Disorganization Theory

Explorations in Alternative Organizational Analysis

John Hassard, Mihaela Kelemen, Julie Wolfram Cox

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781134114832
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Organizational analysis has moved in a number of directions since its origins in mainstream theories of positivism and functionalism. This challenging book sets out an alternative agenda for the field, discussing existing critical discourses, whilst exploring a selection of emerging ideas and arguments. Addressing a series of key epistemologic

Part I

Alternative Knowledge

1 Paradigm Plurality and its Prospects

This initial chapter maps out the development of paradigm plurality in a number of management and organizational disciplines. In so doing, it argues that the benefits of paradigm plurality far outweigh the shortcomings and that it is important for researchers to encourage perspectives emerging from multiple paradigmatic viewpoints. We argue that not only is this scenario desirable from a theoretical point of view, but it is also welcome in light of the complex changes taking place in contemporary organizational realities. Despite the historical controversy over its meaning and definition, we suggest that the concept of paradigm has increased in significance for the contemporary analysis of organizational phenomena, continuing to shape in a direct or indirect way the thinking and approach of organizational researchers. The most common understanding of the concept of ‘paradigm’ derives from Kuhn’s work (1962, 1970): a paradigm is considered to be a set of shared beliefs and assumptions about the world. Consensus around such beliefs within a particular scientific community is regarded by some as a mark of maturity, while for others the existence of multiple paradigms bears the mantra of pre- or nonscience (Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970). For the purpose of this chapter we define paradigm in a rather loose manner, as a shared set of views, values, and writing conventions around which research communities are being formed. Also, despite arguments that paradigm purity is a sign of scientific maturity within a particular field of study (Pfeffer, 1993, 1997), we argue that what is happening in reality is a shift towards paradigm plurality in numerous management and organizational disciplines; for example, organization theory (Hassard, 1993b; Schultz and Hatch, 1996; Casey, 2002; Jones and Munro, 2005), international business (Parkhe, 1993; Earley and Singh, 1995), strategic management (McKinley, 1995; Scherer, 1998), operational research (Mingers, 1992, 1997) and technology studies (Lewis and Grimes, 1999). In what follows, then, we explore the conditions under which multiple paradigms have emerged in these fields, highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the multiparadigm approach, present specific strategies of multiparadigm research within organizational analysis, and finally conclude with a plea for a discursive postmodern approach to paradigm plurality.

A Rationale for Paradigm Plurality

The emergence of paradigm plurality within the fields mentioned above can be explained in a number of ways: first, by the argument that positivist epistemology has severe shortcomings in explaining contemporary organizational action; second, by the view that organizational realities are becoming ever more complex and diverse, and thus that representation in one dimension is no longer appropriate; third, through the suggestion that there is an increasing moral crisis facing contemporary society and our ability to attach meaning to it takes many forms; and fourth, by the prosaic argument that the quest for scientific uniqueness and personal prominence in academia, linked to notions of accelerated career advancement, is a key determinant of theoretical and empirical development.

Positivist Epistemology and its Problems

At the outset, positivism provided the theoretical foundations and the language for studying organizational phenomena. Chief among positivist assumptions are the beliefs that organizational reality is objective and scientifically apprehensible and that good scientists must abide and commit to the methods and aims of ‘natural’ science, which are perceived to be superior to other approaches for acquiring knowledge. This is not to say that positivist social science is considered monolithic, for those who adhere to positivism’s mission of applying social science to improve social conditions often differ markedly in their values and approaches, as much as they share a commitment to disseminating knowledge that will facilitate positive action. However despite positivism’s ‘positive’ agenda, its explanations, particularly in management studies, are seen by some to have already reached their highpoint in terms of theoretical refinement, making it seemingly difficult to offer many genuinely fresh insights into the management of organizations (Jackson and Carter, 1991: 112).

The discipline of organizational analysis is not the only one in which new paradigms have been seen to emerge. A significant number of other disciplines have seemingly grown dissatisfied with the prevailing positivist orthodoxy and turned towards exploring alternatives. For example, a number of authors (McKinley, 1995; Scherer and Dowling, 1995; Scherer, 1998) discuss the emergence of alternative approaches in strategic management in response to the inability of positivist research methods to capture and account for the social and contingent nature of strategy. While most scholars in strategic management perhaps still hold to the primary explanatory power of positivism and its underlying research methodologies (cf. Shrivastava, 1987), one can witness ‘a growing “mess” of models, approaches and schools of strategy-making’ (Scherer and Dowling, 1995: 201). Scherer and Dowling advocate the need to bracket such schools, models, or paradigms with the view of arriving at a more comprehensive understanding of the processes through which strategy is enacted and the consequences it may have upon stakeholders and the overall environment.

Similarly international business, a discipline whose roots are deeply embedded in positivist science, has witnessed the emergence of interpretive approaches, which, it is argued, complement well the more established deductive methodologies (Parkhe, 1993; Earley and Singh, 1995). Technology studies have also benefited from research derived from a number of paradigms (Grint, 1991), with Lewis and Grimes (1999) proposing ‘metatriangulation’ as a method for building theory from plural paradigms within the area of advanced manufacturing technology. And in operational research, the dominance of positivism began to be questioned during the 1990s (see Mingers, 1997), with the debate on the status of the discipline considering various forms of pluralism in both methodological and philosophical terms. Here Mingers (1992) argued that three paradigms coexisted in operational research: namely, the ‘hard’ paradigm, whose roots lie in positivism; the ‘soft’ paradigm, which bears close similarities with social constructivism; and a ‘critical’ paradigm, which emphasizes the oppressing and inequitable nature of the social world. Again, a multiparadigm understanding of operational research is advocated on the grounds of achieving deeper, more complex insights into organizational realities.

Shifts in Organizational Realities

It is almost commonplace to suggest that organizations populate a universe qualitatively different from that of the past, a universe which is far from closed and settled, and which is in many respects indeterminate and in the making. In such a plural universe it is regularly argued that no single point of view can ever account for such multifaceted, contentious and continuously changing organizational realities. Reed (1997), for example, suggests that this stratified, multidimensional ontology calls for multiple epistemological and methodological lenses to be deployed to explore the plurality of organizational realities. Indeed, as researchers have attempted to keep pace with and comprehend organizational changes they have called upon various epistemologies, producing an explosion of diverse, often contentious perspectives (Lewis and Grimes, 1999; Casey, 2002; Jones and Munro, 2005). Organizations are now seen to inhabit a so-called postindustrial (White and Jaques, 1995) space where new forms of production and distribution have come into being. For example, the network, the process-driven, and the virtual organization coexist alongside bureaucratic organizations. Fordist technologies of mass production and distribution coexist alongside post-Fordist technologies that allow flexible specialization and niche distribution (Piore and Sabel, 1984; Jaffee, 2001). These dramatic transformations are seen to have called for new ways of theorizing and researching (Burrell, 1996, 2003; Casey, 2002).

The Moral Crisis

It is recognized similarly that such organizational uncertainty is reflected in an inability to secure final meanings located in an objective reality (MacIntyre, 1985; Parker, 1998). The challenge of theorizing such uncertainty has given rise to numerous debates as to how best to account for the problematic nature of the individual, the organization, and society at large. According to Bauman (1993, 1995) one of the most important goals of modernity was to construct a world free of moral ambiguity by transferring individual responsibilities to impersonal, scientific methods and procedures. While such transfer took place via the rise of bureaucracy, the inherent morality of scientific procedures itself became questioned, as this was characterized seemingly as much by human catastrophe as improving the human condition. With few robust prescriptive frameworks to guide our actions, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify our research position simply on ontological or epistemological grounds. It follows that our personal ethical stance should guide our engagement with the social world and more specifically our research of organizational practices (Parker, 1999). Given the existence of a plurality of personal moral values it is inevitable that we will end up with a proliferation of theories, models and paradigms which reflect our various ideological positions.

The Quest for Uniqueness and Career Advancement in Academia

The quest for uniqueness and career advancement in the academic world has led to a situation where social scientists appear keener than ever to generate new models, theories and approaches in order to carve a space for themselves and ensure academic prominence and rapid career advancement (McKinley and Mone, 1998). This can be witnessed in the proliferation of new, apparently discrete fields such as entrepreneurship, e-commerce and knowledge management. McKinley and Mone argue that there is nothing inherently wrong in the apparent fragmentation of organizational analysis; what is worrying, they suggest, are the wars fought between disciplines and schools, with each trying to secure legitimacy in the eyes of the scientific community and recruit followers at the expense of the rest. Such wars, they suggest, are fought around the view that various schools, models and paradigms are incommensurable — in other words, they share little or no ontological, epistemological or methodological grounds. As such, communication between them is difficult if not impossible. Such a state of affairs, however, is seen as attractive by some theorists, largely because of the reputational advantages associated with safeguarding the distinctiveness and survival of one’s own theory (McKinley and Mone, 1998). This as has been argued may have emancipatory value in that the overarching positivist paradigm can be challenged head-on by other voices (Jackson and Carter, 1991; Jones and O’Doherty, 2005). It has also been argued, however, that this may lead to the stagnation of the entire field (Gioia and Pitre, 1989; Willmott, 1993).

Paradigm Plurality

A Map of Advantages

The advantages of paradigm plurality have been widely acknowledged in the literature. For example, it is argued that the use of a single paradigm produces too narrow a view to reflect the multifaceted nature of organizational reality(Gioia and Pitre, 1990). Consequently, the use of multiple paradigms is ‘a better way of fostering more comprehensive portraits of complex organizational phenomena’ (ibid.: 587).

Furthermore, knowledge about more than one paradigm can raise awareness of alternative research styles and agendas and, in so doing, foster innovation and creativity in research (Morgan, 1983; Brocklesby, 1997; Jones and O’Doherty, 2005). Knowledge of other paradigms allows an academic to become detached from a preferred view of the world and engage in exploring new research avenues. While some of these avenues may lead to contradictory findings, researchers could build upon such contradictions to produce accounts which are richer and more illuminating and question the interests reflected by and re-enacted in such accounts. Paradox and contradiction, it has been argued, are in fact drivers of scientific innovation (Lewis, 2000).

By becoming literate in multiple paradigms, researchers can also engage more effectively in conversation with other colleagues and with practitioners. Only through an open and democratic dialogue, involving all stakeholders, can organizational disciplines decide what is most important to study, what are the most appropriate methodologies, and what will be the effects that emerging theories will have upon surrounding social realities. Cooperation rather than competition could prove much more valuable in the enterprise of knowledge production.

Paradigm plurality also allows reconciliation between the various agendas pursued by researchers. We can identify four main agendas in this respect: (1) some researchers aim to create theories that control and predict the social world;(2) others are driven by an interest in understanding how meaning is constructed, negotiated and enacted; (3) still others pursue some form of critical science which aims to emancipate various groups of people; and (4) there are researchers whose main agenda consists of providing practical solutions to short-term organizational practices. While there are substantial tensions between these cross-cutting agendas, it can be argued that some areas of research may benefit if pursued at their intersection. Whereas most organizational researchers readily embrace the first two positions, they perhaps rarely consider the effects their work has upon the objects of inquiry. Put another way, gaining understanding is what drives their research; what happens afterwards is no longer the concern of the theorist. However, such findings could perhaps be put usefully to the service of improving organizational efficiency or emancipating organizational members (i.e. agendas 3 and 4).

Finally, the pursuit of multiparadigm research ensures the preservation and legitimization of points of view that might otherwise be perceived as marginal or indeed be suppressed by the dominant orthodoxy. Thus, those theories that speak ‘in the name of the silent and the unheard’ (Lyotard, 1997: 64) (cf. labour process theory, critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism) construct a place from which to voice their concerns. If management and organization studies are to be indeed ‘ethical’ they have to encourage a plurality of diverse voices, some of which will stand in total opposition to the interests promulgated by positivist social science.

A Map of Disadvantages

There are indeed numerous hurdles and disadvantages to doing multiparadigm research. One’s socialization in a particular paradigm and its reinforcement through existing institutions make it difficult for researchers to question their preconceived ideas about the world, binding them to a particular vision of the world. Furthermore, a researcher’s acceptance of and engagement with a plurality of paradigms does not come easily. It requires far more training and effort than that for researching out of a single paradigm. In instances where this does occur, it is perhaps more common for positivists to explore ‘alternative’ paradigms than for interpretive/critical researchers to go ‘back to basics’ (and study positivism) (Kelemen and Hassard, 1997). Committing to more than one paradigm brings with it cognitive and emotional costs. Leaving a particular paradigm in order to engage with a new one can be a painful operation. Indeed, for some individuals it may be impossible to move across paradigms, either because they consider it their moral duty to defend a particular set of scientific interests, or because they do not possess the emotional or technical repertoire necessary for venturing into new domains.

Knowing and acting effectively in a new paradigm makes substantial demands upon the individual, demands which can be satisfied only through active bodily involvement, experience and practice (Brocklesby, 1997; Hassard et al., 2000). Assuming that the researcher can actually become socialized within the language and practice of a new paradigm, problems may arise if there are significant and substantive conflicts (or dissonances) between the metatheoretical assumptions of the new paradigm and the old. The researcher must search for strategies to reconcile such conflicts or dissonances, a process that may require a great deal of cognitive resourcefulness and determination.

Operating across paradigms undoubtedly makes it more difficult to engage in acts of scientific certification. Researchers pursue certification of their knowledge as much as they pursue knowledge itself, because knowledge without an audience is redundant (McCloskey, 1994). In so doing, researchers rely on multiple rhetorical devices as instruments of persuasion. Thus a positivist account would make use of statistical data in order to convey a particular point of view, while a social constructivist analysis would ground the argument in rich ethnographic data. A multiparadigm study would have recourse to both types of evidence, but in so doing may ultimately upset both scientific camps for not taking seriously enough the conventions and rigours embraced by them, respectively. Career choices may also be more limited given the general lack of institutional legitimacy attached to such pluralist research approaches. Traditionally, in social science you are either a qualitative or quantitative researcher, but rarely both.

Finally, the use of multiple lenses comes with a theoretical caveat. Scherer and Steinmann (1999) warn that mixing several positions may not necessarily lead to more comprehensive explanations of the organizational world. If the various paradigm positions adopted in a research investigation each have theoretical or empirical deficiencies, then research based on a combination of these may actually lead to sub-optimal analysis.

The pursuit of multiparadigm research: the case of organizational studies

An increasing number of organization researchers, however, have advocated the need to engage in multiparadigm forms of enquiry. Such researchers argue that this is not only theoretically feasible but also empiri...