See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311249180

A Managerial and Linguistic Perspective on Researching Manager

Behaviour Aimed at Replacing Human Managers with Robots

Article  in  International Journal of Systems and Society · June 2016

DOI: 10.4018/IJSS.2016070103

CITATIONS READS

3 484

2 authors:

Justyna Alnajjar Olaf Flak

University of Warsaw University of Silesia in Katowice
3 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Team management automation View project

Company Competitiveness Barometer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olaf Flak on 22 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

A Managerial and Linguistic Perspective on

Researching Manager Behaviour Aimed at
Replacing Human Managers with Robots
Justyna Alnajjar, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Olaf Flak, University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

ABSTRACT

This paper takes on both a managerial and linguistic perspective on conducting research into manager
behaviour. It presents theoretical foundations for creating knowledge about the activities of team
managers using a system of organisational terms, and showcases how linguistic analysis can be
applied to enhance findings in the area of management studies. The authors discuss the results of an
experiment carried out with management students within the field of project planning. The students
played the roles of team managers and were asked to plan a specific project using specified online
management tools: Goaler (to set up goals) and Tasker (to describe tasks). All activities of experiment
participants were recorded by these tools.

Keywords
Form and Content of Texts, Goals, Linguistic Behaviour, Linguistics, Manager Behaviour, Mixed Method,
System of Organisational Terms, Tasks, Text Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION1

Increasing areas of human life are developed with the help of machines and robots, or are replaced
by them. After the first age of robotics in manufacturing, rapid developments in computer science
have provided the opportunity of replacing team managers with robots (see McAfee et al, 2015). In
recent years, the idea of replacing humans with robots has also emerged within the organisational
environment, in particular in consultancy, stock exchange, and market analysis.
However, there is still a lack of research in this respect, within the field of team management.
Despite the fact that it is common to track activities of Internet users or online applications (e.g.
Google apps), there is hardly any research using online management tools in order to obtain data
about managers’ behaviour. At the beginning of the 20th century, Frank Gilbreth and Lilian Gilbreth
took a step in this direction (Fogelholm, 2000, p. 195). They investigated human motions at work,
which is viewed as the beginning of workforce automation in various types of industry. In the 21st
century, it is worth investigating management activities in order that work can be further automated.
In general, this paper showcases the latest results from the observation of managers’ behaviour,
carried out with the help of the system of organisational terms and selected online management tools
available on the transistorshead.com platform. It is worth adding that the online management tools utilised
are regarded as research tools in this paper (see Section 2). The data gathered during the observation
was further analysed from a linguistic perspective using the tenets of anthropocentric linguistics and
the so-called CCC (correspondence, consistency, and correctness) model (see Section 5).

DOI: 10.4018/IJSS.2016070103

Copyright © 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

35
International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

In particular, the paper aims to:

• describe the concept of the observation,

• present the theoretical background of quantitative and linguistic analyses,
• illustrate the mechanism of management tools on the transistorshead.com platform,
• present the results of linguistic analysis of manager behaviour aimed at replacing human managers
with robots,
• present further research paths and possibilities of results implementation.

The paper provides a literature review, presents an experiment with management studies students,
and discusses the results of the linguistic analysis of manager behaviour. The research questions are
as follows:

Q1: Which elements of the plan are changed and how often are they changed until the plan is
accomplished?
Q2: Which cognitive processes take place when managers are given a complex project to plan?
Q3: Are there any dominant linguistic routes when planning a project?
Q4: Is it possible to develop a pattern of (human) manager linguistic behaviour in order to replace
human managers with robots?
Q5: How can the linguistic findings be utilised in order to optimise and automate the formulation of
tasks and goals in the future?

2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

In the first instance, it is necessary to mention that research presented in this paper is interdisciplinary
in nature: In order to answer the research questions about the managerial work linguistic analysis
is utilised in tandem with selected methods typical for management studies. In more detail, (1) the
theoretical background of the examined phenomena and the method of gathering data derive from
management science, while (2) the method of drawing conclusions and forming answers to the
research questions posed in Section 1 stem from linguistics. Therefore, in this section we introduce
both theoretical foundations.
(1) There are various knowledge management information systems focusing on selected areas
of organisations (such as sales, distribution, production; see Yanchinda et al, 2011, pp. 806, 817)
offering numerous theoretical approaches to those issues. Knowledge management in organisations is
defined as a process that enables their members to create, distribute, and use knowledge in practical
ways in order to make organisations more efficient (Chalmeta & Grangel, 2008). White and Taket
(1996, pp. 47-56) claim that knowledge in organisations is entirely based on human language. This
statement was the inspiration of designing the system of organisational terms that constitutes the
theoretical foundation for conducting experiments with managers, with the aim of replacing human
managers with robots (Flak & Pyszka, 2013).
The approach by Matos and Lopes (2003) is one of the theoretical assumptions for replacing
human managers with robots. Its authors present a model of creating tacit and explicit knowledge in
organisations. Following this approach, certain issues must first be solved in order that human managers
of teams can be replaced with robots. Firstly, it is necessary to find a method for capturing/recording
the explicit and tacit knowledge developed by a team. Secondly, a means must be found to transform
this knowledge into management processes. Moreover, important questions need to be answered, such
as: Are existing knowledge systems built on a true representation of the reality (ontological issue)? Do
these knowledge systems contain true information about the reality (epistemological issue)? (Kilduff
et al, 2011). Chalmeta and Grangel (2008) claim that it is possible to obtain knowledge that represents

36
 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

the true reality of an organisation. For example, by transforming individual knowledge into collective
organisational knowledge, and reincarnating organisations as knowledge organisations (Liebowitz,
2001, p. 4). We admit that this is a challenging and controversial task, and it might lead to images
of science-fiction visions. However, the examples of pattern recognition of other human activities
beg a serious question of ability of creating appropriate representation of managerial activities in
algorithms (see Pentland & Liu, 1999; Kellokumpu et al, 2007; Turaga et al, 2008).
Despite the variety of theoretical knowledge systems in organisations and the large number of
computer programs in companies (e.g. SAP, ERP, Google tools), there is a lack of complex management
tools collecting data on the behaviour of human managers. In order to measure phenomena in
organisations in a more systematic way, it is necessary to build a new ontological system by applying
epistemic approaches. Without such a theoretical solution it is near impossible to compare data and
verify scientific statements in an objective way in management science (Flak, 2007, p. 67).
Let us now turn to the system of organisational terms, which has been designed to build a
knowledge system that could replace human managers with robots. The paradigm used for the system
of organisational terms combines neo-positivism, functionalism, and a system-based approach to
organisations (Holmwood, 2005). The system of organisational terms is a methodological idea in
management science which was designed to record organisation performance using the observation
technique along with management tools as research tools. The concept was created by Olaf Flak
(2007, 2008). Firstly, organisational reality was conceptualised, then other elements of the system
have been created, such as definitions of organisational terms (Flak, 2009) and methods of gathering
data about the organisation performance (Flak, 2010).
The system of organisational terms covers both qualitative and quantitative methods (Bryman,
2006). It is built on the philosophical foundation of Wittgenstein’s “states of entities” (Brink &
Rewitzky, 2002, p. 544). Wittgenstein claimed that “all the world consists of facts as the only beings”
(ibid.). The development of this theory led to the conclusion that “facts appear in the state of entities”
(Prechtl, 2007, p. 122).
Therefore the ontology of the system of organisational terms is based on a formal logic and
Wittgenstein’s theory of facts, according to which we can distinguish two types of facts: events
and things. Things (physical or mental, such as a timetable, motivation, an idea, a decision, an
organisational structure, a meeting agenda) are created by events (short or long processes: planning,
motivating, creating, making, drawing, preparing). Facts can be divided further into four types, i.e.
objective vs. subjective resources (things) and objective vs. subjective processes (events) (Ziembiński,
2006).
The system of organisational terms is based on a few key assumptions. Firstly, organisations
perform, with the help of organisational techniques used by managers and members of these
organisations, in order to solve organisational problems. Using organisational managerial techniques
is connected with using an appropriate managerial tool (Flak, 2013b).
Secondly, the ontology of an organisational environment consists of elements typical of the
case of ontology development (Staab & Studer, 2009, pp. 2-8). The definition of this ontology is as
follows: The elements of the universe of an organisational environment are described by the system
of organisational terms: D = {factT1, factT2, factT3, …, factE1, factE2, factE3, …}. The elements
of the ontology are facts. The abbreviation “T” stands for “thing”, whereas “E” indicates “event”. It
is possible to count facts by numbers, though the number of facts is unlimited. Facts appear within
time. The set of relations on D is as follows: R = {name of factT1, name of factT2, name of factT3,
…, name of factE1, name of factE2, name of factE3, …, creates, starts} (Flak, 2013a).
In order to capture the essence of the ontological background of the system of organisational
terms, it is worth considering how facts happen in time. For this purpose a brief model can be created
that showcases how facts take place one after another (see Figure 1). According to the model in Figure
1, in which for the sake of clarity there is no distinction between subjective and objective facts, event
1.1 causes thing 1.1, which in turn releases event 2.1 that creates thing 2.1. In the meantime, thing

37
International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

Figure 1. Pattern of facts

1.1 starts event 3.1 which creates thing 3.1. Then, thing 3.1 generates a new version of the first event,
i.e. event 1.2. In this way, a new version of the first thing (1.1) is created, which is called thing 1.2.
And so on.
The features of facts in the system of organisational terms are grouped in dimensions called
“measured values”. It is not only colloquially measurable objects’ characteristics that in management
science constitute resources (Wernerfelt, 1984) or processes (Glykas, 2011). Features of facts cover
the whole range of parameters, i.e. measured values, in both quantitative and qualitative ways.
The concept of the system of organisational terms includes two types of organisational terms:
primary and derivative (secondary). The former reflects the facts of a “thing”; in management science
they are called resources. The latter reflects the facts of an “event”; in management science they are
viewed as processes (Flak, 2008, pp. 13-22).
Thirdly, the epistemology uses a merger of a quantitative and qualitative approach that in turn
leads to using a mixed-method in research into organisational reality (Symonds & Gorard, 2010, p.
121). Within the system of organisational terms, the research method should assure rationality in
cognition by indirect reference to a subject of cognition, i.e. a thing that is a sense of the subject (Heller,
2009, p. 114). That is why observation is chosen as an appropriate research method. Nevertheless,
observation is used in a slightly wider meaning than it is understood in social sciences (Little, 1993).
Fourthly, the measuring tool in the system of organisational terms is a managerial tool used as
an organisational technique to solve a particular organisational problem. The idea of a managerial
tool within the system of organisational terms is based on an assumption that management means
creating “things” in an efficient (Kotarbiński, 1969, pp. 127-141) and effective (Kotarbiński, 1969,
pp. 113-116) way, i.e. “Managing is about getting things done” (Chopraa & Gopal, 2011, p. 63).
This is also fostered by an idea of a behavioural unit which is constant behaviour lasting for a certain
period of time, perceived as an activity of a person or a group. That is, a behavioural unit has its
beginning and end, in addition to a concrete meaning in the particular context of actions (Hatfield
& Weider-Hatfield, 1978, pp. 44-50).
Finally, the system of organisational terms belongs to the systemic approach (Bertalanffy, 1950,
pp. 134-165) and is based on the rules of concluding, which origins from formal logic (Crane, 2012,
p. 31).
Overall, the system of organisational terms is a methodological framework of conducting research
in the area of organisation performance by recording behaviour of managers who use organisational
techniques to solve a certain organisational problem with the help of a managerial tool.
(2) Furthermore, for the purposes of the experiment, the results of which are discussed in this
paper, the system of organisational terms was coupled with the tenets of anthropocentric linguistics

38
 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

and the CCC model that allows for systematic linguistic texts analysis. Let us briefly summarise them
here. Similarly to the basic considerations of the system of organisational terms, concrete human beings
and their specific properties, especially communicative properties (predominantly human languages)
constitute the point of departure of anthropocentric linguistics whose foundations were laid down
by Grucza F. in the 1970s (see Grucza F. 2010 for a summary), and further developed by Grucza S.
(2006a,b, 2010, 2013) and Bonacchi (2011a, 2011b). According to anthropocentric linguistics, human
languages, with the help of which human beings communicate, are located in human brains and thus
cannot be observed directly, rather only on the basis of texts produced by human beings and also on
the basis of discourses that they conduct. This implies that human communication in general, and
specialist communication in particular, is conducted by certain people (e.g. managers) by means of
texts. In other words, interactants produce and send, as well as receive and understand (specialist)
texts. The term “text” may be understood twofold: firstly, on the expression plane, and secondly on
the content plane (Grucza S., 2013, p. 62). More specifically, a text is first and foremost a particular
utterance realised in a graphic, phonic/oral, or hybrid (graphic-phonic) form, produced by a human
being in a given act of communication (expression plane). Furthermore, a text expresses/represents
certain content/meaning (content plane). However, it is worth stressing that a text does not contain
any content or meaning (or language, see Grucza S. 2010). Texts, similarly to languages, are related
to concrete human beings. In other words, it is human beings who produce, receive, and interpret
texts. Following a similar differentiation between the expression plane and the content plane of
texts, Renkema (2001, 2009) proposed a model for document (text) quality, called the CCC model,
which allows for systematic text analysis (see Table 1) and observation of linguistic behaviour. It
is worth noting that in this paper we do not deal with communication behaviour of human beings
that subsumes interaction. Rather we focus on linguistic behaviour, i.e. we take a closer look at
how texts are created and how meaning is assigned to them by their authors. Therefore, we do not
analyse communicative interactions of human beings (managers). Communication ethnographers,
who investigate communication practices within specific groups of people, are of the opinion that
linguistic behaviour is rule-governed, for example, sounds are formed together according to specified
sequences so that they can be interpreted as words, words are combined into sentences following
certain rules of grammar, and discourses follow specific cultural rules of rhetoric. They attempt to
uncover the shared norms/patterns (cultural conventions) that enable members of a given group to
communicate appropriately in given socio-cultural settings, i.e. to know who can say what, how,
and when in particular communicative situations. Thus, patterns can be identified both at the level
of form and at the level of content (Gumperz, 1983, p. 9). The knowledge of these rules/patterns
and their use enable the group members not only to communicate effectively but also, in the case of
communities of practice, to build professional knowledge. A question arises of how these patterns,
norms, conventions, practices, etc. are detected? Communication ethnographers take into account
various data in order to find out more about the linguistic behaviour of a given community, for instance
information on the historical background of the community under investigation, social organisation,
common knowledge, data on the linguistic code. Texts may constitute just one of many components
that are included in the analysis. However, in the case of the system of organisational terms, it is hardly
possible to gather other data than texts for the purposes of analysis. This means that linguistic patterns,
norms, and conventions can be investigated solely with the help of texts. For this purpose, the model
of Renkema comes in handy. Essentially, according to Renkema’s model called the CCC model, in
order to investigate a given text, it is necessary to consider three criteria, i.e. (1) correspondence, (2)
consistency, and (3) correctness, applied at five levels: (A) document (text) type, (B) content, (C)
structure, (D) wording, and (E) presentation. Table 1 provides a list (from 1 to 15) of aspects, called
evaluation points, to be investigated.
Renkema (2009: 175) argues that the first criterion, i.e. correspondence, is the most important.
Namely it helps to figure out whether with the help of a given text its author achieves a certain goal
(effectiveness) in a way that is appropriate to the given context. It should be noted that the effectiveness

39
International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

Table 1. The CCC model (Renkema 2001, 2009)

  Correspondence Consistency Correctness

A. Type 1. Appropriateness 2. Purity of genre 3. Application of genre rules
B. Content 4. Sufficient information 5. Agreement between facts 6. Correctness of facts
C. Structure 7. Sufficient coherence 8. Consistent structure 9. Correct linking words
D. Wording 10. Appropriate wording 11. Unity of style 12. Correct syntax and choice of words
E. Presentation 13. Appropriate layout 14. Layout adapted to text 15. Correct spelling and punctuation

criterion implies further observations of the outcome of the linguistic behaviour in question, while the
appropriateness criterion entails a judgement by the receiver (see e.g. Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009,
pp. 53–55; Deardorff, 2016, pp. 121–122), both rather problematic to verify within the constraints of
the system of organisational terms. Nevertheless, these aspects may to a certain extent be investigated
with the help of the second and third criteria depicted in Renkema’s model, i.e. consistency and
correctness. While the consistency criterion enables the researcher to study the sender’s ability to
maintain the choices made, the correctness criterion provides information on the possible mistakes
in the text under investigation, both in content and form. It is worth stressing one more point relevant
for the purposes of analysis based on the CCC model. Namely, Renkema suggests that the fifteen
evaluation points (see Table 1) “have to be worked through from top to bottom and from left to right,
to reflect their organization according to the relative weight they have in a ‘default’ communication
situation” (2009, p. 176).

3. RESEARCH DESIGN

The research process consisted of translating facts within the organisational environment into binary
language, via the online management tools, carrying out an experiment in the field of team management
with management students, and drawing conclusions about cognitive processes and the linguistic
routes for planning a project.
The experiment was carried out with the help of two original online management tools (here
also research tools), which allowed the gathering of data relating to manager behaviour when
planning projects. For the purposes of the experiment a mixed research method (Bentahar &
Cameron, 2015) was used. It combined both neo-positivistic and systematic paradigms. Figure 2
depicts the research process.
The experiment participants were master’s students in management who were asked to perform
a task provided by their teacher. Projects were conducted by students in groups of three or four in

Figure 2. Research process

40
 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

class and at home. In general, the project consisted of moving a company from one city to another
within three months. The students (here team managers) were instructed in writing which tasks were
necessary and why they should be performed. The managers were obliged to plan the movement of
the company by providing short descriptions of the tasks at hand and delegating them.
The descriptions to be provided by the managers were divided into goals and tasks in accordance
with the components of the planning process. According to the theoretical foundation presented
in Section 2, in the experiment the managers were treated as organisational resources within the
constraints of management science and as things according to the tenets of Wittgenstein’s theory of
facts. In the research process, two events were considered, i.e. setting and describing. The combination
of events causing things were thus as follows: “setting a goal” and “describing a task” (see the example
in Figure 1). In other words, the planning process was represented by two managerial actions: (a)
setting a goal and (b) describing a task.
During the experiment, original online management tools were employed to record managers’
activities. Each management tool covered only one aspect of project planning (Goaler for the purposes
of setting goals and Tasker for the purposes of establishing tasks) so that the individual aspects of
team management could be easily and accurately measured. The management tools utilised for the
purposes of this paper are available on http://transistorshead.com and can be accessed through logging
on with the username: anonymous.manager, password: manager.
The management tools, i.e. Goaler and Tasker, used in the research have the following features:
They split the process of management into small parts, according to the idea of the “unit of behaviour”
(Curtis et al, 1992). By using management tools, an object is created that at the same time is an effect
of the management process (Flak, 2013b). In such a way, it is possible to register organisational
resources being the result of the processes conducted within a given organisation (Glykas, 2011, p. 11).
As a result, the form of Goaler consists of several features concerning a given goal. A manager
who uses Goaler describes this goal as presented in Table 2.
Tasks can be described by several features, such as time intervals, i.e. days, weeks, months,
in addition to doers of tasks, way of performing tasks, etc. The form of Tasker consists of several
features of tasks as described in Table 3.

Table 2. Features of goals in Goaler

Features of a goal A way of description

A vision of the future:
A short name of the goal:
The period of time or date:
Measurers x 10:
Is the goal real to be achieved?
Does the goal belong to your
duties?
Create the goal based on green box
details:
The goal is in the field of:
The goal is:
The goal belongs to:
The goal is valid:
The goal concerns:
Form - 300 characters
Form - 60 characters
Buttons and lists of options
Form - 300 characters
List of options: { yes, mostly yes, partly, mostly no, no}
List of options: { yes, mostly yes, partly, mostly no, no}
Form - 480 characters
List of options: {finance, human resources, logistic, management, marketing,
products and services}
List of options: {shortterm, longterm}
List of options: {strategy, operation}
List of options: {always, occasionally}
List of options: {one person, a group of people}

41
International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

Table 3. Features of tasks in Tasker

Features of a task A way of description

A short name of the task:
To which goal the task
belongs:
A verb what is to be done:
Names who is to do it (x9):
How long does it take:
Add details how to do it:
Add details where to do it:
The task is in the field of:
The task is:
The task is:
The task appeared:
The task belongs to:
Form - 60 characters
List of options: dynamic list of names of goals
Form - 120 characters
Form - 60 characters
Lists of options
Form - 120 letters
Form - 120 letters
List of options: {finance, human resources, logistic, management, marketing, products
and services}
List of options: {important, quite important, not important}
List of options: {urgent, quite urgent, not urgent}
List of options: {suddenly, expected}
List of options: {strategy, operations}

For the purposes of linguistic analysis, texts composed by two managers (groups) were chosen (see
Sections 4 & 5). This choice was motivated by the amount of text generated, as it was expected that
it would allow a more complex and reliable analysis of manager behaviour. Moreover, by analysing
texts from two groups the researchers intended to compare data. It is worth adding that the collected
texts were sorted in tables in an Excel® file and thus constituted a corpus for text analysis. Using
tables was helpful in annotating texts, comparing data, producing explanations, and finally arriving
at conclusions (see Gibbs, 2007, p. 86). As mentioned in Section 2, in order to provide systematic
analysis of the texts, tenets of anthropocentric linguistics (Grucza F. 2010; Grucza S., 2013) and
the CCC model by Renkema (2001, 2009) were employed. The research findings are presented in
Sections 4 & 5.

4. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS CONCERNING MANAGER BEHAVIOUR

To answer the first research question (Q1), the activities performed by the two managers may be
summarised in numbers that, at the same time, give an overview of the aspects of work done by
them. When carrying out the project, both managers set up a similar number of goals, yet the number
of tasks planned to achieve these goals differed. Manager 1 created 7 goals and 21 tasks, whereas
Manager 2 set 6 goals and 13 tasks. In both cases, the duration of project planning was almost the
same, lasting around 10,000 minutes. However, the actual work with the tools took different periods
of time. Manager 1 needed 642 minutes and Manager 2,397 minutes to plan the project. Interestingly,
the number of work intervals (from log in to log out) varied too. However, both managers conducted
the edition of the goals and tasks quite similarly in terms of quantitative findings. Table 4 depicts
the quantitative results of the experiment.
It is worth adding that both managers were instructed to plan the project in the form of short texts.
Whereas the instruction was a continuous text comprising seven paragraphs of 656 words in total,
the short texts composed by the managers can be viewed as short messages comprising from 1 to 44
words. This means that in some cases produced texts equalled just one word or phrase, in other cases

42
 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

Table 4. Summary of managers’ behaviour

Measures Manager 1 (group 1) Manager 2 (group 2)

number of goals 7 6
number of tasks 21 13
number of actions 303 285
total time from first login to final logout (minutes) 10195 10303
duration of actual teamwork – editing time (minutes) 642 397
number of work intervals (from log in to log out) 7 3
number of goals editions 18 19
number of tasks editions 24 13
number of editions by object (goal) 3.42 3.16
number of editions by object (task) 1.14 1

texts comprised sentences. The longest text composed by the managers consisted of three sentences.
In total, Manager 1 used 533 words to plan the project, whereas Manager 2 wrote down 448 words
(only the final versions of the project plan were considered in this calculation).

5. RESULTS OF LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF MANAGER BEHAVIOUR

As mentioned in Section 4, both managers composed texts when planning their projects. For the
purposes of research process, texts are usually collected in the form of a corpus. This also took place
in the case of the experiment in question. The texts were collected and sorted in an Excel® file (see
Section 3). Nowadays corpora mainly take a digital format, making it easy to quickly sort and search
through texts with computer software. Indeed, corpus-based approach is helpful during the data-
collection stage. Also during the data-analysis phase it is employed to make it possible to handle
large quantities of texts. According to Lee (2008, p. 88), corpus-based research may be divided into
corpus-informed research, corpus-supported research/corpus-driven research, and corpus-induced
research. In the case of the linguistic analysis of the managers’ behaviour for the purposes of this
paper, corpus-informed approach has been adopted due to the fact that it is predominantly qualitative
in nature. Within this approach, corpus data is relatively small and it is analysed mainly manually.
However, some aspects of search, counting, classification, and tagging can be done with the help
of computer software, though not in a fully automatic way. This, in turn, speeds up genre analysis.
Next, with the help of a model for document (text) quality, called the CCC model, which allows
for systematic text analysis (see Table 1, Section 2) and observation of linguistic behaviour, we
conducted text analysis in order to answer the second research question (Q2). Following the CCC
model, in our analysis we considered three criteria, i.e. (1) correspondence, (2) consistency, and (3)
correctness, applied at five levels: (A) document (text) type, (B) content, (C) structure, (D) wording,
and (E) presentation, which resulted in focusing on 15 evaluation points at the stage of data analysis
(see Section 2).
Nevertheless, in the case of the texts generated by the two managers we further decided to leave
out the analysis of the evaluation points at the level of text type and presentation, even though the
author of the CCC model argues that it is necessary to go through all 15 evaluation points step by step
(see Section 2). This is due to the fact that the managers did not have any choice as regards (A) text
type or (E) presentation (particularly text layout). They were supposed to fill in the given rows in the

43
International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

management tools with short descriptions. This did not give them any space to be creative with regard
to the two levels mentioned. Nevertheless, the aspects of correct spelling and punctuation, which are
classified under ‘presentation’ (see evaluation point 15), were considered in the analysis. They did
not, however, influence its results, as it turned out that spelling and punctuation were correct in the
texts investigated. In short, the analysis of the texts produced by the managers in question focused
on the three criteria of (B) content, (C) structure, and (D) wording. Additionally, it was analysed
whether and how the generated texts changed over time.
As regards content, whether the texts produced included all the elements mentioned in the
instruction (content analysis) was investigated. It turned out that the managers did not cover all the
information from the instruction in their descriptions. This was related to both certain tasks to be
performed and time frame, in which these tasks were supposed to be accomplished. Furthermore,
certain information was provided in a very general way. In one case, the task formulated by one of
the managers in question depicted the main project aim provided by the company’s board of directors
(here the teacher) (see Section 3): “Moving the company to a different city”. Therefore, it may be
concluded that in reality managers would not be able to execute all the tasks and thus achieve all the
goals set by the company’s board of directors. However, the facts included in the descriptions were
correct, and corresponded to those mentioned in the instruction.
With regard to structure, limited observation could be made due to the restricting number of
characters of which the texts consisted. As mentioned in Section 4, the longest text comprised 317
characters (with spaces), which translated into three sentences (44 words). Therefore, regarding
structure, only those descriptions consisting of sentences were taken into consideration. It turned out
that when composing longer texts, the managers sometimes did not use correct linking words. For
example: “Relating to the will of extending the business activity with a need product being T-shirts
to be sold with the help of an innovative application, that’s why we open a new department.” This
made their descriptions rather complicated for the reader (other team members) and probably difficult
to understand. However, such incorrect structure would not, we think, influence the project outcome
as long as the information provided was correct.
A more important point with regard to structure relates to the order of the listed goals and tasks.
The managers did not write down the goals and tasks following the points listed in the instruction.
Whereas Manager 2 started planning the project with the first task mentioned in the first paragraph
of the instruction and finished with the task listed at the end of the instruction, Manager 1 began
with the task which appeared in the third paragraph of the instruction and finished the planning with
the first task mentioned in the instruction. It was thus nearly impossible to identify a route of project
planning, comparing the behaviour of the two groups (see research question Q3).
Wording applied by the two managers was appropriate throughout, i.e. it corresponded with
the wording applied in the instruction. At times, the syntax was incorrect, as mentioned previously
in this section. The style was inconsistent throughout. Similarly, to findings from another project
conducted by the authors (Flak & Alnajjar, 2015), the managers in question used different forms in
their descriptions, e.g. verbs or nouns. The verbs were also applied inconsistently. Either an infinitive
or second person plural forms were applied. What is more, certain stylistic solutions adopted by the
managers could be viewed as rather odd in view of the project planning in question. Let us give one
example: “Dear ladies and gentlemen, due to the relocation of the company’s headquarters, we offer
better development possibilities and more attractive working conditions”.
With the help of analysis of the content, structure and wording of the texts under investigation,
it was also possible to analyse and interpret changes made in these texts. Interestingly, the managers
altered relatively few texts. Manager 2 made changes in the description of goal 2, which consisted
of shortening the description to a great extent in the second version of the goal (altogether there
were three versions, although versions 2 and 3 were identical). In this case, the characteristics of the
company were correctly removed from the description. Nevertheless, the modified goal still included
the fact, which probably should have been more explicitly incorporated in the description of the goal

44
 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

(content analysis). The “goal based” row concerning this goal was altered accordingly, though only in
the third version, while the second version was left empty. Again, the corrected version was shorter
and in accordance with the alterations in the main goal. The measurers with regard to this goal were
altered too. Here, however, the number of measurers grew from 4 in the first version through 5 in
the second version to 7 in the third and last version, whereas the measurers from version 1 were not
copied to version 2. The measurers in version 2 were in accordance with the changes in the “goal”
and “goal based” rows made previously. In addition, measurer 5 was specified in version 3, and the
wording, in particular the style, of the measurers in versions 2 and 3 was unified with other measurers
composed by Manager 2.
As regards the tasks, two changes were undertaken by Manager 1 and one by Manager 2. Let’s
start with the changes made by Manager 1. The first change related to task 4. It was modified from
‘Implementing a new product’ (version 1) to “Developing an application” (versions 2 & 3). The
second change referred to the manner in which one of the main tasks could be performed (“how to”
row). The number of particular tasks increased from four in version 1 to six in version 2. However,
only two (the last two) from the particular tasks included in version 1 were copied to version 2. The
first two were deleted, while four new tasks were added to the list. Manager 2 specified one task
from “Planning meetings” to “Planning meeting with suppliers”. This manager also corrected the
spelling in some rows. In three cases the description of the tasks in the first version started with a
small letter, which in the second version was corrected to a capital letter, which may be considered a
minor alteration hardly influencing the project planning under investigation. As regards changes, it
should also be mentioned that with respect to the specification of the tasks, both managers decided
to add them only in the second version. The first version was left empty by Manager 1: in column
“verb” (one case) and in column “how to” (three cases), and by Manager 2: in column “verb” (two
cases) and in column “how to” (four cases). In addition, Manager 1 did not specify the manner of
accomplishing the last five tasks that he/she listed, which in turn may be regarded as major mistake
having negative impact on the project planning.

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

It can be observed that managers plan their projects in steps and modify their plans over time.
The tentative results presented in this paper indicate, however, that managers who proceed more
systematically during the planning phase (i.e. carefully follow instructions) plan fewer project steps.
On the other hand, managers who plan more tasks do not closely follow instructions and list their tasks
in random order. Furthermore, it can be noted that managers who plan more tasks provide shorter
descriptions of them, opposed to managers providing fewer tasks who describe them in more detail.
This conclusion provides the opportunity to develop a pattern of linguistic behaviour of managers in
order to replace them with robots (see research question Q4). Yet, further experiments are necessary
in order to analyse more data and provide validation of findings. In particular it is pivotal to select
texts on the basis of which efficient automation process can be designed and implemented. It has
turned out that texts for analysis cannot be too short (such as one or two words), as this does not
allow for in-depth insights into manager behaviour. In turn, texts consisting of at least one sentence
or a phrase consisting of at least few words allow for more insightful research results.
The results of the text analysis presented in this paper demonstrate that it is necessary to
supplement pure linguistic considerations with content analysis. Content analysis, however, should
not be limited to looking at the behaviour of various managers. Rather it is necessary to compare
this behaviour with the instructions given to the managers (comparative content analysis, see Flak
& Alnajjar, 2015). As regards linguistic analysis for the purposes of the automation of manager
behaviour in the future (see research question Q5), we see the need to devise a more tailored model
or at least procedures in order to analyse manager behaviour more efficiently and systematically.
Existing models, such as the CCC model applied in this paper, can be helpful and serve as a basis for

45
International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

developing a new model or procedures. Though, future models should allow not only for qualitative,
but also quantitative analysis. In addition, we think that future models should be devised on the basis
of the first research results concerning manager behaviour, such as the ones presented in this paper.
In such a manner, a useful basis can be created with the evaluation points matching with both data
collected and research goals set. We also believe that in order to be able to provide more trustworthy
and adequate findings concerning effectiveness (reaching goals) and appropriateness (the manner and
context in which those goals were achieved) of linguistic behaviour, a triangulation of methods (e.g.
interviews, surveys with managers) could be applied. All in all, in order to automate managers’ work
in the future, it is worth investigating their behaviour further, from both a managerial and linguistic
perspective. Yet, the prospects of exchanging human managers with robots or machines—controversial
as they are—remain remote.

46
 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

REFERENCES

Bentahar, O., & Cameron, R. (2015). Design and Implementation of a Mixed Method Research Study in Project
Management. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 13(1), 3–15.
Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An Outline of General System Theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,
1(2), 134–165. doi:10.1093/bjps/I.2.134
Bonacchi, S. (2011a). Höflichkeitsausdrücke und anthropozentrische Linguistik. Warszawa: Euro-Edukacja.
Bonacchi, S. (2011b, June 17-19). Anthropozentrische Kulturologie: einige Überlegungen zu Grundannahmen
und Forschungspraxis anhand der Analyse von Komplimenten. In F. Grucza, P. Zimniak, & G. Pawłowski (Eds.),
Die deutsche Sprache, Kultur und Literatur in polnisch-deutscher Interaktion. Beiträge der internationalen
wissenschaftlichen Konferenz des Verbandes Polnischer Germanisten2011, Zielona Góra (pp. 33–52). Warszawa:
Euro-Edukacja.
Brink, C., & Rewitzky, I. (2002). Three Dual Ontologies. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31(6), 543–568.
doi:10.1023/A:1021204628219
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it Done? Qualitative Research,
6(1), 97–113. doi:10.1177/1468794106058877
Chalmeta, R., & Grangel, R. (2008). Methodology for the Implementation of Knowledge Management Systems.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 742–755. doi:10.1002/asi.20785
Chopraa, P. K., & Gopal, K. K. (2011). On the Science of Management with Measurement. Total Quality
Management, 22(1), 63–81. doi:10.1080/14783363.2010.530792
Crane, T. (2012). Philosophy, Logic, Science, History. Metaphilosophy, 43(1-2), 20–37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9973.2011.01732.x
Curtis, B., Kellner, M., & Over, J. (1992). Process Modeling. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), 75–90.
doi:10.1145/130994.130998
Deardorff, D. K. (2016). How to Assess Intercultural Competence. In Z. Hua (Ed.), Research Methods in
Intercultural Communication. A Practical Guide (pp. 120–134). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Flak, O. (2007). Układ wielkości organizacyjnych jako obiekt badań. In A. Nalepka (Ed.), Organizacje komercyjne
i niekomercyjne wobec wzmożonej konkurencji oraz wzrastających wymagań konsumentów (pp 64-74). Nowy
Sącz: Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu.
Flak, O. (2008). Konceptualizacja układu wielkości organizacyjnych. In A. Nalepka (Ed.), Organizacje komercyjne
i niekomercyjne wobec wzmożonej konkurencji oraz wzrastających wymagań konsumentów (pp 13-22). Nowy
Sącz: Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu.
Flak, O. (2009). Propozycja metody ustalania definicji w układzie wielkości organizacyjnych. In A. Nalepka
(Ed.), Organizacje komercyjne i niekomercyjne wobec wzmożonej konkurencji oraz wzrastających wymagań
konsumentów (pp 11-20). Nowy Sącz: Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu.
Flak, O. (2010). Wymiary i wielkości mierzone w układzie wielkości organizacyjnych. In A. Nalepka (Ed.),
Organizacje komercyjne i niekomercyjne wobec wzmożonej konkurencji oraz wzrastających wymagań
konsumentów (pp 11-21). Nowy Sącz: Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu.
Flak, O. (2013a). Theoretical Foundation for Managers’ Behavior Analysis by Graph-Based Pattern Matching.
International Journal of Contemporary Management, 12(4), 110–123.
Flak, O. (2013b). Concept of Managerial Tools Based on The System of Organizational Terms. In R. Knosala
(Ed.), Innovation in Management and Production Engineering (pp. 187–197). Opole: Oficyna Wydawnicza
Polskiego Towarzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją.
Flak, O., & Alnajjar, J. (2015). Ocena spójności intertekstowej w planowaniu projektu. Wyniki badania z
wykorzystaniem układu wielkości organizacyjnych. Lingwistyka Stosowana – Applied Linguistics – Angewandte
Linguistik. Przegląd/Review, 13, 1-14.

47
International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

Flak, O., & Pyszka, A. (2013). Differences in perception of the participants in the management process and its
real trajectory. Journal of Entrepreneurship. Management and Innovation, 9(4), 53–72.
Fogelholm, J. (2000). The State-of-the-Art in Modelling Anticipatory Economic Behaviour of Complex
Production Processes. AIP Conference Proceedings, 517(1), 194–204. doi:10.1063/1.1291258
Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Los Angeles: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849208574
Glykas, M. (2011). Effort Based Performance Measurement in Business Process Management. Knowledge and
Process Management, 18(1), 10–33. doi:10.1002/kpm.364
Glykas, M. (2011). Performance Measurement in Business Process, Workflow and Human Resource Management.
Knowledge and Process Management, 18(4), 241–265. doi:10.1002/kpm.387
Grucza, F. (2010). Od lingwistyki wyrazu do lingwistyki tekstu i dyskursu: o wielości dróg rozwoju lingwistyki i
kryteriów jego oceny. In A. Waszczuk-Ziń (Ed.), Publikacja jubileuszowa III (z okazji 10-lecia Katedry Języków
Specjalistycznych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego). Lingwistyka stosowana – języki specjalistyczne – dyskurs
zawodowy (pp. 13–56). Warszawa: Katedra Języków Specjalistycznych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, S. (2006a). Idiolekt specjalistyczny – idiokultura specjalistyczna – interkulturowość specjalistyczna. In J.
Lewandowski, M. Kornacka, & W. Woźniakowski (Eds.), Teksty specjalistyczne w kontekstach międzykulturowych
i tłumaczeniach (pp. 30–49). Warszawa: Katedra Języków Specjalistycznych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, S. (2006b). Komunikacja specjalistyczna a idiokontekst specjalistyczny i konsytuacja specjalistyczna.
Studia Rossica XVIII. Glottodydaktyka i jej konteksty interkulturowe, 209-223.
Grucza, S. (2010). Główne tezy antropocentrycznej teorii języków. Lingwistyka Stosowana – Applied Linguistics
– Angewandte Linguistik. Przegląd/Review 2, 41-68.
Grucza, S. (2013). Od lingwistyki tekstu do lingwistyki tekstu specjalistycznego. Warszawa: IKL.
Gumperz, J. J. (1983). Discourse Strategies, New York etc. Cambridge University Press.
Hatfield, J. D., & Weider-Hatfield, D. (1978). The Comparative Utility of Three Types of Behavioral Units for
Interaction Analysis. Communication Monographs, 45(1), 44–50. doi:10.1080/03637757809375950
Heller, M. (2009). Filozofia nauki. Wprowadzenie. Kraków: Petrus.
Holmwood, J. (2005). Functionalism and its Critics. In A. Harrington (Ed.), Modern Social Theory: An
Introduction (pp. 87–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kellokumpu, V., Zhao, G., & Pietikäinen, M. (2007). Recognition of human actions using texture descriptors.
Machine Vision and Applications, 22(5), 767–780. doi:10.1007/s00138-009-0233-8
Kilduff, M., Mahra, A., & Dunn, M. B. (2011). From Blue Sky Research to Problem Solving: A Philosophy of
Science Theory of New Knowledge Production. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 297–317.
Kotarbiński, T. (1969). Traktat o dobrej robocie. Wrocław/Warszawa: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Lee, D. Y. W. (2008). 6. Corpora and discourse analysis. New ways of doing old things. In K. B. Vijay, J.
Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in Discourse Studies (pp. 86–99). London, New York: Routledge.
Liebowitz, J. (2001). Knowledge management and its link to artificial intelligence. Expert Systems with
Applications, 20(1), 1–6. doi:10.1016/S0957-4174(00)00044-0
Little, D. (1993). Evidence and Objectivity in the Social Sciences. Social Research, 60(2), 363–396.
Matos, F., & Lopes, A. (2003). Intellectual Capital Management. SMEs Accreditation.
McAfee, A., Goldbloom, A., Brynjolfsson, E., & Howard, J. (2014). Artificial intelligence meets the C-suite.
McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 66-75.
Pentland, A., & Liu, A. (1999). Modeling and Prediction of Human Behavior. Neural Computation, 11(1),
229–242. doi:10.1162/089976699300016890 PMID:9950731
Prechtl, P. (2007). Wprowadzenie do filozofii języka. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.

48
 International Journal of Systems and Society
Volume 3 • Issue 2 • July-December 2016

Renkema, J. (2001). Undercover research into text quality as a tool for communication management. The case
of the Dutch tax department. In D. Janssen & R. Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp.
37–57). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/ddcs.1.03ren
Renkema, J. (2009). Improving the Quality of Governmental Documents: A Combined Academic and
Professional Approach. In W. Cheng & K. C. C. Kong (Eds.), Professional Communication: Collaboration
between Academics and Practitioners (pp. 173–190). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. doi:10.5790/
hongkong/9789622099654.003.0010
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural
Communication. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230244511
Staab, A., & Studer, R. (2009). Handbook on Ontologies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3
Symonds, J. E., & Gorard, S. (2010). Death Of Mixed Methods? Or the Rebirth of Research as a Craft. Evaluation
and Research in Education, 23(2), 121–136. doi:10.1080/09500790.2010.483514
Turaga, P., Chellappa, R., Subrahmanian, V. S., & Udrea, O. (2008). Machine Recognition of Human Activities:
A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 18(11), 1473–1488. doi:10.1109/
TCSVT.2008.2005594
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207
White, L., & Taket, A. (1996). The End of Theory? International Journal of Management Sciences, 24(1), 47–56.
Yanchinda, J., Yodmongkon, P., Pitipong, Ch., Chakpitak, N., & Goldsmith, P. (2011). Using Ontologies for
Knowledge Management: The Chaipattana Aerator Project. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning (pp. 806-817).
Ziembiński, Z. (2006). Logika praktyczna. Warszawa: PWN.

ENDNOTES
1
An early version of this paper was published in V. Benson and F. Filippaios (Eds.), (2016). Proceedings
of the 15h European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies.

49
View publication stats