jurisprudence.Law & Social Inquiry 27(1): 103138.McWhinney W and Batista J (1988) How remythologizing can revitalize organizations. Organiza-

tional Dynamics 17(2): 4658.

Maitlis S and Sonenschein S (2010) Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights

from Weick (1988).Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 551580.

Merton RK (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Miller P and Rose N (2008) Governing the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Panagia D (2009) The Political Life of Sensation. London: Duke University Press.

Parker M (2005) Organisational gothic. Culture and Organization 11(3): 153166.

Pelzer P (2002) Disgust and organization.Human Relations 55(7): 841860.

Rhodes C (2009) All I want to do is get that check and get drunk: Testifying to resistance in CharlesBukowskis Factotum.Journal of Organizational Change Management22(4): 386401.

Rhodes C and Brown A (2005) Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal of

Management Reviews 7(3): 167188.

Van Maanen J (1995) Style as theory. Organization Science 6(1): 133143.

Veyne P (1988)Did the Greeks Believe in Their Own Myths? An Essay on the Constitutive Imagina-

tion. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Warner M (2007) Kafka, Weber and organization theory.Human Relations 60(7): 10191038.

Wasserman M (2001) Changing minds, saving lives: Franz Kafka as a key industrial reformer.

East European Quarterly 35(4): 473482.

Weber M (1991 [1915])From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Gerth H and Wright Mills C, edsand trans.). London: Routledge.

Weick K (1983) Misconceptions about managerial productivity.Business Horizons 26(4): 4752.

Weick K (1987) Substitutes for strategy. In: Teece DJ (ed.) The Competitive Challenge: Strategies

for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 222233.


22/22

Munro and Huber 543

Weick K (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination.Academy of Management Review

14(4): 516531.

Weick K (1990) Introduction: Cartographic myths in organizations. In: Huff A (ed.) Mapping

Strategic Thought. Chichester: Wiley, 110.

Weick K (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.Administrative Science Quarterly 38(4): 628658.

Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. London: SAGE.

Weick K and Sutcliffe K (2003) Hospitals as cultures of entrapment. California Management

Review 45(2): 7385.

Weick K and Sutcliffe K (2007)Managing the Unexpected, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Weick K, Sutcliffe K and Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking.

Organization Science 16(4): 409421.

Whyte W (1956) The Organizational Man. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Williams R (1983)Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana Press.Willmott H (1993) Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern

organizations.Journal of Management Studies 30(4): 515552.

Iain Munro is Professor of Organization Studies at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. He has

research and teaching interests in Foucauldian and post-structuralist approaches to the study of

organization, information warfare and systems thinking. He has published in journals including

Organization, Organization Studies,International Journal of Management Reviews andJournal of

the Operational Research Society. [Email: [email protected]]

Christian Huber is a research fellow of the Helmut Schmidt University University of the FederalArmed Forces in Hamburg, Germany. He previously worked at Innsbruck University from which

he holds degrees in organization studies, management and economics. His research interests

include accounting, risk management, organizational change and the use of literature in organiza-

tional theory. [Email: [email protected]]

Kafka Bureaucracy

Documents

Transcript of Kafka Bureaucracy