A Holistic Synthesis of the Organisation Theories

• Authors: Geoff Goldman , C.W. Callaghan
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Much literature exists on the topic of ‘organisation’. Many different academic disciplinary areas stake their claim to aspects of business organisation. The social sciences offer many different perspectives of the phenomena associated with it; as different lenses, through which the object is perceived very differently. According to social constructivists, the business organisation is socially constructed. For psychologists, it exists at the nexus of individual human needs. For economists, the business organisation operates as a mechanism responding to signals of supply and demand. In this paper the business organisation is re-imaged as an entity existing within, and comprised of, chaotic systems. On the basis of a synthesis of seminal theory this paper attempts to offer a holistic perspective of business organisations; that ‘pulls together’ these multidisciplinary perspectives. On the basis of this synthesis, it is argued that the organisational context is inherently endogenous, and that qualitative research methods might offer management scientists a more valid perspective of the relationships within organisations than empirical methods can.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Intercultural Management
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 5-19

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-05-31

Contributors

author

Geoff Goldman

• University of Johannesburg, South Africa, Department of Business Management (Kingsway Campus), University of Johannesburg, PO Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa

author

C.W. Callaghan

• University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

References

• Allen, P. M. (1998). Dynamic models of evolving systems. System Dynamics Review, 4: 109-130.[Crossref]
• Caterino, M. S., Cho, S., and Sperling, F. A. H. 2000. The Current State of Insect Molecular Systematics: A Thriving Tower of Babel. Annual Review of Entomolog y, 45: 1-54.
• Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.[Crossref]
• Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17:109-122.[Crossref]
• Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. 1977. The Population Ecology of Organizations. The American Journal of Sociolog y, 82(5):929-964.
• Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is Everyone in Agreement? An Exploration of Within-Group Agreement in Employee Perceptions of the Work Environment. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 86(1), 2-16.[Crossref]
• Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From Micro to Meso: Critical Steps in Conceptualizing and Conducting Multilevel Research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211- 236.[Crossref]
• Levy, D. 1994. Chaos Theory and Strategy: Theory, Application, and Managerial Implications. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 167-178.[Crossref]
• Mayer, K.J., and Sparrowe, R.T. 2013. Integrating theories in AMJ articles. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 917-922.[Crossref][WoS]
• Mills, A. 2010. Complexity Science. An introduction (and invitation) for actuaries. Available at: http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soa.org%2Ffiles%2Fresearch%2Fprojects%2Fresearch-complexity-report.pdf&ei=YwzQUZWjE4TcPZbIgdgB&usg=AFQjCNFfAM1LYUUJ3TBePDucLP_hj4R2qA&sig2=FSEuDQiC8jAKdlrpoAMehA&bvm=bv.48572450,d.ZWU (Accessed 30 June 2013)

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/joim-2015-0027