Questioning Centralized Organizations in a Time of Distributed Trust

Organizational learning theory is motivated by the observation that organizations learn by encoding inferences from experience into their behavior. It seeks to answer the questions of what kinds of experiences influence behaviors, how and under what circumstances behaviors change, and how new behaviors are stabilized and have consequences for organizations’ adaptation to their environment. Organizational learning research has as key mechanisms innovations and other triggering events that lead to major behavioral change, knowledge accumulation and experimentation that encourage incremental change, and interpretations that guide each of these processes. Organizational learning research has gained a central position in organizational theory because it has implications for organizational behaviors that also affect other theoretical perspectives such as institutional theory, organizational ecology, and resource dependence. Key research topics in organizational learning and adaptation are (a) organizational routines and their stability and change, (b) performance feedback and its consequences for organizational search and change, (c) managerial goal formation and coalition building, (d) managerial attention to goals and organizational activities, and (e) adaptive consequences of learning procedures. Each of these topics has seen significant research, but they are far from completing their empirical agenda. Recently, organizational learning research has been very active, especially on the topics of routines, performance feedback, and attention, resulting in a strong increase in learning and adaptation research in management journals.

Institutional theory of organizations, population ecology theory and organizational culture theory are three newer theories that represent alternative and challenge to rationalistic and objectivistic research paradigm in the theory of organization. After a relatively long period in which rationalist and objectivist theories of organizations prevailed, during the second half of the twentieth century three theories emerged that explained the structuring and functioning of organizations from a completely opposite viewpoint. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the dominant theoretical explanation of the structure and processes of all organization types, especially business organizations, was based on the assumption that objective factors and the rationality of decision makers had an impact on organizations. Thus, the contingency theory of organizations explained that the structuring and functioning of organizations resulted from the impact of objective, external factors (contingencies) such as environment, technology, stage of an organization?s life cycle and strategies. The process of organizations? structuring and of shaping the processes within them was treated as a rational decision-making process, in which the organization?s leader played a key role. The result of such an approach is a configurational perspective of organizations, according to which the organizational structure is actually a configuration of internally consistent components that are congruent to external factors. However, since the 1980s, three very interesting theories have emerged, representing an antipode to the prevailing rationalist and objectivist theories: institutional theory of organizations, population ecology theory and organizational culture theory. All three theories explain the structuring and shaping of processes within organizations in terms of interpretivism and social interactions, and not rational decision making. Unlike the rationalist and objectivist theories of organizations, the organizational culture theory, population ecology theory and institutional theory of organizations, find the ultimate source of organizational structure and functioning in the meaning of the reality that has been socially constructed. The process of organizational structuring is, in all three theories, a subjective process of creating meanings through social interactions. Accordingly, the focus of the institutional, population ecology and cultural theories of organizations is no longer as much on formal organizational structure, as was the case with the contingency theory of organizations, as it is on behavioral patterns, regularities in organizational functioning and the models of interaction within organizations.

Reviewed by: Reinventing the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of Femininity and Masculinity Thomas W. Laqueur Marianne van den Wijngaard. Reinventing the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of Femininity and Masculinity. Race, Gender, and Science series. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. x + 171 pp. Ill. $29.95 (cloth), $12.95 (paperbound). Enormous scholarly energy in the humanities and social sciences, and a wide range of political and broadly cultural energies as well, have been expended over the past three decades in an effort to disengage gender (behavior that is characterized as masculine or feminine) from sex (the biological foundation of male and female that is supposedly timeless and objective), and to disrupt the very idea of “normality” in the arena of sexuality. Sex, the argument goes, does not dictate gender, nor is it a normative, dimorphic characteristic that needs to be corrected in so-called intersexuals so that a particular genital configuration lines up perfectly with socially prescribed masculine or feminine behavior. These behaviors are not, of course, independent of biology—we exist, after all, in our bodies—but nor are they deeply embedded in it. In this beautifully detailed account, a Dutch biologist and feminist, equally adept at cultural studies of science and developmental endocrinology, first documents the scientific passion for studying sexual difference in general: about 130 articles per year in 1967, and more than 500 in 1984. She then explains how, beginning in 1959, organization theory—the study of how hormones cause the embryonic unisex brain to differentiate into a male or female brain, which in turn accounts for masculine or feminine behavior in the mature animal or human—swept the field and has maintained its hegemony until the present despite the challenges of feminism, a new generation of women researchers, and the publication of a considerable body of critical evidence. Articles on sex differences in brain development, the product of the research program based on the new paradigm, multiplied even faster during the same period: from eight per year to almost a hundred. The triumph of organization theory is extraordinary: hormones had not been expected to play a prenatal role in organizing how an individual responds to the world. Its success, in Wijngaard’s view, depended less on experimental triumphs than on various aspects of the sociology of the relevant sciences and their history: the new paradigm provided a theoretical basis for workers who had begun experimenting on the behavioral effects of hormones; it unified psychological and neurological research and afforded psychologists the prestige of the biomedical [End Page 546] sciences; it appropriated the older assumption of reproductive endocrinology that there were distinct male and female gonadal hormones—androgens and estrogens—which were the determinants of maleness and femaleness more generally; and it served as ammunition in the culture wars raging outside the laboratory around the old nature/nurture debate about sexual biology and social behavior. Women in the laboratory changed the terms of organization theory but did not shake its fundamental assumption: the fixing of sex in the embryonic brain. No longer was the question simply how the embryonic male secreted androgens so as to masculinize his otherwise undifferentiated brain—a dualistic model—but rather how male and female hormones affected behavior in both sexes. But still, work that tended to blur dimorphic distinctions—research, for example, on the very different and distinct effects of estrogen and progestins, both female hormones, in producing behavior that could be characterized as either masculine or feminine—was discounted. Wijngaard argues, in what is perhaps the most original part of the book, that the tenacity of the organization theory model is not due to the failure of feminist criticism of its methodology or fundamental assumptions, nor to the absence of negative evidence, but to its institutional embeddedness. Networks of knowledge are its bulwark: physicians who run clinics that sort out aberrant biology and behavior, journalists who thrive on reports that still another biological marker of difference has been found, scientists sitting on peer review panels whose own research programs are predicated on a dualism firmly etched in the developing brain. The social demands and images of masculinity and femininity thus affect the cognitive development of science via practitioners with an interest...

This research considers the dynamic positioning of an enterprise in an interfirm network and its propensity for new product development. Specifically, we explore how firms reconcile the dichotomy between central and structural holes network positions, by dynamically shifting from a central to a structural holes position (and vice versa) over time. By grounding this research in network dynamics theory, we argue how prior strong central (structural holes) network positions in the interfirm network increase the likelihood the firm will benefit from structural holes (central) positions in the following time period. We also propose that these positions can be modeled by an inverted U‐shaped relationship, which determines the firm's ability to develop new products. Indeed, by balancing central and structural holes positions, firms derive product development advantages from both network positions while reducing the relative drawbacks. However, a risk of such dynamic behavior is that when applied too often, it may prevent firms from assimilating the advantages brought by the two network positions. We test our theoretical framework with a sample of firms from the biopharmaceutical industry over a period of 10 years (2001 until 2010) using two approaches. First, we test the presence of dynamic behaviors using a panel data sample consisting of a network of 3121 firms observed for 10 years (2001–2010). Second, we explore the effect of dynamic behavior on each firm's ability to develop new products using a cross‐sectional data sample of 544 public firms belonging to the network of the 3121 firms. Our results suggest that a dynamic perspective employed in reconciling the dichotomy between central and structural holes network positions increases the ability of a firm to develop new products. However, findings also suggest that if firms shift too often from one network position to another, benefits of the dynamic network strategy are diminished.

Theoretical Perspectives on American Indian Education introduces four prominent theoretical perspectives on American Indian education: cultural discontinuity theory, structural inequality, interactionalist theory, and transculturation theory. By including readings that each feature a theoretical perspective, Huffman provides a comparison of each perspective's basic premise, fundamental assumptions regarding American Indian education, implications, and associated criticisms. Bringing together treatments on a variety of theories into one work, this book integrates current scholarship and discussions for researchers, students, and professionals involved in American Indian education.

Despite calls over several decades for theory development, there remains no overarching knowledge-translation theory. However, a range of models and theoretical perspectives focused on narrower and related areas have been available for some time. We provide an overview of selected perspectives that we believe are particularly useful for developing testable and useful knowledge-translation interventions. In addition, we discuss adjuvant theories necessary to complement these perspectives. We draw from organizational innovation, health, and social sciences literature to illustrate the similarities and differences of various theoretical perspectives related to the knowledge-translation field.A variety of theoretical perspectives useful to knowledge translation exist. They are often spread across disciplinary boundaries, making them difficult to locate and use. Poor definitional clarity, discipline-specific terminology, and implicit assumptions often hinder the use of complementary perspectives. Health care environments are complex, and assessing the setting prior to selecting a theory should be the first step in knowledge-translation initiatives. Finding a fit between setting (context) and theory is important for knowledge-translation initiatives to succeed. Because one theory will not fit all contexts, it is helpful to understand and use several different theories. Although there are often barriers associated with combining theories from different disciplines, such obstacles can be overcome, and to do so will increase the likelihood that knowledge-translation initiatives will succeed.

What makes you more central? Antecedents of changes in betweenness-centrality in technology-based alliance networks

This chapter reviews some of the different ideas which inform current thoughts about what corporate governance is. Doing this provides the context for the arguments in the book. A distinction is drawn between ideas based on economic theories of the firm, and so-called ‘organizational’ theories. The chapter discusses how economic approaches tend to see the firm principally in contractual terms, are guided by assumptions of utility-maximizing self-interested human behaviour, and tend to posit the protection of investors' capital as the ‘corporate governance problem’. Organizational theories by contrast tend to begin with a more complex concept of the firm, allow for other-oriented behaviour, and can conceive the governance of companies as routinely involving multiple relationships. While economic approaches currently predominate in the burgeoning field of corporate governance research, there are many criticisms of their fundamental assumptions. Organizational approaches, tend to be poorly developed theoretically.

PurposeTransparency is assumed to improve markets' efficiency, to enhance better corporate governance and finally, to ensure moralisation of business life. The paper aims to the realities that prevailing discourses on transparency dissimulate.Design/methodology/approachFirst, a genealogical method is used to explore the theoretical roots, which underpin claims for a greater transparency (reduction of information asymmetry in academic discourses). Second, the analogies between mainstream theories on corporate governance (which legitimate the demand for transparency) and the Panopticon, the famous architecture conceived by Bentham are pinpointed. Finally, the reflections developed by philosophers such as Ricoeur and Henriot on ethics are exploited to explain why transparency is unable to produce the expected effects.FindingsFirst, discourses on transparency often conceal reinsurance manœuvres and power struggles. Second, transparency appears as a modernised manifestation of panopticism: a common base (the concept of utility), the same fundamental assumption (the opportunistic nature of man) and a similar answer (discipline). More generally, panopticism and discourses on transparency are embedded in the same utilitarian philosophy which does not grant any space either for responsibility or for ethics and therefore, favours generalised amorality.Research limitations/implicationsAs a consequence it is suggested that one should explore the possibility of elaborating an economics theory, which would get rid of the concept of utility and a theory of the enterprise, which would take as key concepts creativity and trust, instead of opportunism.Originality/valueThrough the deconstruction of prevailing discourses on transparency, the paper points to the intrinsic anti‐humanistic character of mainstream economics and organisation theories and suggests alternative issues. It therefore may contribute to both enlightenment and emancipatory aims (in the Habermasian sense).

In his response to Oster’s article, Cafferky offers commendations for the points that Oster presents when considering the events described in Acts 10-11. Cafferky also explores what he believes is an implicit assumption in Oster’s article regarding applying organizational theory from the for-profit sector straight across into the nonprofit sector. Oster’s thesis might be strengthened if the literature from the world of organization theory applicable to nonprofits is considered. Finally, Cafferky attempts to strengthen Oster’s thesis by exploring the complexity of the identity and purpose that he believes the first century Jewish Christians carried with them as they evaluated the prospects of including Gentiles into the Gospel Commission as well as laying aside Jewish dietary restrictions.

This book deals with organizational change in two different ways. One way is the historical description of several attempts to implement organizational change in one particular organization. That organization is the local civil service of Breda, a city in the southern part of the Netherlands with a history that goes back to the thirteenth century. This book covers the period of about thirty years from 1965 until 1996. In this period Breda had between 120.000 and 130.000 inhabitants and the civil service varied between 1200 and 1800 employees. The historical description focuses not only on the changes as such but also on the situation that existed when the attempts to change were undertaken (the environmental conditions). Main goal in this part of the study is to create a basis for an answer to the question: What factors or conditions were decisive for the claimed success of the changes that took place in 1992, where similar attempts at earlier dates seemed to have failed?The other way to treat organizational change in this study is induced by the question: Which organization theory or theories were used in the reorganizations described in the historical part? In order to obtain an answer to this question it was necessary to go into the character of organizations theory - which is thought to be a body of knowledge - and into the relevancy of organizations theory for practical use - which is thought to be small. A theoretical model for research is proposed in part 2. This model is based upon three major assumptions.guidelines and directions derived from organizations theory are insufficient to support organizational change in practice. This causes "changers" (those who initiate the desired change) to develop their own, "private" organization theory. An important part of this study is concerned with the reconstruction of those private theories.the private theories of changers are expressed one way or another in the documents used to realise the desired organizational change. In the addendum to this study quotes from the documents used are translated into "central concepts" of the changers. These central concepts are considered to be the framework of the private organization theories.organizational change is realised on one or more of three organizational dimensions: management, structure and culture. These dimensions are influenced strongly by environmental factors. Technologic possibilities available, the actual economic situation, prevailing social values and political and governmental conditions are considered to be the most important environmental conditions.The last section of part 2 (chapter 6) gives a short analysis of the specific character of Dutch local government and public service. In the local civil service the position of the town clerk in most cities has evolved to that of city manager in the period considered.The historical account in part 3 is subdivided into 5 chapters, the first being a short and global sketch of the history of the Netherlands since World War II in order to give a general background for the developments in Breda. Each of the other four give a description of one of the successive attempts to reorganize the civil service of Breda. In these chapters attention is also given to several problems of local policy that filled, for the most part, the political agenda.In part 4, the model developed in part 2 is applied on documents used to realise the desired changes described in part 3. The private theories for each period are reconstructed and compared to the general organization theory existing at the time. An important aspect of this analysis is that private and general organization theory and the desired and realised organization are described in terms of the three dimensions (management, structure and culture) of the proposed referential model in part 2. Each chapter of part 4 closes with a summary of conclusions with respect to that period.General conclusions derived from the whole study and a few suggestions for further research are gathered in part 5. The most important conclusions can be presented in the following statements.Writers on organizations agree to a large extent on the fact that environmental conditions have a bearing on the structure and functioning of organizations. Many of them even agree on the fact that organizations theories are influenced by the economic and social forces of their time. Nevertheless proposed organization theories hardly ever try to specify the situation in which they are developed.An explanation for this lack of attention may be found in the emphasis on comparative analysis of organizational research. In comparing organizations in a specific historical period, technological economic, social and political conditions can be viewed as the same for all organizations at the time. In that case those environmental conditions have no bearing on the results of the research and need not be made explicit.Organizational change can be considered as change on the three dimensions: management, structure and culture. In the case observed in this study the same set of rather simple rules was used for creating change in each of the four successive periods on the dimensions management: (replace sitting managers) and structure (enhance line-staff relations, put together what belongs together; though criteria to do this differ from period to period; and decrease span of control).The most important motive to introduce large scale changes in the case observed, therefore, seems to be the need to change organizational culture. In the case considered, the organization started with a power oriented culture. The first attempt on change tried to implement a role oriented culture but failed for the most part as a result of the existing power structure.The second attempt was accompanied by the wave of democratization of the late sixties and early seventies which undermined the power structure in the organization. The rather low pressure on reinforcing role relations, except for those belonging to project management, caused a major shift towards a task culture in which hardly anybody seemed to have authority. In this situation project management played a major role.In the third attempt, under pressure of the economic recession, legitimate authority, the political power of mayor and aldermen, reinforced a strong role culture. As a result of this change the existing structural elements of project management were practically eliminated. The position of the chief executive level (the town clerk) was weak.In the fourth attempt power shifted from the political to the chief executive level. This shift was enabled by the weak political position of mayor and aldermen and the authority bestowed on the town clerk.

A number of well-documented, fundamental assumptions are associated with strategic information systems planning (SISP). A core activity for this domain is the alignment of an organisations systems and technology strategy with its business objectives. The difficulty is the complex and diverse nature of the strategy process itself that renders such a match increasingly problematic. The evidence within the literature relating to SISP suggests that it does not fully mirror contemporary business strategy and contains some fundamentally incorrect assumptions. This paper identifies eight such assumptions that propose a number of challenges for future research directions. Case examples are also presented which reflect the issues posed for exploiting the value of Information Technology (IT) as a strategic opportunity given the approaches adopted for SISP. Finally, a number of challenges to SISP are noted which relate to identified categories, through an 'IS complexity framework', of reviewing benefits, managing business change, and assessing organisational competencies for sustainable competitive advantage.

PurposeTheorizing in the extant sustainability assurance literature is limited. This paper aims to identify apposite organizational theories from related fields which scholars could apply to sustainability assurance research. Through the introduction of theoretical perspectives new to the field, the authors seek to extend current research.Design/methodology/approachA literature review was undertaken and papers using theory to examine research questions concerned with sustainability assurance and business sustainability issues more broadly were categorized by theory and sub area of focus. The authors then considered how organizational theories used in other areas of business sustainability research might augment the current paucity of theorizing applied in sustainability assurance research, thereby opening up new research possibilities.FindingsThe review identified gaps in current theorizing in sustainability assurance research and theoretical frameworks which have the potential to augment research avenues in sustainability assurance, enhance the way researchers interpret their data and increase the understanding of sustainability assurance decisions.Practical implicationsInnovation in sustainability assurance research may lead to developments in sustainability assurance practice, which enhances the credibility of sustainability reports. It will inform ongoing debate regarding whether sustainability assurance should be mandatory, whether a specific reporting format and level of assurance should be prescribed, how the practice can be developed and whether alternatives to enhancing the credibility of sustainability reports need to be found.Social implicationsEnhanced theorizing may shed light on whether sustainability assurance enhances the credibility of sustainability disclosures and whether it leads, or fails to lead, to real improvements in preparers' sustainability-related practices.Originality/valueBy identifying theories which could be applied to sustainability assurance research, this paper facilitates the development of new avenues of research and new ways of interpreting data from the field.

Research on innovation in agrifood business is looking for new perspectives and for new ways of implementing actual results and of combining different theoretical perspectives. To do so we propose the concept of ‘networked innovation’ to summarize what we consider as the core notions necessary to mobilize to understand the complex phenomena of innovation in modern agrifood knowledge-based businesses and economies. Firstly we summarize the theoretical backgrounds and propose our own definition of the concept, which is rooted in a processual treatment of knowledge creation and transformation that came out mainly from the relevant literature on organization theory, strategic management and knowledge management. Then the content of the notion is developed around three main items, which are: (1) the multilevel embeddedness of innovation; (2) the roles and forms of learning for innovation; (3) the becoming nature of innovation processes. In the concluding comments some implications of the research for agrifood business are proposed.

Leveraging psychosocial safety climate to prevent ill-being: The mediating role of psychological need thwarting