|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
JOURNAL:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
1989
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Journal Article
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
*Organization-Theory (D590700); *Language-Usage (D446100)
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
No discipline assigned
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-361-979
(Last edited on
2002/02/27 18:44:47 US/Mountain)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Just as all scientific theories are made of words, so is organization theory, which depends on "achievement" verbs, eg, shape, determine, select, & choose. Here, a case is made that problems in organization theory are essentially due to words that obscure rather than explain processes. Two dominant perspectives on the genesis of organization are described: (1) the exogenesis perspective attributes change to the outside environment, & favors such words as determine, shape, select & adapt, which do not define actual processes; (2) the endogenesis perspective attributes change to strategy by elite decisionmakers within the organization through processes of choice, although the verb "to choose" does not refer to a unique & identifiable process. Both perspectives are found to rest on words with dubious predicates, as well as having no identifiable processes to name. The theory proposed by Karl Weick (The Social Psychology of Organizing, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1979) is examined, which suggests how organization can be explained without such words, but ends up demonstrating how easy it is to fall back into using them. Reasons behind the use of these words are explored, & implications for revising the language of organization theory in future research are considered. Recommendations are made to eliminate words of dubious denotations that provide only an illusion of process. 55 References. S. Dilts
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
3/325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|
