No abstract

In a recent article in this journal, Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl (2016) suggest a definition of organization as a 'decided social order' composed of five elements (membership, rules, hierarchies, monitoring, and sanctions) which rest on decisions. 'Partial organization' uses only one or a few of these decidable elements while 'complete organization' uses them all. Such decided orders may also occur outside formal organizations, as the authors observe. Although we appreciate the idea of improving our understanding of organization(s) in modern society, we believe that Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl's suggestion jeopardizes the concept of organization by blurring its specific meaning. As the authors already draw on the work of Niklas Luhmann, we propose taking this exploration a step further and the potential of systems theory more seriously. Organizational analysis would then be able to retain a distinctive notion of formal organization on the one hand while benefiting from an encompassing theory of modern society on the other. With this extended conceptual framework, we would expect to gain a deeper understanding of how organizations implement and shape different societal realms as well as mediate between their particular logics, and, not least, how they are related to non-organizational social forms (e.g. families).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A general interest in the study of social practices has been spreading across a diversity of disciplines in organization and management research, relying mostly on rich ethnographic accounts of units or teams. What is often called the practice-turn, however, has not reached research on interorganizational networks. This is mainly due to methodological issues that call, in the end, for a mixed-method approach. This article addresses this issue by proposing a research design that balances well-established social network analysis with a set of techniques of organizational ethnography that fit with the specifics of interorganizational networks. In what we call network ethnography, qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analyzed in a parallel fashion. Ultimately, the design implies convergence during data interpretation, hereby offering platforms of reflection for each method toward new data collection and analysis. We discuss implications for mixed-method literature, research on interorganizational networks, and organizational ethnography.

This research note documents the initial findings of an ongoing ethnographic study at a fire and emergency service.This particular organization has become a focus of attention because of its skilled coordination of handling large-scale organized events in cooperation with a large number of other organizations, thereby increasing their reliability. First of all, we will introduce the case and our observations, then discuss our findings against the backdrop of high-reliability theory.We use these findings to characterize high-reliability networks.

Organizations managing disasters face a paradox. They need to build stable, reliable structures that are flexible enough to allow adaptation to such unexpected events. Much planning for concrete disaster response operations involves scenarios. From a Luhmannian perspective, this approach is characteristic of a form of ‘if-then’ conditional programming. Extant research on emergencies and disaster management, however, has remained silent about other than scenario-based planning. This article draws on sociological decision theory to highlight alternative forms of planning for disasters. It presents the possibilities to build stable structures for disaster management by making use of conditional programmes that rely on space instead of scenarios, and by making use of what Luhmann calls ‘programme nesting’. It illustrates this argument with a case study of emergency management in a large German city at the origin of this new planning method.