Introduction to a special issue on breaking the disciplinary matrix: the ever-changing view of organizational theory

Abstract

This special issue is composed of PhD student term papers that were developed into journal articles. The papers cover a wide spectrum of topics in the domain of organizational theory and modern organizations. Building, expanding and revising theories involves many academics and practitioners testing, retest and comparing theory to experience. As emerging scholars with new perspectives these authors are inclined to challenge existing theories and ways of knowing. This introduction details the content of these papers and explains how the newly formed ideas bare relevance in our changing world. The papers that constitute this issue attests to the expertise and inquisitive nature of new scholars in the field of organizational theory. While the papers were written and revised before the COVID-19 pandemic each paper has relevance in the world today.

And God us keep, from single vision and Newton sleep

William Blake (1802)

Introduction

The genesis of this special article arose from the many well written and insightful research papers authored mainly by a group of young Ph.D. candidates in the organisational studies. These Ph.D. candidates, unburdened by longstanding academic careers that wed them to specific paradigms, creatively wove together theories and life experiences from previous or ongoing academic and non-academic experiences. Through their treatise the Ph.D. candidates questioned current academic theory and business practices and infused the study of institutional theory with refreshing ideas and challenges. As Kuhn (1970a) postulates they engaged in a paradigm shift ‘changing ways of thinking, of seeing the world… and of doing research’ (Imershein, 1977, p. 33). This special issue provides a diverse sampling of these papers.

According to Runkel and Runkel (1984) theory building is on a continuum based on nuances, change and updating. It is this evolution that keeps a theory valid. Theorising is the dynamic that leads to a fully formed theory but even when a theory is established it needs to be rethought and revised to reflect a changing world (Weick, 1995). Through applying established theories to real world experiences these papers fine-tune established theories. The papers also use theory to explain and better understand the work environment. Because of the background with recent and ongoing work experience of the authors the papers help weave together the rift of theory and practice, a divide that has drawn the attention of many academics (Mention, Ferreira, & Torkkeli, 2018). By the end of this introduction we hope the reader will appreciate the variety, theorising, application and uniqueness of the papers in this issue. The papers cover the following topics: Organisational resilience, scenario planning, stakeholder and agency theory, social capital and knowledge management, post modernism, bureaucracy theory and institutionalisation and deinstutionalization. They also provide ideas for global organisations in their current rapidly changing environment of a pandemic.

Theory building though is not always acknowledged or even encouraged. Some theories are so entrenched in mainstream academic thinking that they have created a seemingly irrefutable set of normalised values, an intractable and unchallengeable way to view the world. The bustle of pursuing an academic career and engaging in the pursuit of knowledge sometimes seems paradoxical. It appears there are limits placed on what is ‘appropriate research’ versus inappropriate exploration. The process of peer review can constrain new and/or different ways of looking at the world. Scholars are trained to use a certain set of tools in a certain manner and to follow a set process. Rationality is bounded. In this special edition our goal is to unbind Prometheus for a group of new scholars. We hope that to a degree we are here bringing light to the unseen, making the invisible as Kuhn (1970) would describe change, visible.

The papers in this issue

While this special issue was progressing, the COVID-19 threats and shutdowns started around the world. In many ways the papers in this issue maintain relevancy in the business environment of the new normal. Each paper provides insight into how global organisations can manage during a pandemic. The paper by Neil Cruickshank (2020) entitled He who defends everything, defends nothing: Proactivity in Organisational Resilience is a perfect example. This paper examines the value of organisational resilience, defined as being able to cope and thrive when facing adversity, demonstrated best during an unexpected crisis. The author argues that ‘the increasing complexity of the external environment and the volume, variety and velocity of shocks has created a landscape where the organisation must proactively and continuously demonstrate resilience, through the cultivation of anticipatory innovation.’ (p.g, number in abstract)

The author looks at the evolving study of organisational resilience and explains that ‘resilience is not a latent capability, called into play in the service of emergency response, but rather that it represents a developing capacity’ (ref. paper) that should be exercised continuously. Change can go unobserved until we realise it has happened. As the author notes; ‘In the ecological sense, there is a strong, reciprocal relationship between sustainability and resilience’ (ref. paper). He argues that organisations need to be able to adapt in an ongoing open systems model. Crises offer both challenges and opportunities. In this way organisational resilience can be described as the ability to incorporate elements of strategic foresight into ongoing operational practice.

The second paper, entitled Workplace issues in the context of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: Mental health problems, cannabis and the division of labour, posits the value of scenario planning for organisations using established and recognised literary texts. The authors, Nada Elnahal and Ruth McKay, argue that organisational status quo may be hard to examine due to ethical issues and inexperience by participants. Applying possible scenarios to the current organisational situation, while valuable, can be challenging to imagine, articulate and present. We have been trained to be linear, single-path thinkers. Futurists employ texts such as Huxley’s (2013) Brave New World to explore possible future scenarios. Emulating this practice allows the reader, be it a line employee or manager, to explore difficult situations confronting the organisation and its employees and consider the consequences of actions or inaction by management without impinging on confidentiality or requiring expensive simulations.

The paper presents examples of three pressing organisational issues: mental health, cannabis, prescription and non prescription drugs and changes in the division of labour in organisations. The paper also provides a methodology for using novels for scenario planning. In terms of the COVID-19 it is conceivable many literary pieces will soon be available that provide scenarios that organisations may face in this or future pandemics or health crises and hence can be used for scenario planning to help build adaptability and resilience in organisations. This opens up the possibility that there are potentially many paths to follow in the future, paths that organisations can better anticipate and thence demonstrate preparedness.

The next paper by Bruce Squires and Nada Elnahla, entitled The roles played by boards of directors: An integration of the agency and stakeholder theories, explores the ‘development and articulation of the agency and stakeholder theories of the firm and their corresponding logics of shareholder wealth maximisation and stakeholder interest optimisation.’ (ref. paper, p.g.) Agency theory and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Jensen & Meckling, 1976) take two different, and often irreconcilable, perspectives of the firm. These dissimilar and almost opposing views can pit the two theories against each other, diminishing the value of the concepts. The debate between the theories leaves both notions weaker by highlighting their premise’s limitation and creating territories in a form of ‘either this theory or that theory’ in describing the firm. This paper seeks to unite these theories by showing that while they are different, they are, in very important ways, complementary.

Agency theory describes the relationship between management and the organisational owner/shareholders as instrumental and conflicted due to two distinct agendas. Stakeholder theory focuses on a wide range of an organisation’s stakeholders and takes a moral perspective on the relationship and the actions of the organisation in these relationships. The paper looks at these two theories through a governance of the firm lens. It argues that the two theories are harmonious and not diametrically opposed perspectives. They explain ‘how agency theory lends itself more to the understanding and application of the control/monitoring role of the board of directors’ while ‘stakeholder theory aligns well with the service role of the board (encompassing both resources and strategy).’ (ref. paper) This paper visually depicts how these two theories operate in tandem and elucidates how organisations can enhance and encourage organisational sustainability by drawing from the expertise of the board of directors linking with managers, owners and stakeholders.

As presented, in times of crisis, an organisation can use both the board of directors’ instrumental monitoring, control and moral service actions to mobilise the organisation. By using a wider perspective of the firm through combination of these two theories the authors argue that a more realistic examination of the governance of an organisation can be obtained.

The paper entitled Inclusive Talent Management in the Public Sector: Theory and Practice ‘looks to close current gaps in the talent management literature and contribute to broadening its scope.’ (ref. paper) The paper examines talent management, an organisations effort to recruit, hire, train and retain qualified and talented employees, in the Canadian public sector. The author, Tiffany Cross Walker, argues that the Canadian public sector demonstrates traditional bureaucratic tendencies that provides a strong incentive for employees to retain and even hoard information. Rewards are given to those who hold ‘special knowledge.’ Slowing the flow of information mitigates the transfer of knowledge present through social capital, hindering talent management efforts.

The author proposes using formal rewards and communities of practice to enhance and facilitate knowledge transfer as linked to talent management. This paper grounds its arguments in both knowledge management and social capital, the resources available to social units or employee network relationships (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). ‘This paper articulated not only the barriers to knowledge transfer in general, but also considers ‘barriers to knowledge exchange in this particular setting.’ It proposes ‘more strategic-level complimentary work practices in relation to successful talent management.’ (ref. paper). Rewards should align with using knowledge, not knowledge retention.

Women’s representation in business case studies: A framework of postmodernism to uncover hidden assumptions by Tasnuva Chaudhury completes a review of a segment of entrepreneurship literature. The paper examines assumptions made in case studies of one of the most iconic business school entrepreneurship textbooks. Utilising deconstruction, the author examines the representation and portrayal of women in case studies with the goal of increasing awareness among educators. This paper uses a postmodernism perspective to evaluate and understand past research and ‘frame the research problem and discussion.’ (ref. paper) The study identifies a gap in the representation of women in business text literature.

The paper’s findings can also help inform universities regarding the selection of more gender inclusive texts reflecting the new realities of today’s business environment. The author concludes that by increasing awareness about the underrepresentation of women in decision roles in business texts, educators can be encouraged to write cases centred around women as the central character. In addition, ‘(b)y including the voices that are persistently neglected (business texts) will serve as a source of role-model and self-efficacy for students.’(ref. paper) Failure to be more open to the actual realities of the professional workplace could lead to continuing stereotype replication.

The paper entitled Hierarchies and bullying: An examination into the drivers for workplace harassment within organisation examines how power imbalance, competition and interpersonal relationships management, part of the bureaucratic organisational design, impacts and contributes to workplace harassment. The author, Sandi Wright, uses a case example of harassment in a bureaucracy and examines how aspects of the organisational design, in particular the hierarchy, contribute to the events and outcome of the case. The paper takes the traditional notion of Weberian Bureaucratic Theory and stands it on its head. The author’s argument is that interpretation of Weber’s professional approach has led to a rigid, impersonal, hierarchal, and merit-based workplace that is challenged for its lack of emotional intelligence. She posits that this in turn is seen as a significant contributor to creating a more ruthless work environment – low, savage and brutish in nature. The object is to triumph and be rewarded, regardless of the tactics used to win the competition.

This review concludes noting that power imbalances through a strict adherence to Weberian practice can create opportunity for harassment, and that competitive work environments can encourage and reward behaviours that some could consider harassing. In turn dehumanisation of employees by managers resulting from hierarchical structures could result in harassment in the workplace. The paper also makes recommendations for managers on how to adapt business practices to decrease opportunities for workplace bullying. Wright calls for a need to revisit and renew Weber’s concept for the 21st century public sector and other organisations, which includes; employee interaction training, updating occupational health and safety laws, and decreasing competition among employees. As the author describes it, ‘Man built bureaucracies based on impersonal philosophies, so man can rebuild one that is founded on valuing personal relationships over profit margins.’ (ref. paper)

In our rapidly changing world, many still work in hierarchies, under command and control. With the COVID-19 pandemic, these employees have been suddenly thrust into a new work arrangement in which people are largely working from home without direct oversight and where there is a limit to day-to-day physical work interactions. It will be very interesting to see how aggression and inappropriate work behaviours present in this new environment. This will be particularly of concern for organisations facing rapid change along with financial weakness and where hierarchies and supervision are central to work design and processes. Surveillance technologies maybe used to replace manager oversight with many possible ramifications on mental health and interpersonal relationships between employees and supervisor. It is hard to take the hierarchy out of the organisation particularly at a time of crisis.

The final paper, entitled The Institutionalisation and Deinstitutionalisation of the Cholesterol Theory by Catalin Silviu Neculita and Ruth McKay uses the long-established cholesterol theory to study both institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation. Studies of deinstitutionalisation are rare (Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001; Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002; Maguire & Hardy, 2009, p 148; Scott, 2001) especially in current cases such as with the cholesterol theory. The cholesterol theory posits that a high consumption of fat leads to elevated cholesterol levels resulting in heart disease. However, this theory has a growing number of well-established critics. The theory gained prominence after World War II when incidents of heart disease rose sharply (Kannel, Dawber, Kagan, Revotskie, & Stokes, 1961).

Many theories were presented to explain this phenomenon. The theory that gained the greatest recognition, that became the cholesterol theory, was presented by Ancel Benjamin Keys. The concept has been the most prominent explanation of the cause of heart disease for over sixty years. However, more recently the initial studies by Keys, that provided the basis for the cholesterol theory, have come under question. There are many stakeholders speaking out about the seemingly ineffectiveness of the tenets of the theory. This paper reviews the history of the cholesterol theory, then looks at the recent growing challenges to the theory from researchers and physicians, and argues that the cholesterol model is in the initial state of deinstitutionalisation. It examines the pressures - functional, political, and social - that are responsible for the growing shift in acceptance. ‘This paper provides a case example of deinstitutionalisation that is still in progress. It offers an example of the seminal work on the theory of deinstitutionalisation by Oliver (1992) and provides a rare glimpse at how both insider-driven and outsider-driven factors contribute to deinstitutionalisation.’ (ref. paper)

This paper also provides a glimpse of what may happen to some organisational processes, policies and established beliefs as a result of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the long-established practice of going to work to complete work or presentism - needing to see people - to believe people are working, maybe challenged. The paper also aligns with Kuhn’s examination of the paradigm shift. His work identifies the incredible power of the status quo in limiting alternative world views and how that power leads to a type of bounded rationality in scientific advancement. It is likely the global post-COVID-19 realities will shake-up elements of the current status quo creating opportunities for new ways to approach organisational theory.

Conclusion

The papers in this special issue address a wide range of organisational challenges and provide a new and refreshing view of theories and organisational processes. They are also rooted in application and hence provide practical recommendations. The papers, while written in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic, present a bridge to the new normal by being innovative. It maybe that this pandemic will transform many theories through the pressures of business risks and opportunities. The need for resilience in organisations has always been present. The COVID-19 pandemic is just one application, albeit an enormous application, of disruption facing organisations today.

Kuhn stated that revolutions, challenging and changing paradigms, can be invisible. One does not necessarily realise that they are in the midst of a change until after it has occurred. Alternative ways of seeing entrenched and established patterns of knowing may go unseen at first. As Kuhn (1970b) noted, ‘Since new paradigms are born from old ones, they ordinarily incorporate much of the vocabulary and apparatus, both conceptual and manipulative, that the traditional paradigm had previously employed. But they seldom employ these borrowed elements in quite the same way.’ (p. 149)

This comment is representative of the work of the Ph.D. candidates that compromise this special issue. Will the COVID-19 pandemic be a catalyst to seeing existing global corporate patterns in a different way? Imagine going from a reality where you knew the world was flat, then into a new reality that the world is now round. On one level everything would remain the same, and on another level everything has fundamentally changed forever.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ruth McKay

Ruth McKay is an Associate Professor at Carleton University in the Sprott School of Business in the area of management and strategy. She researches in the areas of organizational theory, workplace bullying and resilience and climate adaptation.

Bill Irwin

Bill Irwin is an Associate Professor at Huron University College where he instructs in both the Bachelors of Management and Organizational Studies program and Governance, Leadership and Ethics. He holds a standing appointment in Western's Local Government program where he has instructed since 2007, and also current instructs in Queen's University School of Public Policy. Dr. Irwin's research interest centers on policy, leadership, and community engagement.