The interactive view of flow in the organic perspective has several implications. First, as suggested by others (e.g., Rindova and Fombrun, 1999) there is a need to go beyond stating the existence of mutual influences to specifying the exact mechanisms by which interaction occurs. Second, if we take seriously the idea that firms and environments influence each other, then it follows that some of the firm’s resources and uniqueness is due to its embeddedness in a particular industry network, geography, and historical context. In turn, the firm’s resources and actions may affect industry attributes, such as entry barriers. Moreover, both firms and industries are subject to emergent and selection processes that are less likely to be influenced by managers, if at all. The issue then becomes not so much whether the industry or the firm is a more important determinant of firm performance, but rather what discretion managers and other employees have in affecting the firm’s internal or external context, and under what conditions.
We see synthesis and dialectic as particularly useful strategies to integrate different theoretical perspectives and research traditions (e.g., in the United States and Europe), or different facets of a phenomenon. In the case of synthesis this involves the search for common ground that combines strengths and minimizes weaknesses, and in the case of dialectics the use of differences and tensions between competing perspectives to produce new understandings (Morgan, 1983: 377–382). One illustration that invites cross-fertilization is the theme of integrated management of change. Insights gained from behavioral models about how to initiate and institutionalize change can be synthesized with those coming from economic models, such as strategic interaction and options theory. Although they originate in different disciplines, these models deal with similar issues: managing uncertainty, overcoming resistance and inertia, coalition formation, and communication. As another illustration, models of learning and experimentation traditionally dealt with by behavioral analysts can examine, for instance, what the most effective experimentation strategies in different contexts may be (e.g., Mosakowski, 1997), and more generally become the focus of analytic approaches.
As pointed out by others (e.g., Weick, 1969), attention to process and interaction requires the use of dynamic vocabulary. Foundational work in the mechanistic perspective coming from both economics and organization theory has focused for too long on structural features of markets and organizations. The trend towards more dynamic analyses that came with the organic development may require a greater attention to the representation and communication of dynamic ideas. One approach is to use verbs, such as organizing and strategizing, to highlight micro actions and human processes and practices. Modeling particular aspects of time such as pace and duration may be another strategy (e.g., Monge, 1990). Finally, the use of visual vocabulary to convey process and interaction may also be beneficial. These different forms of presenting and communicating ideas can complement the use of organic epistemological assumptions on time, flow, and coupling.
Using the analogy of language, the organic perspective generally does not include specific sentences and a rigid syntax, but rather proposes a shared base of key assumptions, concepts, relationships, and themes upon which a variety of stories can be told. What are some of the researchable questions consistent with the organic perspective that can be pursued with the stylistic and method themes discussed above?
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.