Suchergebnisse

A critical stage in change toward institutional pluralism occurs when incumbent organizations must begin to integrate diverse logics in their operations. The required institutional work inside organizations at that stage—institutional intrapreneurship—involves distinctive challenges. Incumbent logics are entrenched in organizational routines, status orders, policies, and structures that hamper change and trigger resistance. We used qualitative data from two integrative medicine (IM) programs inside large healthcare organizations to understand how institutional intrapreneurs work to integrate the IM logic in these highly institutionalized organizations. We found that intrapreneurs use opportunistic tactics to create and strengthen organizational free spaces aligned with the new logic, and then leverage the capacity that is developed to extend elements of the new logic into the broader organization. This study suggests that a better understanding of the organizational context helps explain the fate of early-stage efforts toward institutional change.

Organization studies is a robust field, replete with diverse, often contentious perspectives that may enrich understandings of pluralism and paradox. Yet polarization of modern paradigms and ruptures between modern and postmodern stances may inhibit researchers from tapping this potential. In response, this article delves into a provocative alternative - multiparadigm inquiry. First, we juxtapose modern, postmodern and multiparadigm approaches to contrast their underlying assumptions. We then review three multiparadigm strategies, exploring their objectives, exemplars and limitations. Our conclusion addresses how multiparadigm inquiry fosters greater reflexivity, while posing considerable challenges.

AbstractWhen might high ethnic mobilization co-exist with social pluralism? The article addresses this question by comparing four of India's major ethnic movements/parties. "Organizational pluralism" denotes flexibility and autonomy in party-society and intra-party transactions. Pluralism within influential political organizations aids social pluralism. High levels of organizational pluralism led Dravidianism to aid social pluralism; comparatively low levels led Hindu revivalist and Sikh organizations to ignore incentives to adopt more inclusive strategies. States willing and able to foster tolerance will emerge amidst high ethnic mobilization only if activists promote pluralism within major ethnic organizations.

Analytic philosophy has come to dominate organizational theory and management education, despite criticism from several notable scholars. The European continental philosophical tradition, on the other hand, is seen by some as a counterpoint to US- and UK-dominated functionalistic organizational theories. These two very different schools of thought are now largely practiced in isolation from one another. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century philosopher Ernst Cassirer served as a mediating force and facilitated a fruitful dialogue between the two schools until he was forced to leave Germany when the Nazi party came to power. In Pluralism in Management, author Eirik J. Irgens utilizes Ernst Cassirer's pluralistic philosophy in order to investigate how different but connected forms of knowing, including art, myth, religion, science, and history may help us become better organizational scholars and management educators. With a special emphasis on the complementary qualities of art and science, Irgens builds on Cassirer to discuss how art and science represent two different but complementary channels to reality, in contrast with each other but not in conflict or contradiction, and the challenge of developing "two-eyed" managers. Revitalizing Cassirer's almost forgotten philosophy, the book illustrates the value of philosophical application to organizational study, and the need for bringing together the best of the humanities and the science based management traditions in order to improve management education

Analytic philosophy has come to dominate organizational theory and management education, despite criticism from several notable scholars. The European continental philosophical tradition, on the other hand, is seen by some as a counterpoint to US- and UK-dominated functionalistic organizational theories. These two very different schools of thought are now largely practiced in isolation from one another. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century philosopher Ernst Cassirer served as a mediating force and facilitated a fruitful dialogue between the two schools until he was forced to leave Germa

This paper problematizes a particular story of organizational transformation currently circulating within organization studies. In this story a chain of equivalences emerges in which the vicissitudes of contemporary 'environmental change' make certain forms of organizational conduct redundant while at the same time bringing novel forms into being. The old and the new can even be named. The former is represented by the hierarchicallyordered bureaucracy-often described as the epitome of 'modern' organization-and the latter by the entrepreneurial corporation-often imagined as typifying 'postmodern' organization. According to proponents of this story the ascendance of the new entrepreneurialism is a cause for celebration as it offers hopeful ways of living with difference and promoting pluralism in contrast to the bureaucratic practice of excluding or nullifying difference and suppressing pluralism. The paper sets out to challenge this 'just so' story of organizational transformation by indicating that under certain circumstances and in certain domains it is bureaucratic norms of organizational conduct that protect and enhance pluralism. Instead of agreeing with the representation of the impersonal, procedural and hierarchical character of bureaucracy as a symptom of moral deficiency, the paper argues that the bureau be assessed in its own right as a crucial ethical andpolitical resource of liberal democratic regimes. In so doing the paper seeks to restore to the bureau some of the ethical and political gravity imputed to it by Max Weber.

For decades, critics of pluralism have argued that the American interest group system exhibits a significantly biased distribution of policy preferences. We evaluate this argument by measuring groups' revealed preferences directly, developing a set of ideal point estimates, IGscores, for over 2,600 interest groups and 950 members of Congress on a common scale. We generate the scores by jointly scaling a large dataset of interest groups' positions on congressional bills with roll-call votes on those same bills. Analyses of the scores uncover significant heterogeneity in the interest group system, with little conservative skew and notable inter-party differences in preference correspondence between legislators and ideologically similar groups. Conservative bias and homogeneity reappear, however, when weighting IGscores by groups' PAC contributions and lobbying expenditures. These findings suggest that bias among interest groups depends on the extent to which activities like PAC contributions and lobbying influence policymakers' perceptions about the preferences of organized interests.

This article juxtaposes the functionalist and the Marxist perspectives on organizations in an attempt to assess the feasibility of theoretical pluralism as an alternative research strategy. While the coexistence of rival modes of organizational inquiry may contribute to the stock of knowledge about organizations and facilitate theoretical confrontation, it becomes necessary to evaluate the knowledge claims made by different modes of social inquiry, in the light of their assumptions and ontological and epistemological foundations. Theoretical pluralism may have an uncertain status as a research method, since it does not constitute an unambiguous agenda for organizational intervention. Constructive dialogue across paradigms is not to be eschewed. However, theoretical pluralism as a conscious strategy may result in a compromise of fundamental values for and thus be anathema to Marxists committed to the task of demystifying production relations in society.

Methodological and ideological pluralism has been a defining feature of much organizational analysis for many years now—although resistance to it has always been present. The rise of `evidence-based management' (EBM) is read as the latest form of resistance to pluralism— one that might prove particularly hard to refuse given the popularity of many other forms of evidence-based practices. So I explore the prospects for EBM within organization studies and some of its implications for those who value the continuation of pluralistic forms of analysis in organizational research.

In this article, we develop a structural model for studying how constellations of multiple institutional logics are instantiated at the organizational level. Conceptually, we complement an institutional logics perspective with structural interactionism and network theory and model a constellation as a nexus of organizational role identities and counterroles. The structure of such a nexus reveals degrees of differentiation and interconnectedness between logics as well as distinct interfaces. We validate and further develop our model through qualitative content analysis and semantic network analytical methods applied to the website of a large organization. Our study contributes to recent literature on institutional pluralism by further specifying the structural aspects of constellations of logics and different types of institutional pluralism (monolithic, fragmented, and modular). Specifically, we show how systems of role categories enable the identification of logics, and how multivocal roles create interfaces between them. We propose logic permeability as a structural attribute of a logic to describe the totality of interfaces it entertains with other logics within a constellation.

The organizational wellbeing discourse has in the past decades gravitated toward two adversarial camps. The first camp draws increasingly from positive psychology and studies wellbeing as the presence of positive attributes centered around the individual. The second camp is critical toward the first one from a sociological standpoint by warning about its hidden tyranny and detrimental organizational consequences. In this paper we interrogate the conceptual foundations of the two camps and argue that the paradigmatic divide between them can be traced to their antithetical assumptions about the nature of human freedom. To move beyond the paradigmatic standstill, we suggest adopting Kenneth Burke's dramatistic pentad as a metatheoretical framework for organizational wellbeing research. The pentad can help integrate concerns and viewpoints from both camps and facilitate the exploration of novel opportunities to conceptualize wellbeing in organizations. The proposed metatheoretical framework acknowledges the plural and essentially contested character of wellbeing whilst promoting theoretical pluralism in organizational wellbeing research. We also illustrate the use of the dramatistic pentad through three thought-provoking conceptualizations of organizational wellbeing. The illustrations show how the dramatistic pentad can be used to spur much needed conceptual imagination within organizational wellbeing research.

This article argues that organizational ethnography, and an organizational perspective more generally, can help to shed new light on the phenomenon of legal pluralism. While the literature on legal pluralism has tended to focus on the interrelations between normative orders in situations of legal pluralism, this article directs attention to the organizational level, to the day‐to‐day routines in courts that operate under conditions of legal pluralism, and to the interorganizational relations between such courts. To demonstrate the utility of that approach to legal pluralism, the article presents an ethnographic case study from present‐day Jerusalem. Focusing on two sharī'a courts, one Israeli and one Jordanian, that operate in the city and serve the same population, the article describes how legal pluralism unfolds in daily organizational life. It portrays the complex fabric of the interrelations between these courts and tracks the evolution of these interrelations that transformed over the years from mutual antagonism to mutual dependence. These processes are examined within the turbulent political context in Jerusalem.