Search

Since Organizational Studies, power and ambiguity are understood as inherent elements to organizations which can be positive for their survival, as in the case of the concrete systems of action and the organized anarchy. In that sense, the aim of this essay is to argue why these two forms of organization can complemented theoretically. To do this, first the importance of the power and of the ambiguity for understanding organizations is revised; analyzing how these two elements are the main basis for concrete systems of action and organized anarchy, and defining the main characteristics of these theories. Then, it is proposed and argued how the complementarity between the two can be, from the integration of its main elements. Finally, the conclusions of the work are presented, where it is argued that the integration between both forms allows obtaining a potentially holistic perspective for organizational study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concepts related to the word power, which scholars who specialize in this topic have developed, are numerous. A prompt revision of power concepts leads us to conclude that beneath them underlies an instrumental rationality, which is expressed in a consequential logic. The latter limits theoretical comprehension of power relations. In this context, this assignment seeks, within organizational ambiguity theories, but mostly neoinstitutional theoretical frames, elements of analysis that, while diversifying instrumental rationality underlying power relations, offer more appropriate theoretical frames for the understanding of inherent complexity to power relations. Thus, in the first instance, the topic of contribution to organizational ambiguity theories for the study of power relations is approached. Secondly, one might ponder over the relationship between new institutionalism -- both psychological and political -- and power relations, highlighting the passing of rational and individual interests to identities, roles, as well as institutional frames. Third, it briefly deals with the conflict-institution relationship. Later, ranking as fourth, neo-institutional analysis limits are established for power relations analysis, as even if neo-institutionalism is useful to power relations analysis, it encounters several limits. Finally, to conclude, we ponder about the relationship among institution, conflict, power, as well as organizational analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]