What are some of the traditional/conventional models, theories, and practices embodied in philosophy, culture, and common sense that we typically draw on and make use of (explicitly or implicitly) in creating a "realistic," objective picture of ourselves and the world in which we live?
How does this drive leadership attitudes and actions regarding organizational development and relations with employees, customers, and other stakeholders?
Please provide cite sources and a clear understanding of how to interpret this.
In philosophy, Critical theory has a transformative methodology. The answers provided should focus on the manner in which we, as humans, should live. In utilizing critical theory, the status quo is critiqued and attacked. Actions are criticized because of the result they will bring. The transformation is brought about by making societal participants more aware of the language and the world in which they live. By rallying members of society around a common, clear and 'true' point, societal injustice and exploitation may be diminished (Tyson, 2006). There are many approaches to the way in which humans analyze their place in society and nature, and in order to develop their own theories of self-actualization. For the purpose of this essay, however, we will focus on two: positivism versus interpretivism.
The positivistic approach is excellent for examining exterior data that can essentially be utilized in an objective fashion. The positivist is an excellent philosophy for viewing societal trends and changes. The monological or scientific gaze is limited in its perceptions and can best be used for determining when and to what extent groups in the society interact. Proof, proof, proof is needed for this epistemological view, and it typically focuses on the way things are, or the tactical, rather than anything intangible. The interpretivist, on the other hand, wants to know why things are happening in a particular society. The subjective approach allows communication with the cultural background of a society and an understanding of why things operate (Weber, 2004).
An illustration of how the two approaches differ can be seen by examining a ritual of Baptism from the Mormon Church. The positivist would equate percentages of children who participated in comparison to the time the parents spent in church. The hypothesis may begin that a higher percentage of children would participate in the ritual if their parents were more active in the religion. Data would be gathered and tested against the hypothesis. The conclusion would be that the data confirmed the hypothesis and so the conclusion could be reached that the more active the parents , the more likely that the child would participate in the ritual. The interpretivist, however, would survey and examine why the children were baptized and what the baptism meant to the participants. The final construct for the interpretivist would be that the baptism signified a religious cleansing and a new beginning and acted as a right of passage for the young children.
Both conclusions are correct, the results are vastly different. The positivist looksat the exterior of society, while the interpretivist looks at the interior. It is the difference between examining the electrical synapses in the brain and knowing what someone is thinking. Both inquiries have there value, but in the end, they are looking at ...
The solution is a comprehensive and intensive essay that seeks to explain the intricacies of theories, practices, perspectives, traditional and conventional models that man uses to make sense of reality, creating a picture of the world and his place in it. It further explains the how these combines in creating the individual condition that influence and affect leadership attitudes within organization in particular relationships and behaviour experienced and percieved by stakeholders, employees and clients/customers. References are provided.