Search

Rational, natural, and open systems approaches to organizations serve the classification of organization theories well. They summarize the concepts, highlight the strengths, and value the contributions of each one of their individual theories. At the same time, they reveal the deficiencies, the shortcomings, and the weaknesses. The previous chapter therefore suggests considering alternative approaches to organizational knowledge, learning, and memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of organizations in modern society is an inevitable fact. They are ˵the principal mechanism by which, in a highly differentiated society, it is possible to `get things done,΄ to achieve goals beyond the reach of the individual″ (Parsons, 1960, p. 41). Already in ancient civilizations, organizations play an import role in society. Greek and Roman empires, for example, had institutions for public administration or tax collection. And while these empires came and went, some organizations such as the Catholic Church are still present today (cf. Kieser, 1989). However, the modern organization is a relatively young phenomenon. Scott remarks Even though organizations are now ubiquitous, their development has been sufficiently gradual and uncontroversial that they have emerged during the past few centuries almost unnoticed. The spread of public bureaucracies into every sector and the displacement of the family business by the corporation ˵constitutes a revolution″ in social structure, but one little remarked until recently. (Scott, 1998, p. 4) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In conclusion of the opening theme, knowing the dancer from the dance, even though they are inseparable in practice, is helpfully understood when conceived in the following theoretical fashion (cf. Gill, 1975). First, attend to the particular positions and movements of the dancer. These mediate an awareness of a richer dimension called the dance, in turn. As the latter subsidiarily awareness comes in focus, the positions and movements of the dancer remain but subsidiary themselves. Thus, the distinction between the dancer and the dance emerges. Moving back and forth between the particularities of the dancer and the broader significance of the dance amplifies the experiential knowledge gained through aesthetic awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computational simulation allows for the study of social systems beyond the restrictions of theoretical and empirical analysis. Still, it replaces neither one of these traditional research methods but rather complements them. Several studies in management science and organization theory employ computational simulation, indeed. One of the most prominent examples from management science is the Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice by Cohen, March, & Olsen (1972). The simulation inquires into the decisionmaking process of organizations and yields predictions with respect to the effect of adversity. Other well-known computational simulations from organization theory are March΄s (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning and Carley΄s (1992) Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover, both of which revolve around issues of organizational learning, obviously. Moreover, they particularly well compare to social systems theory (Blaschke ΄ Schoeneborn, 2006). The below model of autopoietic organization theory and the computational simulation thereof draw heavily on both March and Carley, therefore. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computational simulation is used in a variety of scientific fields (e. g., biology, chemistry, physics). Unfortunately, simulation in the social sciences exists at the margin of scientific research. This situation is changing gradually. Social science simulation frequently piggybacks on the emerging science of complexity (Bruderer & Maiers, 1997) and with it reaches a wider audience. The remainder of this chapter presents a formal definition of computational simulation, introduces social science simulation as a specific form of scientific inquiry, and finally discusses its purposes and limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The closing question from Yeats΄ poem Among School Children incites a paradoxical answer. It is possible to observe the particular positions and movements of an individual dancer and thereby identify the performance as a specific dance, while it is impossible to observe the performance of the dance devoid of the positions and movements of the dancer. Still, any other dancer may well perform the same dance, and just therefore it is possible to distinguish the particular positions and movements that constitute a specific dance from any individual performance. ˵Such remarks indicate that we are aware of two ontologically distinct entities within one perceptual phenomenon,″ Gill (1975) highlights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]