Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Langley Et Al Tekst

    Transféré par

    mrdirrimin
    220 vues21 pages
    langley tekst

    Titre original

    Langley-et-al-tekst

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    langley tekst

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    220 vues21 pages

    Langley Et Al Tekst

    Transféré par

    mrdirrimin
    langley tekst

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 21
    1 Introducing “Perspectives on Process Organization Studies” Ann Langley and Haridimos Tsoukas \What really exists is aot things made but things inthe making. Once made, they are dead, and an infinite number of atemative conceptual decompositions can be wed in defining them, But put yourself inthe making by a stroke of intuitive sympathy with the thing and, the whole range of possible decompositions coming into your possession, you are rho longer troubled with the question which of them is the more abso- Tutely true. Reality fils in passing into conceptual analysis; it mounts in living its own undivided life—it buds and burgeons, changes and creates (emphases in the original) Witlam James (1905), A Paras Universe “The classical ideal of science was to describe nature a8 a geometry. Now we see that natue js closer to biology and human history since theresa parative element in nature as well—a story of paths taken or not taken. Indeed, the more we understand the structure of the universe, the more it begins to have common elements with human societies. ya Prigogine (2004), Creatlvity and art in nature, ‘New Perspectives Quarter It is a great pleasure to present the first volume ot “Perspectives on Process Organization Studies,” an initiative that aims to both nurture and celebrate 4a more complex kind of thinking about organizations and organizing that reflects an understan {ing of the world as in flux, In perpetual motion, as continually in the process of becoming—where organizations are viewed rot as “things made” but as processes “in the making" (Hernes, 2007). Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing ‘The contributions collected in this volume emerged from the First International Symposlumt on Process Organization Studies held in. Cyprus in June 2009, bringing together a diverse group of scholars energized by process ideas. Sally Maitlis and Tor Hernes co-convened the symposium and participated in the selection of papers combining more general pro- ceess-based contributions with a specific track on sensemaking and orga- nizing, In the next chapter, they present the papers specifically chosen for this volume, Here, we introduce the new series by exploring the inspira tion for and origins of Process Organization Studies, specifying the ratio- nale behind it, and identifying some of its choices and challenges and thele consequences for the production of knowledge about organizations and organizing, 1.1 The Inspiration for Process Organization Studies Simply put, Process Organization Studies addresses questions about tem porally evolving phenomena. It draws inspiration from a diversity of sources—some philosophical, some humanities-driven, and some social scientific as scholars of various persuasions have in different ways con- fronted the need to reach beyond the dominant form of scholarship in the social sciences in which time, movement, sequence, and flux are under- represented, and indeed in many cases, rendered invisible. Three concep- tual dualities, each suggesting somewhat different modes of analysis and with different consequences for organizational scholarship, can be seen as underlying current developments in Process Organization Studies: process vs. substance metaphysics; process vs. variance theorizing; and narrative vs, logico-scientific thinking. We examine each one below. 1.1.1 Process vs. substance metaphysics Most fundamentally, Process Organization Studies is inspired by process metaphysics—namely, the worldview that sees processes, rather than sub- stances, as the basic forms of the universe (Whitehead, 1929; Bergson, 1946; James, 1909/1996). A process orientation prioritizes activity over product, change over persistence, novelty over continuity, and expression. lover determination, Becoming, change, flux as well as creativity, distup~ ton, and indeterminism are the main themes of a process worldview. Seeing process as fundamental, such an approach does not deny the existence of events, states, or entities, but insists on unpacking them to Introducing “Perspectives on Process Organization Stu reveal the complex activities and transactions that take place and con: tribute to their constitution. As process philosopher Nicholas Reschet (1996; 29) argues, “the Idea of discrete ‘events’ dissolves into a manifold Cf processes which themselves dissolve Into further processes.” A process point of view invites us to acknowledge, rather than reduce, the complexity ff the world, It rests on a relational ontology, namely the recognition that everything that is has no existence apart from its relation to other things, Therefore, long established dualisms such as mind and body, reason. and emotion, humanity and nature, individual and collective, organism and environment, agency and structure, ethics and science, need to be ‘overcome, Focusing on interactions is preferred to analyzing selt-standing. actions. ‘Substance metaphysics recognizes the occurrence of processes but It considers them incidental and explains them in terms of substances: processes contingently happen to substances, but the latter are essentially ‘unchanging in character. Consider, for example, the phrase “the student fs reading” (Farmer, 1997: 64). The process of “reading” is happening to the entity “the student." The student happens to be reading but this is incidental (not essential)—it is one activity among others. The student could have been walking, listening to music, eating, ete., and would still be the same student (Farmer, 1997: 64). The process does not change the substance, Prom a process metaphysical perspective, however, a different account is offered: the student is not an unchanging substance, unaffected by her experiences, but, on the contrary, is constituted by her experiences: reading, fs one process among others that constitutes the student. Moreover, the process of reading may be further decomposed into smaller processes such, as visual perception, memory, and bodily functions, Taken toits logical limits, the student does not exist apart from her experiences—she is her experiences (farmer, 1997; 65). Just as the Heraclitian individual cannot step into the same river twice, the student who was reading this morning in the library is not the self-same student who is reading in her home in the evening, since the experience of reading Is different at these two points in time. As Farmer (1997: 65) observes, “the notion of the enduring substantial entity called the ‘self of the student is an abstraction to be explained in terms of the repeated pattems found in a certain serles of interrelated events." Process metaphysics regards change as endemic, indeed constitutive of the world, Every event reconfigures an already established pattern, thus altering its character. Every ‘moment is qualitatively different and should be treated as such (Pepper, 1942: Tsoukas, 1994) Process, Senser king, and Organizing it not dificult to see parallels with organization studies, Mainstream accounts conceive of change as happening o organizations, with the later ‘moving along cliferent stages in time (Tyoukas and Chia, 2002), For example, the organization is ina state X1 at point in time TT something happens (ea restructuring, oF the introduction of ERP) and, asa rest, the organization has moved to state X2, at foint in time T2, The organiza: tion is basically the same, except for the new systems in place. The change that happened to the organization is similar to a force that may have impacte a billad all. The forces impacting the organization ae incen- tal Le, contingent) and not essential forts constitution a a certain Kind of entity From a process perspective, the organization ts constituted by the interaction processes among its members (Cooten vt al, 2006; Taylor and Van Every, 2000; Tsoukas and Chis, 2002), Weick’s (1979) theory of organizing Is perhaps the best known process-oriented account in the field, Shifting attention trom “organization” as an already accom- plished entity with certain pre-given properties to organizing, Weick underscores the process whereby ongoing, interdependent actions are assembled into sensible sequences that generate sensible outcomes (Weick, 1979: 3), Simply put, organizing is the process of reducing slfeences among interacting actors. Organization is an emergent out. come ofthe process of sensemaking through which equivocaity is pro- stessively removed. Similarly, for several communication theorists, onganization as a single entity is constituted “by its emergence as an actor tn the texts of the people for whom itis @ present interpreted realty” (Robichaud et al, 2004: 630). From a process perspective, what sve call ‘organization’ is an abstraction which, upon closer inspection, may be explained in terms of interlocking patterns of communication. Itis process all the way through. Taking a relational ontology seriously implies that we see events and experiences grow out of other events and experiences. The past is constitu tive of, or intemal related to, the present. Whitehead (1979) used the term “prehension” to indicate the way in which one momentary experience \ncoxporates its predecessor. Unlike substances, which do not include one another but are seen as nested, standing under one another—subsstantia— experiences include other experiences and grow out ofthe integration of bodily anid mental events into something new, Consider, for example, yout experience of lstening to the fnal chord of a musical phrase. You cleaty hear that chord a a particular moment. “But,” as Cobb (2007: 570) points out, if that were al, there would be no music, You heart as the completion Introducing "Perspectives on Process Organization Studies" of the phrase. The whole phrase resonates together. In other words, the earlier experiences of antecedent chords are also part of the present. What was there-then, is included in what is here-now. Whitehead says that, in the present moment, I prehend not only what is happening in my ears but also the earller experiences.” In other words, the way we prehend a current experience incorporates elements of past experiences. ‘The Whiteheadian notion of "prehension" clearly resonates with Pri ‘gogine’s (2004) notion of time in complex systems and Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of “dialogicality.” Current experiences are partly constituted by past experiences; current conversations draw on past conversations; past ‘voices” are mobilized in current utterances, What was there-then Is now included in what is here-now. Says Prigogine (2004): “Two people speak and then separate, but there isa remembering of the conversation. Part of the conversation is retold to others, which can be seen as an evolution Of the initial conversation. This is the time of humanity, or the time of recollections, and not the time of human beings taken separately. The concept of time is dependent on a collective approach." In other words, current utterances depend essentially on past utterances. Similarly, for Bakhtin, most of the time, language speakers use terms that are already defined and used by others. At the same time, speakers may renew the meaning of those terms and give them their own twist. The use of language presupposes the Other and, in that sense, itis necessarily ialogical. Thus, although utterances are the unique products of language speakers, they are not ex nihilo constructions, since they Inescapably draw on the utterances of others (Bakhtin, 1986: 92-5). When I write or speak about a certain tapic | am not the first one to do so (Bakhtin, 1986: 93). (Others have expressed views about itor in relation to it and, inevitably, my topic becomes the arena in which meet the opinions, views, and perspec tives of others. Their “voices” are within mine. ‘A process orientation is sensitive to the constructive role of embodied- ‘cum-embedded agency in bringing about the world we come to experience as an independent structure (Shotter, 1993, 2009). Cognition and symbolic interaction are understood to be embedded into forms of life and arising. from embodied interactions with the world, mediated by artifacts. Tempo- rality is a constitutive feature of human experience, and processes unfold 1n time. Human phenomena cannot be properly uileistood if time is abstracted away, Process thinking is intimately connected with what phi- losopher Stephen Toulmin (1990) calls an “ecological style” of thinking ‘The latter seeks to embrace complexity by relnstating the importance of the particular, the local, and the timely; It i sensitive to context, interactivity, Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing experience, and time; and it acknowledges non-linearity, emergence, and recursivity, 1.1.2 Process vs. variance theorizing Approaching the problem of understanding temporally ordered phenome. na from the perspective of empirical science rather than constitutive ontol- ogy, twas Mohr (1982) who introduced the distinction between “variance” and “process” theories—a conception related to, but not perfectly congruent With, the distinction between substance and process metaphysics. Con ‘retely, for Mohr, while variance theories provide explanations of phenom ena in terms of relationships among dependent and independent variables, process theories provide explanations in terms of patterns in events, activ. ities, and choices over time. ‘Mohr (1982) summarizes the basic features of the vatiance model as follows, First, a variance model deals with varlables. Second, it deals with efficient causes, namely forces “conceived as acting om a unit of analysis (Person, organization, and so on) to make it what it is In terms of the outcome variable (morate, effectiveness, and so on) or change it from what it was, It may be thought of as push-type causality” (Mohr, 1982: 41, italics in the original). Third, in variance models, time ordering among the antecedent independent varlables is immaterial to the consequences. By contrast, a process model, according t0 Mohr (1982) has the following characteristics. First, a process model deals with events rather than vati- ables. Secondly, it deals with a final cause and not efficient causes. A final ‘cause isan end state whose existence presupposes the occurcence of a series of prior states, As Mohr (1982: 59) remarks, “a process model involves pul. ‘ype causality: X does not imply Y, but rather ¥ implies X” (italics in the ‘orginal). Third, in process models, ime ordering among the antecedents is ‘crucial for the outcome, Thus, process theories look very different from the nomothetic variable: based conceptual frameworks that still dominate most organization studies and management journals and, indeed, most of the social sciences. TTalike variance theories, process theories take sequence and ordering to be critical ‘An outcome is explained in terms of diachronic patterns—who does what when and what happens next—rather than in terms of the synchronic bresence of higher or lower levels of specific attributes. Thus, according to Mohr (1982), process theories emphasize necessary causality rather than necessary and sufficient causality because the impact of any event will depend on what precedes it andl what follows it. In practice, process Introducing “Perspectives on Process Orgar theories may take the form of deterministic phase sequences, but a vatiety of other forms are possible including models with parallel paths, feedback loops, non-deterministic branch points, interactions and reversals, As Van. de Ven (1992) notes, to watrant the label “theory” a process conceptualliza tion also needs to be grounded in some kind of underlying logic or genera- tive mechanism that produces the temporal patterns described, 1.1.3 Narrative vs, logico-scientific thinking Beyond the variance-process theory distinction, the social science iteratuce provides other conceptualizations of theoretical forms that ate related to but also different from those proposed by Mohs (1982), and resonate to some extent with process metaphysics. For example, Bruner (1990, 1991) distinguishes between “logico-sclentifc” (or “paradigmatic”) and “narra tive" forms of knowing (see also Polkinghorne, 1988; Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001). Bruner (1986: 11) contrasts the two forms of knowing as follows: “the types of causality implied in the two modes are palpably different. The term then functions differently in the logical proposition ‘If X, then Y' and in the narrative récit ‘The king died, and then the queen died’. One leads to a search for universal truth conditions, the other for likely particular connections between two events—mortal grief, suicide, foul play.” In other words, whereas in paradigmatic knowing propositions or rules Connect categories of behavior to categories of actors and situations, narra: tive knowing places those elements in a temporal, contextualized form with a plot, thus enlivening those characters and events, and capturing those nuances that are dropped in the abstraction process that is character: istic of paradigmatic knowing. As Tsoukas and Hatch (2001: 998) note: “In narrative we havea more concrete rendering of causality. Itis historical and specific, not general and contingent. ‘This happened In this way’, versus ‘This should happen if the following conditions hold’... Whereas within logico-scientific thinking context becomes contingency, in narrative mode, context i situation and circumstance.” Moreover, narratives preserve mul- tiple temporalities, especially kairological (experiential, humanly relevant) time; its significance is not derived from the clock but from the meanings assigned to events by actors (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001) Thus, paradigmatic knowing is driven by the norms ot formal scientine and logical reasoning where generalizations are made about causal influ- ‘ences among variables (similar to Mohr's notion of variance theory). Nat rative knowing, on the other hand, incorporates temporal linkages between experienced events over time, and is a form of knowing that Is used to Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing give meaning to particular events drawing on culturally embedded narrative structures (eg., the comedy, the tragedy, the fairy story, the joke, the moral fable), orany kind of recognizable story that reveals an underlying message, plot, or point, Thus, Bruner (1986, 1990, 1991) and Polkinghorne (1988) take a more subjectivist and interpretive approach to temporally arranged explanations, something absent in Mohe’s (1982) notion of process theory, where a largely positivist and realist understanding of process remains dominant. Process metaphysics, Mohr’s notion of process theorizing, and the narra- tive forms of understanding identified by Bruner and Polkinghorne all offer handles for thinking about phenomena in ways that are sensitive to time, ‘motion, flux, and sequence. They have all provided inspiration to organi- zational scholars and are contributing to the development of Process Orga nization Studies, And yet, as we shall see, there are clearly some distinctions In the degree to which a strong process ontology—where substances are considered to be subordinated to and constituted by processes—has been Incorporated into empirical research and organizational theorizing (Chia and Langley, 2004; Van de Ven and Poole, 2005). Thus, many process scholars study phenomena such as organizational change in terms of ‘movement from one state to another—retaining elements of the substance ontology, since change is conceptualized as happening to things (entities oor substances) that retain thelr identity over time. In contrast, a deeper adherence to process metaphysics would imply viewing change in terms of the ongoing micro-processes that contribute to constituting and reprodu- ‘ing forms of organizing over time (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002; Hernes, 2007). We now look more closely at the origins and development of Process Organization Studies, and consider some of its variants. 1.2 Origins, Development, and Need of Process Organization Studies Although not necessarily consolidated under a process metaphysical label several strands in organization studies have adopted a more or less process oriented perspective over the years. Karl Weick’ (1979, 1995) persistent emphasis on organizing and the important role of sensemaking in it is pethaps the best known process approach that has inspired several izational researchers, Henry Mintzberg’s (1978), James March's (1994), Andrew Pettigrew’s (1985, 1990), Robert Burgelman’s (1983, 1991) and Andrew Van de Ven's (1992; with Poole, 1990, 1995) work on the Introducing lerspectives on Process Organization Studies making of strategy, decision making, organizational change, venturing, and innovation respectively also shows an awareness of the Importance Of process-related issues and has inspired subsequent generations of orga- nizational researchers. Current studies that take an explicitly performative view of organizations {focusing on, for example, routines Feldman, 2000), innovation and change (Carlile, 2004), strategizing (Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski, 2004), natu- ralistic decision making (Klein, 1999), learning and knowing (Gherarci, 2006), communication (Taylor and Van Every, 2000), sensemaking (Maittis, 2005), and the enactment of technological change in organizations (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 1996) have similarly adopted, to varying degrees, a pro- cess vocabiilary, and have further refined a process sensibility, Indeed, the growing use of the gerundt-ing) indicates the desire to move towards dy. namic ways of understanding organizational phenomena, especially in a fast-moving, inter-connected, globalized world. Since a process worldview is not a doctrine but an orientation, it ean be developed in several different directions, exploring a variety of topis in organizational research, For example, traditional topics such as orga! tional design, leadership, trust, coordination, change, innovation, leaming and knowledge, accountability, communication, authority, technology, etc, ‘which have often been studied as “substances,” from a process perspective can be approached as situated sequences of activities and complexes of processes unfolding in time. Perspectives drawing on postrationalist philo- sophies, social constructivism, discourse and narrative theory, practice theory, actor-network theory, path-

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi