Chaos and Transformation Theories: A Theoretical Analysis with Implications for Organization Theory and Public Management

Chaos and transformation theories have emerged as new currencies in social sciences in general and in systems design and management, and in futuristic studies in particular. This article analyzes chaos and transformation theories in historical and contemporary perspectives, their contributions to social science in general, and organization theory and public management in particular. The notions of chaos and order, change and continuity, and uncertainty and certainty are analyzed along with the growing realization of complexity and non-linear dynamic features of modern organizations and the hard reality of a constant necessity to acquire new knowledge and learn to manage organizations with flexibility and innovation. Finally, the article addresses some of the limitations of chaos theory and outlines a number of implications for organization theory and public management in the age of globalization.     

Specters,Inc.: The Elusive Basis of the Corporation

In this article we discuss the political and economic consequences of the contemporary legal theory of incorporation. We argue that incorporation has developed historically in a way that makes it internally inconsistent, but that this inconsistency is useful for the powerful because of its legal and economic effects. The corporation can “shape shift,” which is very helpful for claiming some rights and disavowing certain responsibilities. Of course this flexibility comes at the expense of consistent concepts and this leads to the creation of what we term an “ideal‐type reified singular representation.” We go on to show the far‐reaching effects of this representation for legal studies, economics, and political theory, and show it worked in the pro‐corporate decision in the recent Citizens United case. We conclude by providing several alternative ways to think about the nature of corporate organization.     

Colonel Urwick and “organization”

This paper examines Urwick's view that confusion of two meanings of the term “organization”, due to social scientists, has diverted attention from the study of organization structure and the task oriented nature of management. It is maintained that this view is not an adequate characterization of Organization Theory. The relationship between social science and management theory is examined, and the approaches are held to be symbiotic, not, as Urwick suggests, competitive.     

The Use of Anthropomorphizing as a Tool for Generating Organizational Theories

Abstract

Despite admonishments that anthropomorphizing represents a serious error in scientific thinking, this review shows that anthropomorphizing has been a critically important tool for developing influential theories in organization studies. Analyzing the literatures related to organizational identity and organizational knowledge reveals how organization theorists build on their rich and highly accessible understanding of humans (i.e. the self and others) to (1) make guesses and sense of organizational anomalies, (2) articulate theoretical mechanisms to build stronger theories, and (3) create plausible stories that facilitate sensegiving. Our review shows how some theorists by using particular approaches were able to use anthropomorphizing to generate new organizational theories, yet anthropomorphizing does not always lead to such salutary outcomes. Anthropomorphizing is less likely to enhance theorizing in organization studies when the theorist does not sufficiently doubt their guesses about organizational phenomena, fails to develop stronger explanations of the “how” and “why” of the theory thereby only partially exploring the social mechanisms underlying the proposed relationships, and fails in their attempts to tell the theory's “story”. We conclude with a discussion of the conditions under which anthropomorphizing is more or less effective.     

Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: A dual-identity framework

Research exploring the powerful links between leadership and identity has burgeoned in recent years but cohered around two distinct approaches. Research on identity leadership, the main focus of this special issue, sees leadership as a group process that centers on leaders’ ability to represent, advance, create and embed a social identity that they share with the collectives they lead—a sense of “us as a group”. Research on leader identity sees leadership as a process that is advanced by individuals who have a well-developed personal understanding of themselves as leaders—a sense of “me as a leader”. This article explores the nature and implications of these divergent approaches, focusing on their specification of profiles, processes, pathways, products, and philosophies that have distinct implications for theory and practice. We formalize our observations in a series of propositions and also outline a dual-identity framework with the potential to integrate the two approaches.     

History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye

Abstract

There has been a growing debate about the role of history in management research with several authors making suggestions on how to bring the two (back) together and others even highlighting the need for a “historic turn”. What we argue in this paper is that, while history was indeed sidelined by the scientization of management since the late 1950s, it started to make a comeback from the 1980s onwards and is increasingly employed in a number of research programs. We stress that the crucial question for management scholars engaging with history (or wanting to do so) is how it relates to theory. First of all, we present a systematic overview of the way history has been used—both at the micro (organizational) and macro-levels of analysis—distinguishing between what we refer to as “history to theory” and “history in theory”. In the former, we consider those research programs, such as (neo-)institutionalism, where history serves as evidence to develop, modify or test theories. In the case of “history in theory” we identify research programs where history or the past are part of the theoretical model itself as a driver or moderator, with “imprinting” as a prime example. Second, we also identify a growing number of studies that go further by displaying what we call “historical cognizance” in the sense of incorporating period effects or historical contingencies into their theorizing efforts. Finally, drawing on our broad overview, we make more specific suggestions for increasing the visibility and influence of history in organization and management theory.     

The Visual Dimension in Organizing,Organization, and Organization Research: Core Ideas,Current Developments,and Promising Avenues

With the unprecedented rise in the use of visuals, and its undeniable omnipresence in organizational contexts, as well as in the individual's everyday life, organization and management science has recently started to pay closer attention to the to date under-theorized “visual mode” of discourse and meaning construction. Building primarily on insights from the phenomenological tradition in organization theory and from social semiotics, this article sets out to consolidate previous scholarly efforts and to sketch a fertile future research agenda. After briefly exploring the workings of visuals, we introduce the methodological and theoretical “roots” of visual studies in a number of disciplines that have a long-standing tradition of incorporating the visual. We then continue by extensively reviewing work in the field of organization and management studies: More specifically, we present five distinct approaches to feature visuals in research designs and to include the visual dimension in scholarly inquiry. Subsequently, we outline, in some detail, promising avenues for future research, and close with a reflection on the impact of visualization on scientific practice itself.     

Competitive renaissance through digital transformation

Dramatic health, environmental, and social-related challenges put pressure on firms to rethink their strategies and growth paths. Is a digital-enabled transformation able to help firms cope with these challenges and drive a competitive renaissance of our economic system? Are extant theories and concepts able to interpret the digital transformation? This management focus section aims to advance a relevant and impactful research agenda in the area of “business strategy and digitalization” through 4 contributions – both conceptual and empirical – that contribute to the understanding of the so-called “digital transformation” and its implications for both scholars and practitioners.     

Social Structures and Resistance to Strategic Change: British Manufacturers in the 1980s1

This article examines the refusal of two UK manufacturers to adapt their strategic ‘repertoires’ to the recessionary and structural changes of the 1980s. From being industry leaders in 1980, both companies were relegated to overseas control by the end of the decade. Developing both institutionalist and contextualist approaches to organization, the article argues that this fatal resistance to change derived from the deep social structural roots of these two companies' politics and cultures. Conservative managers were able to defy new capitalist logics by drawing upon alternative social structural sources of power, legitimacy and inspiration. The article concludes by considering the implications of this plural structuring of organizations both for organizational theory and for the management of change in practice.     

PROPOSALS FOR A PROGRAM OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH INTO THE PROPERTIES OF TRIANGLES*

Physical geometry is viewed in this essay as the prototype of a successful generalizing empirical science. Suppose that physical geometry had been studied in ancient Egypt by empirical methods similar to those commonly used today by many researchers seeking general propositions useful in explaining, predicting, or controlling phenomena of interest to practicing managers. Would these methods have produced valid and useful geometric generalizations? This intriguing question is explored in Part I by means of a parable which suggests a negative answer to the question. The reasons for this negative conclusion are developed in Part II. In the successful generalizing sciences, general propositions (or theory) have not been the result of an a posteriori“induction” from observational data, but rather the result of an a priori“construction” of a framework for the coordination of measurement operations. Such a framework, whether explicitly articulated or not, is a necessary condition for the collection of coherent and reproducible observational data and, therefore, for explanation, prediction, and control of phenomena. Yet, despite its a priori character, an acceptable framework or theory must be “empirical” in Popper's sense of being subject to refutation by observation. If the framework is logically prior to data, however, what is its source? In the successful generalizing sciences, it is argued in Part III, theories have been generalized not from data but from the skills—the coordination of operations—of practitioners. This genesis “explains” the success of the sciences, because an effective skill includes within itself tests of its range of applicability and adapts itself to changing conditions. A discussion of the implications of this argument for making management “scientific” concludes the essay.     

Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management

Most cultural approaches to risk management deal with the connections between the forms of social relations within groups and the risk concerns of those groups. According to these theories, a certain limited set of different relational forms (usually three, four, or five) lead to specific, different and conflicting, risk concerns. In contrast to these theories, cosmopolitanism is an approach to culture that focuses, not on forms of sociality, but on changes among forms—expansions and contractions in the inclusivity of forms and movement by persons from one form of sociality to another. Relative to other cultural theories, cosmopolitanism thus is much more concerned with the solution of risk management problems than with their origins. Cosmopolitanism can be thought of as a cultural continuum, with cosmopolitanism at one end and pluralism at the other. Cosmopolitan persons are more open to cultural change—and thus the solution of risk management problems. In this article, we outline our new theory of cosmopolitanism, describe a method for measuring it and present an experimental study that tests some implications of the theory. Results from the study support the theory by showing that, compared to pluralistic respondents, cosmopolitan respondents are more inclusive in their risk management judgments—that is, they express equal concern for a local and a national issue, whereas the pluralistic respondents express greater concern in the local case. We discuss the risk management implications of a cosmopolitan approach to culture.     

Foundations and Implications of a Proposed Unified Services Theory

Diverse businesses, such as garbage collection, retail banking, and management consulting are often tied together under the heading of “services”, based on little more than a perception that they are intangible and do not manufacture anything. Such definitions inadequately identify managerial and operational implications common among, and unique to, services. We present a “Unified Services Theory” (UST) to clearly delineate service processes from non‐service processes and to identify key commonalities across seemingly disparate service businesses. The UST defines a service production process as one that relies on customer inputs; customers act as suppliers for all service processes. Non‐services (such as make‐to‐stock manufacturing) rely on customer selection of outputs, payment for outputs, and occasional feedback, but production is not dependent upon inputs from individual customers. The UST reveals principles that are common to the wide range of services and provides a unifying foundation for various theories and models of service operations, such as the traditional “characteristics of services” and Customer Contact Theory. The UST has significant operational corollaries pertaining to capacity and demand management, service quality, services strategy, and so forth. The UST provides a common reference point to which services management researchers can anchor future theory‐building and theory‐testing research.     

Microfoundations of Unemployment Theory

Abstract. Both the efficiency wage theory and the insider-outsider theory are promising attempts to explain the existence of unemployment. These theories also explain why workers are often laid-off or fired, rather than retained at lower wages than the initial ones when there is a reduction in the demand for labour. The type of unemployment that is explained in these theories may also be called “involuntary” in a well-defined way; the distinction between voluntary and involuntary unemployment is then made on the basis of the constraints that apply for economic agents. This paper tries to pin down such constraints, and to investigate whether various theories of unemployment are able to answer the fundamental questions that a good theory of unemployment should be able to answer.     

A Model for Implementing a Sustainability Strategy through HRM Practices

There is a rapidly growing interest in the topic of sustainability as it relates to long‐term business performance that optimizes the “triple bottom line”: economic, environmental, and social outcomes. This article articulates a multilevel conceptual model for executing a business strategy for sustainability primarily through the design and implementation of human resource management practices. The model builds on open systems theory, the resource based view of the firm, and the concept of line of sight to identify certain key organizational capabilities, group competencies, and individual abilities and other characteristics that combine to drive organizational performance when pursuing a sustainability strategy. The article concludes with a discussion of implications of the model for theory, research, and practice.     

Conceptualizing leadership with respect to its historical–contextual antecedents to power

An attempt is made here to build on the ideas and arguments presented in a recent Leadership Quarterly journal article written by Hunt and Dodge [Leadership Q. Yearly Overview Leadership 11 (2000) 435]. In their article, these authors argue that contemporary leadership researchers tend to neglect the historical–contextual antecedents of the field and as a result are developing many theories that reflect little more than a form of “academic amnesia” and “leadership déjà vu”. The importance of Hunt and Dodge's argument is reinforced through the use here of a form of deconstruction to reveal a lacuna in the leadership literature—the insufficient coverage of power, particularly at what is termed a deep structure level. With the current context of organizational change in mind, this lacuna is shown to have problematic consequences for leadership theory in general. More specifically, the increasing use of dispersed leadership strategies is shown to be particularly problematic. The article proposes a new conceptual framework that begins to address these problems and in so doing provides ideas and challenges for future research in the field.     

Complexity theories and organizational change

Complexity theory or, more appropriately, theories, serves as an umbrella term for a number of theories, ideas and research programmes that are derived from scientific disciplines such as meteorology, biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics. Complexity theories are increasingly being seen by academics and practitioners as a way of understanding and changing organizations. The aim of this paper is to review the nature of complexity theories and their importance and implications for organizations and organizational change. It begins by showing how perspectives on organizational change have altered over the last 20 years. This is followed by an examination of complexity theories and their implications for organizational change. The paper concludes by arguing that, even in the natural sciences, the complexity approach is not fully developed or unchallenged, and that, as yet, organization theorists do not appear to have moved beyond the stage of using it as metaphor rather than as a mathematical way of analysing and managing organizations.     

THE RED QUEEN: HISTORY-DEPENDENT COMPETITION AMONG ORGANIZATIONS

We argue that competition among organizations is history-dependent, so that each organization’s competitiveness at a given point in time hinges on the organization’s historical experience leading up to that point. Specifically, we summarize the theory of “Red Queen” competition, where competition de-selects weak organizations and stimulates organizational learning, which in turn further increases the intensity of competition and so further strengthens survivors in an ongoing dynamic of reciprocal causality. Empirical evidence of Red Queen competition is summarized from various analyses of two organizational populations. We conclude that theories and empirical models of competition may be seriously mis-specified, and that the analytic tools of the field of strategic management may lead to incorrect conclusions, if they do not explicitly allow for this form of history dependence in competition.     

As Public Goes Private, Social Emerges: The Rise of Social Enterprise

This article explores the relationship between social enterprise and a much-longer known set of arrangements generally comprehended as “public enterprise” (or “state-owned enterprise”). It considers the decline in some contexts in the use of, and interest in, public enterprise that reflects the impact of the privatization movement, and the rise of social enterprise as an alternative form—with speculation about cause-and-effect connections between these movements. An exploration of this sort may contribute in the longer term to a better understanding of the place of “public”, “social” and “community” values and structures within the general framework of governance.     

The wider implications of business-model research

Business-model research has struggled to develop a clear footprint in the strategic management field. This introduction to the special issue on the wider implications of business-model research argues that part of this struggle relates to the application of five different perspectives on the term “business model,” which creates ambiguity about the conceptual boundaries of business models, the applied terminology, and the potential contributions of business-model research to strategic management literature. By explicitly distinguishing among these five perspectives and by aligning them into one overarching, comprehensive framework, this paper offers a foundation for consolidating business-model research. Furthermore, we explore the connections between business-model research and prominent theories in strategic management. We conclude that business-model research is not necessarily a “theory on its own” and that it can be more fruitfully understood as a theoretical mechanism for combining different literature streams. As such, business-model research is positioned as a central connecting component in the further development of the strategic management field.     

Are we going towards a society of “activity” or “work”?*

Abstract. The aim of the article is to discuss the perspective of a decline in dependent work - which Dahrendorf and Braverman had argued was coming - either due to an emerging society of “activities” or a process of work “degradation”. Why did such a scenario not prove to be realistic? The author shows from which concepts such a downgrading stems and points out the responsibility of approaches that do not see work as a social activity and see technology as a deus ex machina. As a matter of fact, the western world is not experiencing a dissolution but, rather, a persistent (if not growing) importance of work. The author sketches the great technical and organizational transformation in the ongoing production patterns and work schemes in contemporary society. He maintains that these processes, decreasing the homogeneity and increasing the heterogeneity of work, make a society of “works” more likely than one of “activities”.