SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi / 2007 / Sayı: 53

ANALOGICAL REASONING is the WAY to GO BEYOND ORTHODOXY in FORMULATING ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS: THE USE of an IMPROVED VERSION of MORGAN’s METAPHORS REVISITED

N. Gökhan TORLAK
Pages
631–672
Publication Date
2011-01-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Predictable, conventional and restricted ways to view organisational concerns should be abandoned

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The paper aims to promote skills of managers to gain greater insight into organisations and to frame their problems through the use of several organisational metaphors, which build on the concepts underpinning organisation theory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The paper briefly reviews Morgan’s metaphors and their associated sociological paradigms that are commonly recognised in social theory, and then improves and rephrases questionnaires on the basis of intrinsic and recent theoretical developments of each metaphor.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Predictable, conventional and restricted ways to view organisational concerns should be abandoned
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ANALOGICAL · REASONING · WAY

Abstract

The paper aims to promote skills of managers to gain greater insight into organisations and to frame their problems through the use of several organisational metaphors, which build on the concepts underpinning organisation theory. The paper briefly reviews Morgan’s metaphors and their associated sociological paradigms that are commonly recognised in social theory, and then improves and rephrases questionnaires on the basis of intrinsic and recent theoretical developments of each metaphor. This paper is concerned with encouraging managers to become creative in viewing problem situations through different metaphors and paradigms. If managers want to act creatively and in an all-embracing manner to address management problems and to improve their organisations, services, and operations, they have to think innovatively and comprehensively. Predictable, conventional and restricted ways to view organisational concerns should be abandoned

Özet

Bu çal×üma, yöneticilerin organizasyonlar× daha büyük ölçüde kavramalar×Q× saùlayan vas×flar×Q× geliütirmeyi ve çeüitli organizasyonel teoriler üzerine inüa edilen metoforlar× kullanarak yöneticilerin problemlerinin çerçevesini çizmeyi amaçlamaktad×r. Bu çal×üma Morgan’×n metaforlar×Q× ve bu metaforlar×n sosyal teoride yayg×n olarak kabul edilen ilgili sosyolojik paradgmalar×Q× k×saca gözden geçirmekte ve böylece her bir metaforun kendi gerçekliùi ve son teorik geliümeler temelinde anketleri geliütirmekte ve yeniden yap×land×rmaktad×r.

🔖

Cite This Article

TORLAK, N. G. (2011). ANALOGICAL REASONING is the WAY to GO BEYOND ORTHODOXY in FORMULATING ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS: THE USE of an IMPROVED VERSION of MORGAN’s METAPHORS REVISITED. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, Sayı: 53, 631–672. https://ajindex.com/articles/1536

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical Theory and Postmodernism Approaches to Organisational studies. (Ed.: Clegg, R.; Hardy, C. & Nord, W.R.). Handbook of Organisation Studies. London: Sage. Alvesson, M. & Deetzs, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. Boulder: Sage. Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley. Ashby, W.R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Methuen. Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, E.T. (1980). Power and Politics in Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S. (1962). “Two faces of power,” The American Political Science Review, 56: 4, 947-952.
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and His World (Translated by H. Iswolsky). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  3. Baran, P. & Sweezy, P.M. (1966). Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  4. Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press.
  5. Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise. Chichester: Wiley. Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the Firm. 2nd Ed. Chichester: Wiley. Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organisations, Chichester: Wiley. Beer, S. (1994). Beyond Dispute: The Invention of Team Syntegrity. Chichester: Wiley. Best, S and Kellner, D. (2001). Postmodern Adventure. London: The Guilford Press.
  6. Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock. Boje, D. M. (2002). Theatres of Capitalism. San Francisco: Hampton Press.
  7. Boje, D. M., Luhman, J.T. & Cunliffe, A.L. (2003). “A Dialectic Perspective on the Organisation Theatre Metaphor,” American Communication Journal, 6(2): 1-16.
  8. Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  9. Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heinemann. Checkland, P.B. (1981).
  10. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley. Cherns, A. (1987). “Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revisited,” Human Relations, 40 (3): 153-162.
  11. Child, J. (1981). “Culture, Contingency and Capitalism in the Cross-National Study of Organizations,” in L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw, (ed.), Research in Organizational Behaviour: 3: 303-356. Greenwich: CT: JAI Press.
  12. Clegg, S. (1990). Modern Organisations: Organisation Studies in a Post-modern World, London: Sage. Coser, L. A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Crozier, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phe