HOLISMIN MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKING

Yıl 2006, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 26, 71 - 83, 15.06.2006

N. Gökhan Torlak

https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.677981

Öz

The paper mirrors the rising maturity of systems thought and Systems language in managerial decision-makiııg or problem management. It is based upon the assumption that building blocks of reality are not parts but ıvholes—systems in which ill-structured and systemic problems having social and behavioral aspects and interdependeııcy cannot be worked out w'ıth the mettıods and techııiques of reductionist positivist Science. They require better-equipped ‘holism ’ to deal with. In this regard, systems thought and systems language play a significant role as a unified approach to problem management It emphasizes the complementary role of various systems metaphors and systems methodologies in managerial decision- making and liberates the consciousness of managers/problem- solvers/decision-makers to cope with organizational issues through systems idea.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Holism, Metaphor, Method, Methodology, Problem-Solving

Kaynakça

• [1] Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• [2] Jackson, M.C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Chichester: Wiley.
• [3] Diesing, P. (1971). Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
• [4] Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
• [5] Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.
• [6] Pantin, C.P.A. (1968). The Relations Between the Sciences. London: Cambridge University Press.
• [7] Keat, R. & Urry, J. (1976). Social Theory as Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [8] Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.
• [9] 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.
• [10] Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.
• [11] Ashby, W.R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Methuen.
• [12] Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13(1), 25-35.
• [13] Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organisations-1. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 63-70.
• [14] Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
• [15] Lawrance, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1969). Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.
• [16] Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J.H. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• [17] Pepper, S.C. (1982). Metaphor in philosophy. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 3(3), 197-205.
• [18] Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• [19] Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. London: Sage Publications.
• [20] Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical Theory and Postmodernism Approaches to Organizational studies. (Ed.: Clegg, R.; Hardy, C. & Nord, W.R.). Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage.
• [21] Gerth, H.H. & Mills, C.W. (1970). From Max Weber. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• [22] Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
• [23] Taylor, F.W. (1947). Scientifıc Management. London: Harper and Row.
• [24] Mayo, E. (1933). The Humaıı Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Macmillan.
• [25] Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• [26] Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
• [27] Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46, January, 53-62.
• [28] McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
• [29] Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• [30] Cherns, A. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Humarı Relations, 40(3), 153-162.
• [31] Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row.
• [32] Trist, E.L. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations, 36(3), 269-284.
• [33] Simon, H.A. (1947). Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
• [34] Galbraith, J.R. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wes!ey.
• [35] Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise. Chichester: Wiley.
• [36] Beer, S. (1981). Braiıı of the Firm. 2nd Ed. Chichester: Wiley.
• [37] Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Chichester: Wiley.
• [38] Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley.
• [39] Child, J. (1981). Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organizations. (Ed.: Cummings, L.L. & Staw, B.M.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 303-356.
• [40] Pascale, R.T. & Athos, A.G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management. New York: Warner.
• [41] Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
• [42] Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. (Eds.: Cummings, L.L. & Staw, B.M.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.
• [43] Maanen van, J. & Barely, S.R. (1985). Cultural organization. (Eds.: Frost, P.J., et al.). Organizational Culture. London: Sage.
• [44] Weick, K.L. (1977). Enactment processes in organizations. (Eds.: Staw, B.M. & Salancik, G.R.). New Directions in Organizational Behavior. Chicago: St. Clair.
• [45] Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1986). On formal structures of practical actions. (Ed.: Garfinkel, H.). Ethnomethodological Studies of Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• [46] Fox, A. (1966). Industrial sociology and industrial relations. Research Paper 3. Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, HMSO, London.
• [47] Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, E.T. (1980). Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• [48] Coser, L.A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• [49] Crozier, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenonıenon. London: Tavistock.
• [50] Pondy, L.R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296-320.
• [51] Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management (Ed.: Dunnette, M.D.). Handbook of industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• [52] Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947-952.
• [53] Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
• [54] Freud, S. (1953). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. The Conıplete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, 7, 125-243.
• [55] Freud, S. (1959). Character and anal eroticism. The Conıplete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, 9, 167- 175.
• [56] Coward, R. (1983). Patriarchal Precedents, Sexuality and Social Relations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [57] Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press.
• [58] Klein, M. (1957). Envy and Gratitude. London: Tavistock.
• [59] Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock.
• [60] Winnicott, D.W. (1958). Transitional objects and transitional pheııomeııa, in Collected Papers. London: Tavistock.
• [61] Jung, C.G. (1959). The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [62] Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• [63] Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist, 51(2), 164-179.
• [64] Engels, F. (1940). Dialectics of Nature. (Ed.: Dutt, C.). New York: International Publishers.
• [65] Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: the Making of a New Science. London: Abacus.
• [66] Stacey, R.D. (1992). Managing Clıaos. London: Sage.
• [67] Wheatley, M.J. (1992). Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco: Berret-Kohler.
• [68] Baran, P. & Sweezy, P.M. (1966). Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• [69] Mouzelis, N.P. (1967). Organization and Bureaucracy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [70] Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• [71] Salaman, G. (1981). Class and The Corporation. London: Fontana.
• [72] Reich, M.; Gordon, D. & Edvvards, R. (1973). Dual labor markets: A theory of labor market segmentation. American Ecoııomic Review, 63(2), 359-365.
• [73] Deboard, G. (1967). The Society of Spectacle. Paris: Buchet-Chastel.
• [74] Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and His world (Translated by H. Iswolsky). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• [75] Wittgenstein, L. (1974). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
• [76] Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
• [77] Boje, D.M.; Luhman, J.T. & Cunliffe, A.L. (2003). A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization Theatre Metaphor. American Communication Journal, 6(2), 1-16.
• [78] Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.
• [79] Gergen, K.J. & Joseph, T. (1996). Organizational Science in a Postmodern Context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 356-378.
• [80] Alvesson, M. & Deetzs, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. Boulder: Sage.
• [81] Taket, A.R. & White, L.A. (2000). Partnership and Participation: Decision-making in the Multiagency Setting. Chichester: Wiley.