Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221131580
Martin Parker
In this paper I consider the concept “organization” by using the weed as an example of a category in human culture. The disorganization of the weed is often contrasted to the forms of order that produce farms and gardens, terrains of human labor defended against the wild. In contrast, European romanticism and much environmental thought tends to celebrate that which lies outside culture as being more authentic or regenerative. A survey of these intellectual landscapes is then followed by a consideration of how certain plants move in and out of the category of weed, and what this tells us about an epistemology of organization, particularly a vegetal or post-metaphysical account of organization. Finally, I suggest that it is necessary in Anthropocene conditions, to trouble the boundary between organization and disorganization, and hence to wild organization theory.
{"title":"Weeds: Classification, Organization, and Wilding","authors":"Martin Parker","doi":"10.1177/26317877221131580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131580","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I consider the concept “organization” by using the weed as an example of a category in human culture. The disorganization of the weed is often contrasted to the forms of order that produce farms and gardens, terrains of human labor defended against the wild. In contrast, European romanticism and much environmental thought tends to celebrate that which lies outside culture as being more authentic or regenerative. A survey of these intellectual landscapes is then followed by a consideration of how certain plants move in and out of the category of weed, and what this tells us about an epistemology of organization, particularly a vegetal or post-metaphysical account of organization. Finally, I suggest that it is necessary in Anthropocene conditions, to trouble the boundary between organization and disorganization, and hence to wild organization theory.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82803797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221131587
Cara Reed, M. Reed
There is an emerging consensus both within the social scientific research community and more widely in the public domain that expert authority is “in trouble.” However, there is much greater disagreement over the scope and scale of this trouble and what it might mean for the nature, status, and significance of expert authority in the 21st century. This paper identifies and assesses three different narratives concerning the crisis in expert authority. These constitute the delegitimation narrative, the demystification narrative, and the decomposition narrative. They can be seen as responses to the breakdown in the implicit social contract between experts, publics, and states under the extreme and continuous pressures exerted on expert authority by disjunctive change. We evaluate these various interpretations of the crisis in expert authority, particularly in terms of what they suggest about the future potency and stability of the concept of expert authority. In this process of evaluation, we also highlight the emergence of reflexive expert authority and its implications for organizational governance as potential outcomes of this ongoing crisis in the legitimacy and status of expert workers. Consequently, the paper provides a general analytical framework for understanding the emergent narratives around expert authority in democracies and highlights how all three narratives point to serious problems in sustaining this authority in the face of destabilizing change. Furthermore, in developing the notion of reflexive expert authority, we contend that theorization of expert authority needs to privilege the deeper dynamics of trust and control at the core of its analytical focus within organization theory.
{"title":"Expert Authority in Crisis: Making Authority Real Through Struggle","authors":"Cara Reed, M. Reed","doi":"10.1177/26317877221131587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131587","url":null,"abstract":"There is an emerging consensus both within the social scientific research community and more widely in the public domain that expert authority is “in trouble.” However, there is much greater disagreement over the scope and scale of this trouble and what it might mean for the nature, status, and significance of expert authority in the 21st century. This paper identifies and assesses three different narratives concerning the crisis in expert authority. These constitute the delegitimation narrative, the demystification narrative, and the decomposition narrative. They can be seen as responses to the breakdown in the implicit social contract between experts, publics, and states under the extreme and continuous pressures exerted on expert authority by disjunctive change. We evaluate these various interpretations of the crisis in expert authority, particularly in terms of what they suggest about the future potency and stability of the concept of expert authority. In this process of evaluation, we also highlight the emergence of reflexive expert authority and its implications for organizational governance as potential outcomes of this ongoing crisis in the legitimacy and status of expert workers. Consequently, the paper provides a general analytical framework for understanding the emergent narratives around expert authority in democracies and highlights how all three narratives point to serious problems in sustaining this authority in the face of destabilizing change. Furthermore, in developing the notion of reflexive expert authority, we contend that theorization of expert authority needs to privilege the deeper dynamics of trust and control at the core of its analytical focus within organization theory.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87044158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221131585
T. Hernes, David Obstfeld
This paper contributes a narrative dimension for the temporality of organizational sensemaking. Reconciling sensemaking with a broader understanding of time not only provides a more in-depth treatment of time in sensemaking. It also helps overcome existing dichotomies in temporal theorizing to advance a more dynamic temporal theorizing in organizational research. To extend a temporal understanding of sensemaking, we discuss Ricoeur’s theory of narrative and time in light of his prefigurative, configurative, and refigurative modes of time. We then suggest ways that this framework illuminates how three corresponding temporal modes of sensemaking connect through time, drawing on Weick’s analysis of the Mann Gulch disaster to illustrate the framework. Finally, we discuss how the recursive features of our framework enable understanding of the situated dynamics by which actors move through time, thus contributing a way to deal with the “stationarity problem” of temporal theorizing.
{"title":"A Temporal Narrative View of Sensemaking","authors":"T. Hernes, David Obstfeld","doi":"10.1177/26317877221131585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131585","url":null,"abstract":"This paper contributes a narrative dimension for the temporality of organizational sensemaking. Reconciling sensemaking with a broader understanding of time not only provides a more in-depth treatment of time in sensemaking. It also helps overcome existing dichotomies in temporal theorizing to advance a more dynamic temporal theorizing in organizational research. To extend a temporal understanding of sensemaking, we discuss Ricoeur’s theory of narrative and time in light of his prefigurative, configurative, and refigurative modes of time. We then suggest ways that this framework illuminates how three corresponding temporal modes of sensemaking connect through time, drawing on Weick’s analysis of the Mann Gulch disaster to illustrate the framework. Finally, we discuss how the recursive features of our framework enable understanding of the situated dynamics by which actors move through time, thus contributing a way to deal with the “stationarity problem” of temporal theorizing.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89631241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221131582
Nils Brunsson, Ingrid Gustafsson Nordin, Kristina Tamm Hallström
As the world becomes more and more organized, it seems ever more difficult to find anyone responsible. Why is that? We argue that the extensive external organization of organizations in contemporary society provides the key. Formal organizations are collective orders with great potential for concentrating responsibility on top managers and the organization. But when they are organized by other organizations, this potential is undermined, and responsibility becomes diluted rather than concentrated. We explain this outcome by analysing the communication of decisions as a main producer of responsibility and by defining organization as a decided order. Our analysis draws upon and contributes to research about partial organization, but it also contributes to literatures on global governance and organizational institutionalism.
{"title":"‘Un-responsible’ Organization: How More Organization Produces Less Responsibility","authors":"Nils Brunsson, Ingrid Gustafsson Nordin, Kristina Tamm Hallström","doi":"10.1177/26317877221131582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131582","url":null,"abstract":"As the world becomes more and more organized, it seems ever more difficult to find anyone responsible. Why is that? We argue that the extensive external organization of organizations in contemporary society provides the key. Formal organizations are collective orders with great potential for concentrating responsibility on top managers and the organization. But when they are organized by other organizations, this potential is undermined, and responsibility becomes diluted rather than concentrated. We explain this outcome by analysing the communication of decisions as a main producer of responsibility and by defining organization as a decided order. Our analysis draws upon and contributes to research about partial organization, but it also contributes to literatures on global governance and organizational institutionalism.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"742 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76890019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221131061
Juliane Reinecke, Eva Boxenbaum, Joel Gehman
Organization Theory is an academic journal dedicated to the development and dissemination of novel theory in the domain of organizational scholarship. At the same time, an increasing chorus of organizational scholars have advocated for “impact”—broadly defined as producing societal benefit beyond the realm of academia. In this editorial, we question the implicit dichotomy between theory, on the one hand, and impact, on the other, and critically explore the notion of impactful theory. Rather than seeing theory as inherently opposed to impact, we celebrate and elucidate theory as a meaningful way to achieve impact. Specifically, we unpack the apparent oxymoron of impactful theory, and articulate seven distinct pathways whereby theory can be impactful. We close by outlining several critical questions, both for individual scholars and our collective community, as well as future research directions.
{"title":"Impactful Theory: Pathways to Mattering","authors":"Juliane Reinecke, Eva Boxenbaum, Joel Gehman","doi":"10.1177/26317877221131061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131061","url":null,"abstract":"Organization Theory is an academic journal dedicated to the development and dissemination of novel theory in the domain of organizational scholarship. At the same time, an increasing chorus of organizational scholars have advocated for “impact”—broadly defined as producing societal benefit beyond the realm of academia. In this editorial, we question the implicit dichotomy between theory, on the one hand, and impact, on the other, and critically explore the notion of impactful theory. Rather than seeing theory as inherently opposed to impact, we celebrate and elucidate theory as a meaningful way to achieve impact. Specifically, we unpack the apparent oxymoron of impactful theory, and articulate seven distinct pathways whereby theory can be impactful. We close by outlining several critical questions, both for individual scholars and our collective community, as well as future research directions.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73128961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-14DOI: 10.1007/s10588-022-09364-1
B. Shapiro, A. Crooks
{"title":"Drone strikes and radicalization: an exploration utilizing agent-based modeling and data applied to Pakistan","authors":"B. Shapiro, A. Crooks","doi":"10.1007/s10588-022-09364-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-022-09364-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"29 1","pages":"415 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47773436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109280
K. Weick
When a perceptual order is turned into a conceptual order a disjunction between continuity and discontinuity is created. Sensemaking to manage this disjunction often consists of attributions of typicality formed intuitively or through deliberation. The details lost during this process can lead to further breakdowns. This process of “arrested sensemaking” is illustrated with a disaster at sea when a 790-foot container ship, the El Faro, sailed into the eye of a category 3 hurricane and capsized. All 33 crew members perished. The prevailing sense was that the rough seas were a “typical” storm, arresting sensemaking in the face of a looming disaster.
{"title":"Arrested Sensemaking: Typified Suppositions Sink the El Faro","authors":"K. Weick","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109280","url":null,"abstract":"When a perceptual order is turned into a conceptual order a disjunction between continuity and discontinuity is created. Sensemaking to manage this disjunction often consists of attributions of typicality formed intuitively or through deliberation. The details lost during this process can lead to further breakdowns. This process of “arrested sensemaking” is illustrated with a disaster at sea when a 790-foot container ship, the El Faro, sailed into the eye of a category 3 hurricane and capsized. All 33 crew members perished. The prevailing sense was that the rough seas were a “typical” storm, arresting sensemaking in the face of a looming disaster.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75920616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109277
A. Cunliffe
This essay is a provocation to debate. I argue that work in organization and management studies addressing how to theorize and construct ‘good’ theory is inherently masculinized and embraces a limited pluralism that ignores alternative, reflexive and more human ways of theorizing. As I will illustrate, most of the articles on the topic of theorizing about theory are written by men, and espouse forms of theorizing that are based on a masculinized rationality that privileges abstraction, a logic of objectivity and proceduralization. And while journal editors espouse theoretical pluralism, we are often exhorted to develop ‘theoretical balls’ by conforming to limited definitions of theory that privilege particular ways of knowing and theorizing which are considered imperative to getting published. I argue that there are other equally compelling ways of ‘theorizing’ that focus on who we are as human beings and how we experience self, life and work. I begin with a critique of the literature on theorizing theory, moving on to argue that this currently limits theorizing more humanly and imaginatively, due to ontological blindness, epistemological defensiveness, hegemonic masculinity and myopic self-referentiality. Finally, I offer alternative ways of theorizing and interpreting theory from a more human and reflexive perspective.
{"title":"Must I Grow a Pair of Balls to Theorize about Theory in Organization and Management Studies?","authors":"A. Cunliffe","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109277","url":null,"abstract":"This essay is a provocation to debate. I argue that work in organization and management studies addressing how to theorize and construct ‘good’ theory is inherently masculinized and embraces a limited pluralism that ignores alternative, reflexive and more human ways of theorizing. As I will illustrate, most of the articles on the topic of theorizing about theory are written by men, and espouse forms of theorizing that are based on a masculinized rationality that privileges abstraction, a logic of objectivity and proceduralization. And while journal editors espouse theoretical pluralism, we are often exhorted to develop ‘theoretical balls’ by conforming to limited definitions of theory that privilege particular ways of knowing and theorizing which are considered imperative to getting published. I argue that there are other equally compelling ways of ‘theorizing’ that focus on who we are as human beings and how we experience self, life and work. I begin with a critique of the literature on theorizing theory, moving on to argue that this currently limits theorizing more humanly and imaginatively, due to ontological blindness, epistemological defensiveness, hegemonic masculinity and myopic self-referentiality. Finally, I offer alternative ways of theorizing and interpreting theory from a more human and reflexive perspective.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"33 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75992541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109275
Waldemar Kremser, J. Sydow
Practice theories inform much of current organization and management research by focusing on social practices “in vivo and in situ,” helping us understand how they are produced, reproduced, connected, and eventually transformed by practitioners. Despite the explicit focus of these theories on process, some important dynamics within and across organizations remain undertheorized. This is particularly true for self-reinforcing processes like escalating commitment or path dependence. While such dynamics have been studied quite extensively with the help of other theories, this work often lacks a clear relation or relevance to lived life in organizations. This paper offers an integration of self-reinforcing dynamics into practice-based theorizing, and thereby outlines a new way of understanding self-reinforcement “in vivo and in situ.” By discussing the role and relevance of specific performative linkages as being “weak signals” for self-reinforcement, we provide a new way of analysing this important process phenomenon that is closer to life lived forward, where outcomes are necessarily uncertain, and practitioners can always choose to act differently.
{"title":"When Practices Control Practitioners: Integrating self-reinforcing dynamics into practice-based accounts of managing and organizing","authors":"Waldemar Kremser, J. Sydow","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109275","url":null,"abstract":"Practice theories inform much of current organization and management research by focusing on social practices “in vivo and in situ,” helping us understand how they are produced, reproduced, connected, and eventually transformed by practitioners. Despite the explicit focus of these theories on process, some important dynamics within and across organizations remain undertheorized. This is particularly true for self-reinforcing processes like escalating commitment or path dependence. While such dynamics have been studied quite extensively with the help of other theories, this work often lacks a clear relation or relevance to lived life in organizations. This paper offers an integration of self-reinforcing dynamics into practice-based theorizing, and thereby outlines a new way of understanding self-reinforcement “in vivo and in situ.” By discussing the role and relevance of specific performative linkages as being “weak signals” for self-reinforcement, we provide a new way of analysing this important process phenomenon that is closer to life lived forward, where outcomes are necessarily uncertain, and practitioners can always choose to act differently.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87198522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：