ANALOGICAL REASONING is the WAY to GO BEYOND ORTHODOXY in FORMULATING ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS: THE USE of an IMPROVED VERSION of MORGAN’s METAPHORS REVISITED

Year 2007, Issue: 53, 631 - 672, 27.01.2011

N. Gökhan Torlak

Abstract

Bu çal×üma, yöneticilerin organizasyonlar× daha büyük ölçüde
kavramalar×Q× saùlayan vas×flar×Q× geliütirmeyi ve çeüitli organizasyonel
teoriler üzerine inüa edilen metoforlar× kullanarak yöneticilerin
problemlerinin çerçevesini çizmeyi amaçlamaktad×r. Bu çal×üma Morgan’×n
metaforlar×Q× ve bu metaforlar×n sosyal teoride yayg×n olarak kabul edilen
ilgili sosyolojik paradgmalar×Q× k×saca gözden geçirmekte ve böylece her bir
metaforun kendi gerçekliùi ve son teorik geliümeler temelinde anketleri
geliütirmekte ve yeniden yap×land×rmaktad×r. 

Keywords

ANALOGICAL, REASONING, WAY

ANALOGICAL REASONING is the WAY to GO BEYOND ORTHODOXY in FORMULATING ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS: THE USE of an IMPROVED VERSION of MORGAN’s METAPHORS REVISITED

Abstract

The paper aims to promote skills of managers to gain greater insight into
organisations and to frame their problems through the use of several
organisational metaphors, which build on the concepts underpinning
organisation theory. The paper briefly reviews Morgan’s metaphors and their
associated sociological paradigms that are commonly recognised in social
theory, and then improves and rephrases questionnaires on the basis of
intrinsic and recent theoretical developments of each metaphor. This paper is concerned with encouraging managers to become creative in viewing problem situations through different metaphors and paradigms. If managers want to act creatively and in an all-embracing manner to address management problems and to improve their organisations, services, and operations, they have to think innovatively and comprehensively. Predictable, conventional and restricted ways to view organisational concerns should be abandoned 

Keywords

ANALOGICAL, REASONING, BEYOND

References

• Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical Theory and Postmodernism Approaches to Organisational studies. (Ed.: Clegg, R.; Hardy, C. & Nord, W.R.). Handbook of Organisation Studies. London: Sage.
• Alvesson, M. & Deetzs, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. Boulder: Sage.
• Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley.
• Ashby, W.R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Methuen.
• Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, E.T. (1980). Power and Politics in Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S. (1962). “Two faces of power,” The American Political Science Review, 56: 4, 947-952.
• Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and His World (Translated by H. Iswolsky). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Baran, P. & Sweezy, P.M. (1966). Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press.
• Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise. Chichester: Wiley.
• Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the Firm. 2nd Ed. Chichester: Wiley.
• Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organisations, Chichester: Wiley.
• Beer, S. (1994). Beyond Dispute: The Invention of Team Syntegrity. Chichester: Wiley.
• Best, S and Kellner, D. (2001). Postmodern Adventure. London: The Guilford Press.
• Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock.
• Boje, D. M. (2002). Theatres of Capitalism. San Francisco: Hampton Press.
• Boje, D. M., Luhman, J.T. & Cunliffe, A.L. (2003). “A Dialectic Perspective on the Organisation Theatre Metaphor,” American Communication Journal, 6(2): 1-16.
• Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
• Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heinemann.
• Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
• Cherns, A. (1987). “Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revisited,” Human Relations, 40 (3): 153-162.
• Child, J. (1981). “Culture, Contingency and Capitalism in the Cross-National Study of Organizations,” in L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw, (ed.), Research in Organizational Behaviour: 3: 303-356. Greenwich: CT: JAI Press.
• Clegg, S. (1990). Modern Organisations: Organisation Studies in a Post-modern World, London: Sage.
• Coser, L. A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Crozier, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Tavistock.
• Coward, R. (1983). Patriarchal Precedents, Sexuality and Social Relations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Deboard, G. (1967). The Society of Spectacle. Paris: Buchet-Chastel.
• Drucker, P. (1955). The Practice of Management. London: Heinemann.
• Engels, F. (1940). Dialectics of Nature. (Ed.: Dutt, C.). New York: International Publishers.
• Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
• Flood, R. L. & Carson, E.R. (1992). Dealing With Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and the Application of Systems Science. 2nd Ed. New York: Plenum.
• Fox, A. (1966). Industrial sociology and industrial relations. Research Paper 3. Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, HMSO, London.
• Freud, S. (1953). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, 7, 125-243.
• Freud, S. (1959). Character and anal eroticism. The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, 9, 167-175.
• Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing Complex Organisations. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
• Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1986). “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions,” in H. Garfinkel, (ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work: 160-193. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Gerth, H. H. & Mills, C. W. (1970). From Max Weber. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.
• Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: the Making of a New Science. London: Abacus.
• Gregory, W. (2003). Discordant Pluralisn, in G. Midgley (ed.), Systems Thinking: 4: 123-142.
• Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J.H. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Hecksher, C. (1994). “Defining the post-bureuacratic type,” in C. Hecksher and A. Donellon (eds.), The Post bureaucratic Organisation: New Perspectives on Organisational Change, London: Sage.
• Hecksher, C. and Donellon, A. (1994). The Post bureaucratic Organisation: Perspectives on Organisational Change, London: Sage.
• Herzberg, F. (1968). “One more time: How do you motivate employees?” Harvard Business Review, 46: January, 53-62.
• Heydebrand, W. V. (1989). “New Organisational Forms,” Work and Occupations, 16 (3): 323-357.
• Jackson, M. C. (1987). “Present positions and future prospects in management science., Omega, 15: 455.
• Jackson, M. C. (1991). Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. London: Plenum Press.
• Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Chichester: Wiley.
• Jung, C. G. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Kanter, R. M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenges of Strategy, Management, and Careers in the 1990s, New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Klein, M. (1957). Envy and Gratitude. London: Tavistock.
• Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lawrance, P. R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1969). Developing Organisations: Diagnosis and Action. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.
• Lewis, M. W. and Grimes, A. J. (1999). “Metatriangulation: Building Theory from Multiple Paradigms,” The Academy of Management Review, 24, (4): 672-690.
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
• Maanen van, J. & Barely, S. R. (1985). “Cultural Organisation,” (Eds.: Frost, P.J., et al.). Organisational Culture. London: Sage.
• Maruyama, M. (1963). “The Second Cybernetics: Deviation Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes,” American Scientist, 51 (2): 164-179.
• Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
• Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Macmillan.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organisation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organisation. London: Sage Publications.
• Mouzelis, N. P. (1967). Organisation and Bureaucracy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Parsons, T. (1956). “Suggestions for A Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organisations-1,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 63-70.
• Parsons, T. (1957). “Suggestions for A Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organisations-1,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 2: 225-230.
• Pascale, R. T. & Athos, A.G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management. New York: Warner.
• Pepper, S. C. (1982). “Metaphor in Philosophy,” Journal of Mind and Behaviour, 3(3): 197-205.
• Peters, T. (1992). Liberation Management, New York: Pan.
• Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row.
• Pfeffer, J. (1981). “Management As Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organisational Paradigms,” in L.L. Cummings, and B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organisational Behaviour, 3: 1-52.
• Pondy, L. R. (1967). “Organisational Conflict: Concepts and Models,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (2): 296-320.
• Reich, M., Gordon, D. & Edwards, R. (1973). “Dual Labour Markets: A Theory of Labour Market Segmentation,” American Economic Review, 63 (2): 359-365.
• Roethlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Salaman, G. (1981). Class and The Corporation. London: Fontana.
• Savall, H., Zardet, V. and Bonnet, M. (2000). Libérer Les Performances Cachées Des Entreprises Par Un Management Socio-économique. Ecully : ILO-BIT.
• Selznick, P. (1948). “Foundations of the Theory of Organisation,” American Sociological Review, 13(1): 25-35.
• Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behaviour. New York: Macmillan.
• Smircich, L. (1983). “Concepts of Culture and Organisational Analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3): 339-358.
• Stacey, R. D. (1992). Managing Chaos. London: Sage.
• Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific Management. London: Harper and Row.
• Thomas, K. W. (1976). “Conflict and Conflict Management,” in M. D. Dunnette, (ed.). Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology: 889-935. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Torlak, G. N. (1999). Improving Total Systems Intervention through Theory and Practice, PhD Thesis, Lincoln, UK.
• Torlak, G. N. (2001). "Rationalisation of Metaphorical Exploration: Improving the Creativity Phase of Total Systems Intervention (TSI) on the Basis of Theory and Practice", Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14 (4): 451-482.
• Torlak, G. N. (2001) "Reflections on Multimethodology: Maximising Flexibility, Responsiveness, and Sustainability in Multimethodology Interventions through a Theoretically and Practically Improved Version of TSI", Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14 (3): 297-337.
• Trist, E. L. (1983). “Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter- Organisational Domains,” Human Relations, 36 (3): 269-284.
• Weick, K. L. (1977). “Enactment Processes in Organisations,” in B. M. Staw and G. R. Salancik, (eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behaviour: 267-300. Chicago: St. Clair.
• Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco: Berret-Kohler.
• Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.
• Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
• Winnicott, D. W. (1958). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena, in Collected Papers. London: Tavistock.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1974). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.