Organization as Communication

Schoeneborn, Dennis

doi:10.1177/0893318911405622

Cited by 143 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Organizations as 'decision machines' (Nassehi, 2005) Luhmann, in line with CCO scholars (Cooren, 2011;Putnam & Mumby, 2014;Putnam & Nicotera, 2009;Schoeneborn, 2011;Taylor, 2011), underlines that communication constitutes organisations. However he argues that organisations, like other systems (e.g.…”

Section: Organisations and Their Structural Couplingmentioning

confidence: 87%

In-house Consulting - an answer to building change capacities in complex organisations?

Schumacher

Scherzinger

2016

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systemic in-house Consulting (SIHC) is a new phenomenon in many German-speaking multinational companies. Triggered by the increase in parallel change projects (particularly in bigger organisations), SIHC faces an almost Munchhausen-like paradoxical task: to consult and change organisations from within. In this article, we explore the SIHC phenomenon and argue that increasing change needs have the potential to stimulate organisational change capacity. SIHC can also be interpreted as one way to build up internal change capacities. The article illustrates the new SIHC phenomenon, using the case of an automotive supplier building up SIHC as a resource to cope with the multiple, heterogeneous and parallel change processes. Systemic In-house Consulting, Multiple Change, Organisational Change Capacity, Neither approach particularly encourages organisation-wide change capacity development. One interesting phenomenon in the German change management field is 'systemic organization consulting' (SOC), a practice strongly influenced by system theory (Luhmann, 1995, 2000). The SOC has developed in the last 30 years from a niche phenomenon to a wellrecognized consulting approach in German-speaking countries. Compared with traditional management consulting approaches, SOC differs in its analysis of organisations from a system theoretical perspective. This theory holds that organisations are constituted of communication, leading to the incorporation of systemic consulting principles (e.g. consultant neutrality, reflexivity, multi-perspectivity and a systemic understanding of interventions) and the application of systemically inspired tools (e.g. second-order observation, appreciative inquiry, solution-focused questions, clarification of context and expectations) (Schumacher, 2013). Zooming in on the field of SOC, a less-visible phenomenon-the systemic in-house consulting (SIHC)-comes into focus. Systemic in-house consultants work like their external The number of education programs, masters' courses, seminars and training sessions offering systemic training in organisational development and change management suggests a conservative estimate of 10,000 people who have undergone training and work in organisations (Krizanits, 2011). However, there is no precise and reliable data about SIHC dissemination. The article explores the phenomenon of SIHC, based on the observation that (particularly) bigger organisations have established a systemic form of SIHC for organisational The article is structured as follows; first, we briefly outline the challenges organisations face in establishing change capacity. Then, we outline our method, briefly introduce systemic consulting in Germany and describe the empirical context. Next we present the case of a German automotive supplier consulting department and illustrate its actual activities, using

show abstract

Section: Organisations and Their Structural Couplingmentioning

confidence: 87%

In-house Consulting - an answer to building change capacities in complex organisations?

Schumacher

Scherzinger

2016

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From that perspective, strategy is always a combination of real intention (a priori) and ascription of intention (after the facts). The ascription of intention ('this was our plan') often coincides with an ascription of success (Rap, 2006;Schoeneborn, 2011;Seidl, 2016). Systems theory thus complicates the distinction made by Mintzberg between strategy as plan and emerging strategy, as both dimensions are inextricably part of every set of actions that is considered to be a strategy.…”

Section: Strategy: Actions and Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking strategy in environmental governance

Assche

Beunen

Gruezmacher

et al. 2020

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel framework for analyzing the formation and effects of strategies in environmental governance. It combines elements of management studies, strategy as practice thinking, social systems theory and evolutionary governance theory. It starts from the notion that governance and its constitutive elements are constantly evolving and that the formation of strategies and the effect strategies produce should be understood as elements of these ongoing dynamics. Strategy is analyzed in its institutional and narrative dimensions. The concept of reality effects is introduced to grasp the various ways in which discursive and material changes can be linked to strategy and to show that the identification of strategies can result from prior intention as well as a posteriori ascription. The observation of reality effects can enhance reality effects, and so does the observation of strategy. Different modes and levels of observation bring in different strategic potentialities: observation of self, of the governance context, and of the external environment. The paper synthesizes these ideas into a framework that conceptualizes strategies as productive fictions that require constant adaptation. They never entirely work out as expected or hoped for, yet these productive fictions are necessary and effective parts of planning and steering efforts.

show abstract

“…The concepts of functional differentiation and formal organization are considered to be constitutive of modern societies. Interestingly, theories of functional differentiation and formal organization are often observed to be mutually supportive and interdependent (Ahrne, Brunsson, & Seidl, 2016; Bergthaller & Schinko, 2011; Leydesdorff, 2002; Luhmann, 1977, 1990, 1997; Roth, 2015; Roth & Schütz, 2015; Schoeneborn, 2011; Seidl, 2005; Vanderstraeten, 2005; Wetzel & Van Gorp, 2014). Yet, paradoxically, there has been little intersection between the streams of research on functional differentiation and formal organization (Roth & Kaivo-oja, 2016; Wetzel & Van Gorp, 2014).…”

Section: Modernity and Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By helping to appreciate the full spectrum of functional differentiation, the concept of multifunctionality brings us closer to a positive understanding of nonprofits and NGOs. It is no accident that this understanding rests on the systems–theoretical definition of organizations as communicative systems (Luhmann, 2003; Nassehi, 2005; Schoeneborn, 2011; Seidl & Becker, 2006), even though the functional differentiation approach is entirely consistent with alternative definitions of organizations, for example, as institutions or fields. The essential implication is that the concept of multifunctionality subsumes the traditional distinction between nonprofit and for-profit organizations.…”

Section: Toward a Theory Of Multifunctional Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Nonprofit Diversity to Organizational Multifunctionality: A Systems–Theoretical Proposal

Will

Roth

Valentinov

2017

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The remarkable feature of the nonprofit sector is its astonishing diversity. This feature gets short shrift in the traditional market or governmental failure theories of the nonprofit sector. Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's concept of functional differentiation, we demonstrate that these theories are implicitly economy-and politics-biased. In seeking to overcome these biases, we show that nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are better understood as those varieties of organizations whose primary focus is on function systems other than the economy and politics. We summarize this argument in the concept of organizational multifunctionality, which turns out to be likewise applicable to the for-profit sector.

show abstract

Organization as Communication

Cited by 143 publications

References 49 publications

In-house Consulting - an answer to building change capacities in complex organisations?

In-house Consulting - an answer to building change capacities in complex organisations?

Rethinking strategy in environmental governance

From Nonprofit Diversity to Organizational Multifunctionality: A Systems–Theoretical Proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About