The Practice of Multimodal Approaches, the Challenge of Cross-Cultural Communication, and the Search for Responses

The development of multimodal approachespresents an opportunity for human beings to increasetheir competence in managing complexity, while at thesame time brings a challenge of cross-culturalcommunication. Some claim that two approaches have beenproposed for tackling this challenge: an approach offrameworks and an approach ofdiscourse. Some go further to contenddropping frameworks and taking up discourse. This paper argues that, if it istrue that there exist these two approaches, neither theframeworks nor the discourseapproach alone is sufficient. It is suggested thatresearchers and practitioners may be better equipped byparticipating in discourses with and among frameworks.Employing three metaphors, this paper proposes that, inthe way force-fields andconstellations require and imply each other, both frameworks anddiscourse are necessary for human beings to act as aPeircian fiber-cable in socialproblem-solving.Requests for reprints should be addressed to Zhichang Zhu, Department of Information Systems, Lincoln School of Management, Lincoln LN6 7TS, United Kingdom.     

The Dutch IOR Approach to Organizational Design: An Alternative to Business Process Re-engineering?

This paper presents the current Dutchsociotechnical design approach to integralorganizational renewal in a contextual way. Both itsdesign theory and intervention processes are reviewedand some aggregated empirical evidence is presented. Next, thepaper compares the ideas developed in the Dutch approachto those presented in its American, Scandinavian, andAustralian counterparts. It is concluded that, at a meta-level, they all share the ideal ofparticipative democracy, while at the conceptual level,these distinctive approaches appear quite incompatible.Notwithstanding substantial diversity, it is presumed these approaches can be seen as localmanifestations of a single sociotechnicalparadigm.     

The Downside of Downsizing

With the help of data obtained from open-endedinterviews conducted with the various stakeholders indownsizing operations and applied within a clinicalframework, individual reaction patterns are explored in the victims, the survivors (those stayingwith a company after layoffs), and theexecutioners (those responsible for theimplementation of downsizing). Special emphasis is givento the reactions of the executives implementing the downsizingoperation. Among this group of people, a number of waysof coping can be discerned, described ascompulsive/ritualistic, abrasive, dissociative,alexithymic/anhedonic, and depressive. The article ends with a numberof practical recommendations about how to facilitate thedownsizing process. From the interviews conducted, itappears that downsizing, in the more narrow sense of the word, can be a quite destructiveprocess. Reframing the concept so that downsizing isviewed as a continuous process of corporatetransformation and change, a way to plan for thecontinuity of the organization, seems to be a moreconstructive approach.     

The “Three Waves” of Industrial Group Work: Historical Reflections on Current Research on Group Work

This paper deals with the three waves of the discourse on group work in social science and industrial practice that have helped pave the way for the current boom in the introduction of group work in companies. These waves are represented by the human relations approach, the sociotechnical systems approach, and the lean management debate. They are reviewed in two perspectives. The first relates to their concepts of work design and group work, following four questions: (a) What emphasis is put on work factors or on subjective orientations, on the design of working conditions or symbolic strategies? (b) How do the various approaches address the relationship between efficiency and control? (c) Which concepts of participation or democracy are involved? (d) How is the role of the social scientist in the process of industrial modernization conceptualized, explicitly or implicitly? The second perspective from a sociology of science relates to the context of production and utilization of social scientific knowledge. In general, two theses are put forward. The first states that a gap exists between the aspirations and reality of group work because the basic conflict of efficiency and control has been overlooked for ideological reasons. The second postulates that there is no linear progress in the theory and practice of group work. It seems that the socioeconomical context determines reasonably which group concept and ideology dominates certain historical phases of industrial modernization.