Handbook of Management & Organization Inquiry

Preface

Management and Organizational Inquiry (MOI) needs refutation in order to become a science.  MOI stands today as a string of random assertions, an aggregate of information that cannot bear the name, science.’ The purpose of this Handbok is to begin the refutation that can raise MOI to the status of science.  MOI tries to pass for the manifestation of an organic unity of subject matter, a whole MOI system, but has failed to grasp its own contradictions. The Handbook of MOI will assert that there is a one-sidedness to MOI.

MOI often legitimated inquiry by appealing to Action Research (AR) or to Grounded Theory (GT). However, such Inquiry has no Action theory, and no Research that is scientific, and no Ground that is in spacetimemattering, and no Theory of the ground beneath the superficial MOI.

MOI has therefore evaded the real issue, and the real thing of the process of action, and instead shunned “actual existence: and therefore lacks serious commitment to science or to an inquiry into the process of action in its actual activity (Hegel, 1807: # 3).

It is past time for MOI to refute is own general concepts, and aprehend the movement of action in life.  The purpose of this Handbook is to help MOI get closer to some form of Science, that we contend lies in the systematic position of spaces and times and matters (spacetimemattering) of the movements of action.  Action moves beyond the limits of the concepts of MOI.  Action demands the “recovering through its agency’s lost sense of substantial being (Hegle, 1807: # 7). This can be done by doing inquiry into the conflicts and power, the agency of self-moving action that extends into the wealth of the sociomateriality of MOI.

Som chapter authors will assert that storytelling’s obsession with sense making, it’s retrospective narrative, must get beyond dwelling in the five senses of retrospective experience of MOI.  Rather the agency of action lies beyond retrospective limits of sense making experience. Both positivism of sense making and the social constructivism of sense making do “shroud in a mist the manifold variety of earthly existence” (#9).

The reader may declare our assertions about MOI are too bold, however we find MOI rather complacent, one-sided, and aloof from the depth of multiplicity of spacetimemattering, the currents of conflict and power, rendered all but indistinguishable from MOI’s superficiality, a veil of monolobgic known as managerialism, cast over the ground of action.

It is th movement of action, the transfomration that is both quantitative and qualitative (quail ethic, for those reading Savall & Zardet’s work).

Action achieves the whole of MOI itself, but just as we do not wish to limit our understanding to the acorn, an would rather inquire into the massive trunk, spreading branches, and foliage, and the whole complicated tortuous path f action in all its variegated emergence, as action acquires meaning and result, we must therefore refute the acorn-plots of MOI that limit its own inquiry (Hegel, 1807: # 12).

The whole complexity activity of action is veiled in the simplicity concepts of MOI.  A wealth of ante-existence, and ante-processes articulate the movement and shaping forces of action.

MOI is vulnerable to criticism for ignoring spacetimemattering of action itself, and without it making all those unfulfilled promises.

 

INstead of fulfilling its promise to become science, MOI focuses on the rare and exotic instances of action, while holding the hole field of action into one of these formulas: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, organizations have either design principle 1 or design principle 2, leaders are either transactional or transformational, the transfer of internalized knowledge into externalized information can be reinternalized for managerial knowledge management control, and so on.  These are monolobgic formalists MOI abounds with them, one only has to ask any undergraduate about the monotony and boredom of their management examinations.

Our Handbook of MOI is here to say these actions have impact. Actions of self-originality and self-differentiation are being veiled by the silly superficial formulae, the monotonous formalism is pseudo science, the imitation of science, but far from science as is the vacuity of the undergraduate or even the MBA management or organization examination.

IN my view, MOI articulates about action processes that it does not study, with the result that it’s monotony of formalisms in its texts, have an impact of dumbing down the subject matter long before anything science is possible. To put it simply, MOI depicts actions;s actuality in a non-actual manner.  It is far away form brief glimpses of the living substance of of MOI, the medications of power and conflict.

 

Dialectics is defined here as the simple negativity of positive, the doubling of negative with positive that sets up the opposition, the conflict, and the power diversity of MOI. As Hegle (8071807: #18) puts it, “simple negativity” sets up a doubling, “and then again the negation of this indifferent diversity and antithesis.” It is precisely this dialectic that MOI lacks, has avoided, so as not to appear Marxist. I am Hegelian and not Marxist, so MOI need have no worries on that score. Action is the process of its own becoming, and only when MOI comes out of its one-sided positivity (be it positivism or positive thinking) will a theory of action be possible in all its currents and counter-currents.

It is “the suffering, the patience, and the labor of the negative” that has been ignored by MOI and led to its insipidity (Hegel, 807: # 19). ANd it has lead to alienation of both labor and management, and to a superficial attempt at overcoming alienation with applications of more positive thinking, and more positivism. Meanwhile the self-movement and self-differentiation of action goes without inquiry.

MOI’s horror about dialectics of action, it’s abhorrence of the negative has let a virus spread, with many action results.It is the virus Savall and Zardet, and recently when book Amandine co-authored, Agileˆ, points out, the self-moving selfsame nests, which is also the fractality that Tonya Henderson and I have written about (Boje & Henderson, 2014; Henderson & Boje, 2015). This is the virus called Taylorism-Fayolism-Weberism (TFW virus as Savall and Zardet) call it. It is the TKFW fractal as Henderson and I call it. Since MOI is so obsessed with monotonous formalism, abstract one-liners, there is no actual study of the counter-fractals, the counter-forces to the TFW viral fractal.  Without studying the doubling process the dialectics of self-moving action, there is only epidemic of MOI, unrestrained, without refutation.

To remedy MOI’s defective as, it’s dysfunctions, means engagin in the study of “negative action: in relationship to positive action, and then to look at medications that never get to some sort of synthesis (Hegle, 1897: # 24). Synthesis is the misreading and misconceived get of Hegel, the work of the performativity and progress narratives of TFW.

Can MOI cure itself of its own obsession with one-sidedness? If not, then the TFW virus will continue to spread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements