A Critical Framework for Organizational Analysis

Alvesson, Mats

doi:10.1177/017084068500600202

Cited by 44 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…'Radical' schools of organizational analysis include Critical Theory (e.g. Benson 1977;Jermier 1981;Alvesson 1985;Steffy and Grimes 1986) and 'radical' readings of Weber (e.g. Mouzelis 1975;Salaman 1978;McNeil 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

Willmott

1993

Organization Studies

234

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reflects critically upon the core argument of Burrell and Morgan's highly influential Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis and evaluates responses to it. Although Burrell and Morgan were explicitly concerned to open up a wider field of vision to students of organization, their book simultaneously declared a new dogma: the mutual exclusivity of paradigms. The specific target of the paper is Burrell and Morgan's sharp division of 'subjectivist' and 'objectivist' forms of analysis. To challenge this dogma, attention is given to Kuhn's understanding that there is continuity as well as incommensurability in the process of theory development. In contrast to the 'pluralist strategy' favoured by Reed (1985) and the defence of paradigm incommensurability recently made by Jackson and Carter (1991), the paper follows Kuhn in commending a process of reflection committed to the identification and remedying of anomalies within existing theories. This argument is illustrated by examining the process of theoretical development within one branch of organizational analysis: labour process theory, where anomalies within the orthodox formulation of the dynamics of social reproduction have been identified by Burawoy and others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

Willmott

1993

Organization Studies

234

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frost, 1985;Smircich, 1983;Smircich & Morgan, 1982) and its centring on 'meaning' as key to understanding (rather than explaining) organizational everyday life opened OS to the problems of language and language-use (Winch, 1958, had drawn on 'the later' Wittgenstein to problematize language/use in social sciences). Critical frameworks for organizational analysis (Alvesson, 1985;Willmott, 1984), often supported by Foucault's works, added to a certain reflexivity (sometimes only regarding the other) for which the role of not only language but also knowledge and power are understood as genealogically intimate and productive in complex ways. OS's connective capacity (i.e., openness) vis-à-vis social sciences and humanities was thereby confirmed in what had become a more heterogeneous discipline in the process (e.g.…”

Section: A Narrative Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Burden of History in the Family Business Organization

Hjorth

Dawson

2016

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we focus on the study of history through the use of narratives, within the context of the prevalent form of organization worldwide: the family business. Specifically we consider the dilemma of the impossible gift of succession using Nietzsche's discussion of the burden of history and paralleling the story of a family business succession with that of Shakespeare's King Lear. This way, we seek to make a contribution to organizational studies by answering recent calls to engage more with history in studies of business organizations.By implication, the study also initiates an integration of family business studies into organization studies.

show abstract

“…Van der Post et al 's (1998) model of organisational culture is based on systems theory and they have used positivist research paradigms (Perry, Riege & Brown, 1998) to construct and validate the surveys. Culture research falling within this perspective has been criticised by critical theorists such as Alvesson (1985Alvesson ( , 1989Alvesson ( , 1993 for its lack of political and ideological insight and its connection to the ideology of managerialism (Denison, 1996).…”

Section: Challenges In Cross-cultural Research In Business Organisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-cultural equivalence of the organisational culture survey in Australia

Erwee¹,

Lynch²,

Millet³

et al. 2001

SA j ind psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to assess whether the cross-cultural equivalence of the Organisational Culture Survey (OCS) persist in an Australian context. The nature of the instrument is presented which includes a clear statement of its South African origin and its' place within a logical positivist paradigm. The sample consisted of 326 respondents from a population of managers of the Australian Institute of Management. This study con¢rms the instrument's validity and internal consistency within an Australian context, but that further research is required into the functional and conceptual equivalence of the survey items and dimensions underpinning the items to conclusively establish its utility. Finally, aspects of the 'organisational culture'construct underlying the survey need revision given recent trends in related systems, complexity and chaos theories. OPSOMMINGDie doel van hierdie studie is om te bepaal of die kruis-kulturele ekwivalensie van die Organisational Culture Survey (OCS) in 'n Australiese konteks standhou. Die aard van die instrument word omskryf wat 'n duidelik standpunt rakende sy Suid-Afrikaanse oorsprong en sy plek in 'n logies-positivisitiese paradigma stel. Die steekproef het uit 326 respondente uit 'n populasie bestuurders van die Australiese Bestuursinstituut bestaan. Hierdie studie bevestig die instrument se geldigheid en interne konstantheid binne die Australiese konteks, maar ook dat verdere navorsing nodig is na die funksionele en konseptuele ekwivalensie van die items en die dimensies wat onderliggend daaraan is voordat die nutswaarde van die instrument ten volle bewys kan word. Ten slotte, moet aspekte van die konstruk 'organisasiekultuur' nader ondersoek word in die lig van verwikkelinge op die terrein van stelsel-, kompleksiteiten chaosteoriee« .

show abstract

A Critical Framework for Organizational Analysis

Cited by 44 publications

References 7 publications

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

The Burden of History in the Family Business Organization

Cross-cultural equivalence of the organisational culture survey in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About