Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann's contribution to organization studies

Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems has been widely influential in the German-speaking countries in the past few decades. However, despite its significance, particularly for organization studies, it is only very recently that Luhmann's work has attracted attention on the international stage as well. This Special Issue is in response to that. In this introductory paper, we provide a systematic overview of Luhmann's theory. Reading his work as a theory about distinction generating and processing systems, we especially highlight the following aspects: (i) Organizations are processes that come into being by permanently constructing and reconstructing themselves by means of using distinctions, which mark what is part of their realm and what not. (ii) Such an organizational process belongs to a social sphere sui generis possessing its own logic, which cannot be traced back to human actors or subjects. (iii) Organizations are a specific kind of social process characterized by a specific kind of distinction: decision, which makes up what is specifically organizational about organizations as social phenomena. We conclude by introducing the papers in this Special Issue. Copyright © 2006 SAGE.

Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems : Niklas Luhmann's contribution to organization studies

Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems has been widely influential in the German-speaking countries in the past few decades. However, despite its significance, particularly for organization studies, it is only very recently that Luhmann's work has attracted attention on the international stage as well. This Special Issue is in response to that. In this introductory paper, we provide a systematic overview of Luhmann's theory. Reading his work as a theory about distinction generating and processing systems, we especially highlight the following aspects: (i) Organizations are processes that come into being by permanently constructing and reconstructing themselves by means of using distinctions, which mark what is part of their realm and what not. (ii) Such an organizational process belongs to a social sphere sui generis possessing its own logic, which cannot be traced back to human actors or subjects. (iii) Organizations are a specific kind of social process characterized by a specific kind of distinction: decision, which makes up what is specifically organizational about organizations as social phenomena. We conclude by introducing the papers in this Special Issue. Copyright © 2006 SAGE.

Compliance

Entry provides a concise description of obligations prescribed by laws and regulations, or procedural rules met by individuals or organisations. In the event of noncompliance, penalties are imposed. A conceptual overview, critical commentary and future directions on compliance provide the framework for this entry. The International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies is a definitive description of the field, spanning individual, organizational, societal, and cultural perspective in a cross-disciplinary manner. The Encyclopedia is thoroughly cross-referenced and entries are based around a series of broad themes. Key Features- Offers a comprehensive overview of many of the major ideas, concepts, terms, and approaches that characterise this diverse field of organization studies - Illustrates the fluidity, dynamism, and innovation that now occur in organization studies-internationally - Brings together a team of international contributors from the fields of: Management, Psychology, Sociology, Communications, Education, Political Science, Public Administration, Anthropology, Law and other related areas. - Examines how organizations are devices for structuring life and lives are structured by organizations

Procedural justice

Entry provides a concise description of procedural justice -the perceived fairness of organizational procedures in decision-making processes A conceptual overview, critical commentary and future directions provide the framework for this entry. The International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies is a definitive description of the field, spanning individual, organizational, societal, and cultural perspective in a cross-disciplinary manner. The Encyclopedia is thoroughly cross-referenced and entries are based around a series of broad themes. Key Features- Offers a comprehensive overview of many of the major ideas, concepts, terms, and approaches that characterise this diverse field of organization studies - Illustrates the fluidity, dynamism, and innovation that now occur in organization studies-internationally - Brings together a team of international contributors from the fields of: Management, Psychology, Sociology, Communications, Education, Political Science, Public Administration, Anthropology, Law and other related areas. - Examines how organizations are devices for structuring life and lives are structured by organizations

Monitoring identity of past, current and future : a performance management system perspective

This paper seeks to explore how organisations can effectively use performance management systems (PMS) to monitor collective identities. The monitoring of relationships between identity and an influential PMS—the balanced scorecard (BSC)—are explored. Drawing from identity and management accounting literature, this paper argues that identity products, patternings and processes are commonly positioned, monitored and interpreted through the multiple perspectives and levels of the BSC. Specifically, human, technical and organisational capital under the Learning and Growth perspective of the BSC can incorporate various identity measures that sustain the relative, distinctive and fluid nature of identities. The value of this research is to strengthen the theoretical grounds which position identity as an important dimension of organisational capital in PMS.

From cultural to creative industries : theory, industry, and policy implications

Across post-industrial societies worldwide, the creative industries are increasingly seen as a key economic driver. These industries - including fields as diverse as advertising, art, computer games, crafts, design, fashion, film, museums, music, performing arts, publishing, radio, theatre and TV - are built upon individual creativity and innovation and have the potential to create wealth and employment through the mechanism of intellectual property. Creative Industries: Critical Readings brings together the key writings - drawing on both journals and books - to present an authoritative and wide-ranging survey of this emerging field of study. The set is presented with an introduction and the writings are divided into four volumes, organized thematically: Volume 1: Concepts - focuses on the concept of creativity and the development of government and industry interest in creative industries; Volume 2: Economy - maps the role and function of creative industries in the economy at large; Volume 3: Organization - examines the ways in which creative institutions organize themselves; and Volume 4: Work - addresses issues of creative work, labour and careers This major reference work will be invaluable to scholars in economics, cultural studies, sociology, media studies and organization studies.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Reconnecting theory and practice in a pluralistic organizing context : issues and Aristotelian considerations

The overall purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theory - practice gap debate in organization studies, especially in pluralistic contexts such as project organizing. We briefly outline some of the current debates, i.e. modernist and postmodernist proposals, and the prevalent dichotomous thinking stance assumptions to better move beyond it, anchoring our contribution in the Aristotelian ethical and practical philosophy. We introduce the current state of the debate, part of the broad question of “science that matters”, and the various discourses between practice and academia within social sciences and more specifically organizational studies. We briefly critically summarize some main features of the two main philosophical stances (modernism, postmodernism), before presenting some key aspects, for the purpose of this paper, of the Aristotelian pre-modern practical and ethical philosophy. Then, we build on the foundations above established, discussing propositions to reconnect theory and practice according the Aristotelian ethical and practical philosophy, and some key implications for research notably in the following areas: roles played by practitioners and scholars, emancipatory praxeological style of reasoning, for closing the “phronetic gap” and reconnecting means and ends, facts and values, relation between collective praxis, development of “good practice” (standards), ethics and politics. We conclude highlighting the role of the suggested shift to an Aristotelian emancipatory style of reasoning for reconciling theory and practice.

From words to models : a bibliometric approach to designing agent-based models in entrepreneurship

Agent-based modeling and simulation (ABMS) may fit well with entrepreneurship research and practice because the core concepts and basic premises of entrepreneurship coincide with the characteristics of ABMS. However, it is difficult to find cases where ABMS is applied to entrepreneurship research. To apply ABMS to entrepreneurship and organization studies, designing a conceptual model is important; thus to effectively design a conceptual model, various mixed method approaches are being attempted. As a new mixed method approach to ABMS, this study proposes a bibliometric approach to designing agent based models, which establishes and analyzes a domain corpus. This study presents an example on the venture creation process using the bibliometric approach. This example shows us that the results of the multi-agent simulations on the venturing process based on the bibliometric approach are close to each nation’s surveyed data on the venturing activities. In conclusion, by the bibliometric approach proposed in this study, all the agents and the agents’ behaviors related to a phenomenon can be extracted effectively, and a conceptual model for ABMS can be designed with the agents and their behaviors. This study contributes to the entrepreneurship and organization studies by promoting the application of ABMS.

Reconnecting theory and practice in pluralistic contexts: Issues and Aristotelian considerations

The purpose of this article is to contribute, from a research practitioner perspective, to the theory–practice gap debate in organization studies, focusing on pluralistic contexts such as project organizing. The current debate is introduced; then the features of the two main philosophical traditions (i.e., modernism and postmodernism) are critically summarized. Then, propositions to reconnect theory and practice according to the Aristotelian premodern ethical and practical philosophy are discussed. Some key implications in the following areas are outlined: roles played by practitioners and scholars; emancipatory praxeological style of reasoning; closing the “phronetic gap”; and the development of “good practice,” ethics, and politics.

Interview with Dr. Young-Ki Paik, President of the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO): Pharmacoproteomics and the approaching wave of “Proteomics Diagnostics”

Dr. Young-Ki Paik directs the Yonsei Proteome Research Center in Seoul, Korea and was elected as the President of the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) in 2009. In the December 2009 issue of the Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine (CPPM), Dr. Paik explains the new field of pharmacoproteomics and the approaching wave of “proteomics diagnostics” in relation to personalized medicine, HUPO’s role in advancing proteomics technology applications, the HUPO Proteomics Standards Initiative, and the future impact of proteomics on medicine, science, and society. Additionally, he comments that (1) there is a need for launching a Gene-Centric Human Proteome Project (GCHPP) through which all representative proteins encoded by the genes can be identified and quantified in a specific cell and tissue and, (2) that the innovation frameworks within the diagnostics industry hitherto borrowed from the genetics age may require reevaluation in the case of proteomics, in order to facilitate the uptake of pharmacoproteomics innovations. He stresses the importance of biological/clinical plausibility driving the evolution of biotechnologies such as proteomics,instead of an isolated singular focus on the technology per se. Dr. Paik earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Missouri-Columbia and carried out postdoctoral work at the Gladstone Foundation Laboratories of Cardiovascular Disease, University of California at San Francisco. In 2005, his research team at Yonsei University first identified and characterized the chemical structure of C. elegans dauer pheromone (daumone) which controls the aging process of this nematode. He is interviewed by a multidisciplinary team specializing in knowledge translation, technology regulation, health systems governance, and innovation analysis.

Public sector change, person-organization fit, and work attitudes : a mediation model

Organizational change is a typical phenomenon within public sector agencies in OECD countries. An increasing number of studies in the literature examine the implementation of change and its resulting impact on the work attitudes of public sector employees; however, little is known about the extent to which change management processes impact on employees’ work attitudes. This study aims to address this issue by developing a path model underpinned by change management and public service motivation literature. The path model was tested on a sample of 308 managerial and non-managerial public sector employees from the U.S. The results provide further empirical evidence on the types of change initiatives on nursing work and change management processes being implemented. Public sector agencies in the sample implemented a variety of change initiatives such as downsizing, delayering and empowerment. Employees reported two change management processes: the provision of change-related information and participation in change decision making. While the results indicate that change produces change-induced stressors, change information tends to reduce stressors and, subsequently, role stress. The results also indicate that change management processes are associated with higher levels of public service motivation, which is in turn connected to higher levels of person–organization fit. Person–organization fit was found to partially mediate the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction in the context of change.