Organisation
Design
Course: Organisation & Design – 12-12-2020
Radboud University – Master Organizational Design & Development
,Article 1 – Worren - When theories become tools
Traditional criteria for scientific validity do not always provide usefulness for practitioners. Managers
rely primarily on tacit, procedural knowledge, derived from direct experience and trial-and-error
learning. The output of academic research is sometimes not compatible with this practical reasoning
process. Hoshmand and Polkinghorne and Schon want a better formed epistemology of “practice
knowledge”. This perspective is rooted in the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism.
Aristotle already referred to these important concepts like; praxis (practice), theoria (theory) and
techne (technique/skills). Whereas for Aristotle, there was a sharp distinction between the
theoretical and practical disciplines, philosophers in the pragmatist tradition have attempted to
overcome the dichotomy between theory and action.
The pragmatic validity of knowledge can be judged by the extent to which goals can be achieved by
producing certain actions or using particular instruments. Yet there is little consensus in the
literature regarding how pragmatically valid knowledge is created.
Knowledge as design
One aspect which is not talked a lot about if the output of research. The pragmatist perspective
focuses on the role knowledge plays as a conceptual tool in professional research processes. This
potentially tool-like character of knowledge is often overlooked. Perkins contrasted the prevailing
view of ‘knowledge as information’ with the alternative view of ‘knowledge as design’. A design is a
structure adapted to a purpose.
In order to develop a framework for pragmatic validity, we propose that we can utilize principles
from fields such as cognitive ergonomics, which seeks to identify design principles that can be
consulted by people who develop user interfaces of computer systems or any other physical product.
In addition to cognitive ergonomics, we also need to consider the role that tools play in shaping
social processes. It is rare however, that theories in management can be used as cognitive tools by
practitioners without great modification. Many theories of organizational behaviour are too
complicated for the mind/brain to use in everyday life.
Knowledge in different representational
modes
It is necessary to consider the different possible
ways in which knowledge can be represented.
Sometimes the same thing can be ‘said’ both
visually and verbally. We have grouped
contributions into one of three categories
depending on the representational mode that they
imply: propositional, narrative or visual.
Pragmatic validity in the propositional mode
Useful knowledge does not only contain a
description of what is happening, or what is going to
happen under certain conditions, but also
specifications for how these conditions and actions
can be created in the first place. Whereas
descriptive theory might help answer the question
1
,‘What caused an event to occur?’, prescriptive theory helps answer the question ‘How can that
situation be changed?.
Ineffective theories are maintained instead of being replaced by more effective theories.
Pragmatically valid theory in the propositional mode contains three major components. First, there
are explicit and causal propositions of the form ‘if you do A, then B is likely to follow, given certain
conditions’. The second component consists of rules that practitioners can use to test the validity of
these causal claims. Third, a pragmatic theory needs to contain explicit statements of how the results
are created.
Discussion – propositional perspective
The propositional perspective suggests that scholars should place increased emphasis on developing
prescriptive theory that can be tested by implementation in real organizational contexts. Theories do
not tell manager how to get out of the trouble they are in. Argyris and Meehan acknowledge that
there will always be gaps in the managerial theories available to practitioners because the theories
can never represent the full complexity of the context in which the implementation is occurring.
Intended action is continuously mixed and integrated with emergent patterns and structures to
create successful adaptation. There are also some potential problems of forcing all learning and
problem-solving efforts into an explicit and propositional format.
Pragmatic validity in the narrative mode
Linguistically ambiguous knowledge – such as stories, metaphors or general concepts – is often more
useful to practitioners. Linguistically ambiguous knowledge might actually improve the ability to deal
with situations involving high uncertainty. Ambiguous theories frame the strategic discourse within
the organization without making early commitments to a particular decision. Poorly defined theories
might thus preserve options, in that managers can apply the same theories even when the
environment is changing.
Narrative knowledge has imaginative and contextualized qualities. Effective narratives have the
power to persuade and facilitate understanding by being mediators between the general and the
particular. To be effective, a narrative must conform to rules for logical consistency in its descriptions
of the connections between particular events, and must, at the same time, provide drama or imagery
to arouse interest and attention.
Discussion – narrative perspective
Representing knowledge in a narrative format frequently increases usefulness by enhancing interest,
involvement and credibility of a theory or concept. Narratives also facilitate encoding and recall of
information, in that people can use their general knowledge of familiar plots and settings to structure
the concepts of a story. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge limitations of this
representational format. It is often difficult to extract lessons from the stories told in organizations.
As conceptual tools, the most important role of narratives is that of providing cognitive support by
facilitating information, encoding and retrieval, conveying implicit assumptions, and shaping
interpretive frames of reference among organizational actors
Pragmatic validity in the visual mode
Knowledge in organizations is frequently codified and represented in a visual format. What is needed
is an increased understanding of both the ‘grammar’ underlying the production of visual statements,
and the broader role that visual information plays in organizational processes.
2
,Kress and van Leeuwen have developed a framework for analysing the grammar of visual
representation. They define grammar as the rules that govern how depicted elements combine into
visual ‘statements’ of greater or lesser complexity and extension. So far this framework is descriptive
but they suggest that their investigation might lead to a normative framework that can help to
develop ‘visual literacy’ supported by a set of more formal rules for visual representation,
Discussion – visual perspective
Many of the most popular management models are expressed in a visual format or at least
accompanied by visual representations. Yet despite the popularity of such models, there is little
research-based inquiry into how representational modes influence their diffusion, adoption or
effectiveness.
There are, of course, potential drawbacks from representing knowledge in a visual mode. Visual
information is subject to the same biases as other types of ambiguous knowledge such as narratives.
Visual representations can be highly persuasive even if their implicit premises are wrong. The
potential for misuse points to need for the type of analytical frameworks that we have described
above, which can be used to increase people’s ‘visual literacy’.
Conclusions
We have wanted to demonstrate that pragmatic theory may be represented in different modes. The
author’s epistemological stance, usually rooted in one representational mode (typically narrative or
propositional), is often promoted without any consideration for the domain that this form of
knowledge might apply to, or the limitations of leaving other representational modes out.
Managers need different types of knowledge that fit the demands of different activities. Academic
approaches that consider one representational mode in isolation will always end up with an
incomplete picture of how managers actually apply knowledge. The usefulness of knowledge will
depend on the degree of fit, the type of problem or decision being considered, the phase in the
process and organizational contextual factors.
We envisage three approaches to assessing pragmatic validity. The first is simply to use the level of
adoption as an indicator. The second approach, is therefore, to assess pragmatic validity more
directly, using an experimental methodology. The third approach is to ask the users of the tools
about their opinions. User involvement and feedback is considered a key factor in securing user-
friendly designs. Pragmatic validity is fundamentally about whether the use of certain tools helps
guide action to attain goals, and the users themselves might be the ones who are best qualified to
judge whether this is happening.
Traditional criteria for evaluating organizational theories rely on the notions of explanatory power
and falsifiability seen from the researcher’s perspective and do not address the issues of practical
usefulness and relevance. By incorporating pragmatic validity as a criterion we would significantly
improve our field’s ability to impact managerial practice.
3
, Article Birkinshaw – Building ambidexterity into an organisation
For a company to succeed over the long term, it needs to master both adaptability and alignment –
an attribute that is sometimes referred to as ambidexterity.
There are two forms of ambidexterity
Structural ambidexterity - to create separate structures for different types of activities. But this can
lead to isolation.
Contextual ambidexterity – calls for individual employees to make choices between alignment-
oriented and adaption-oriented activities in the context of their day-to-day work.
There are four ambidextrous behaviours in individuals;
- Ambidextrous individuals take the initiative and are alert to opportunities beyond the
confines of their own jobs.
- Ambidextrous individuals are cooperative and seek out opportunities to combine their
efforts with others.
- Ambidextrous individuals are brokers, always looking to build internal linkages
- Ambidextrous individuals are multitaskers who are comfortable wearing more than one hat.
These four behaviours have important commonalities;
1. They constitute acting outside the narrow confines of one’s job and taking action in the
broader interests of the organization.
2. They describe individuals who are sufficiently motivated and informed to act spontaneously,
without seeking permission of support from their superiors.
3. The encourage action that involved adaptation to new opportunities but is clearly aligned
with the overall strategy of the business.
Ghoshal and Bartlett argue that four sets of attributes – Stretch, discipline, support and trust –
interact to define an organization’s context. In combination
these create two dimensions of organization context.
1. Performance management is concerned with
stimulating people to deliver high-quality results and
making them accountable for their action.
2. Social support is concerned with providing people with
the security and latitude they need to perform.
The more a company emphasized performance management
and social support, the more likely are its employees to behave
ambidextrously – aligned and adaptive – and the more likely
the organization is to achieve high performance. A deficiency of
4
