Search results

An ancient, and most influential, concept in management thought is the idea of rationality. Criticism with regard to a rational approach to management seems to focus on the importance of value issues. It is argued in this article that from a historical‐philosophical perspective values and rationality are not simply each other’s opposites, but closely related. The article sketches the conceptual development of the idea of rationality in philosophical thinking. The adopted focus is to consider the major changes in the meaning of the idea of rationality, and the kind of criticism the idea has encountered. Schematically, the article approaches the conceptual development of a current‐day comprehension of “rationality” by using four episodes: ancient thinking towards wise leadership; the Greek idea of logos; the nineteenth century modernist belief in positivism; and the twentieth century “postmodernist” debate which culminates in Habermas’ “communicative” rationality. An assessment of the meaning of rationality in management thought is undertaken by an initial appraisal of the roots of management thought prior to the emergence of rationality as an idea. This illustrates the often neglected normative basis of management thought, and stresses the importance of managerial “values”. It enables a perspective on the ancient Greek development of meaning for logos, which is the classical precursor for modern day rationality. By appraising the development of rationality as a particular conceptual type, rather than a specific philosophical idea, the non‐normative approach adopted in modernist management writings emerges as being a severely constrained concept. From a philosophical perspective, a reduction of rationality to some kind of “goal‐oriented” action is inadequate. This is because rationality and valuation have traditionally been, and remain, closely linked. As such, the three Es of goal‐rationality (economy, efficiency, and effectiveness) acquire a counterpart that refers to value‐rationality ‐ ethics.

Examines how the different concepts of rationality have been used (and confused) by economists who have followed modern philosophers′ understanding of human reason. Offers a philosophical discussion as a means to understanding rationality and its incumbent problems of interpretation.

As well as explaining the basis for, and linking the thematic structure of the contributions to, the Journal of Management History ‐ Special Issue on the topic of rationality, the article appraises the philosophical trichotomisation (or three‐part division) of epistemology. Recognising that rationality is primarily a philosophical concept, but also an esteemed and iconic indicator for good reasoning, the discussion of the trichotomised epistemology is undertaken to illustrate that rationality is conceptually understood in three different forms. From the observation that rationality has to be conceived as trimorphic, the commentary then illustrates the substantive limitations for each form.

The methodological boundary of the GPE is demarcated by truth and non‐violence. It needs to be emphasised that the GPE is dependent on a type of methodological individualism where individuals matter most in the operation of the whole system. Individuals are the true entities and their holistic development is the basic purpose of the GPE, and this goes a long way to achieve the desideratum of a self‐reliant society. These are the basic instrument variables so to say. To ignore the development of individuals in the system of the GPE is like playing Hamlet without the prince of Denmark. For the proper working of the Gandhian system, many instruments, and institutional and organisational changes are indeed necessary and in some cases, what Schumpeter calls creative destruction, becomes inevitable. Gandhi's methodology was a combination of both realism and idealism. Very often he used the method of eclecticism through a fusion of empirical pragmatism with metaphysical idealism. This is evident in many of his writings including the theory of state, and political and social philosophy.

The aim of this paper is to present the necessity for practical wisdom in the managerial decision making process and its role in such a process. The paper seeks to contrast the position with two conventional approaches based on maximizing and satisficing behaviors respectively.

Following Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas it is argued that a correct decision should consider an “integral rationality” which includes not only “instrumental rationality” but also “practical rationality”. The latter permits the evaluation of both means and ends from the perspective of human good. Practical wisdom helps the decision maker to determine how a decision will contribute to the human good in each particular situation.

Maximizing and satisficing behaviors are based on the facts‐values dichotomy, which separates business and ethics and presents a rationalistic and incomplete view of the reality. The alternative presented here sees the decision as a whole, and this is a more comprehensive understanding of the reality. Ethics is better integrated into the decision making process, since it is an intrinsic part of such a process, not an extrinsic addition.

Every decision has an ethical dimension, which should be considered by managers for making good decisions. Practical wisdom is essential in perceiving such a dimension and in making sound moral judgments in the making of decisions. Managers do not need only skills for making correct decisions, but practical wisdom and moral virtues, too.

The approach presented in the paper defeats the conventional but narrow views of managerial decision making based on maximizing behavior or on satisficing behavior and introduces the categories of good and evil as the main driver for managerial decision making.

The purpose of the article is to present MARC, a model for assessing – and improving – the health of organisations from a humanistic point of view.

The model has been developed in an organisational development clinical research tradition. The validity of the model rests on logical reasoning grounded in organisational and salutogenic research, and on it appearing useful to clients and members in organisations where it has been employed.

When using the MARC model to structure analyses and facilitate discussions in organisations that have sought aid, the model has helped reveal major sources of imbalance between its four aspects: meaning, authority, rationality and care. A major survey revealed no statistically significant differences between men and women. This indicates that the MARC concepts are general rather than gender‐specific. The results also contradicted the often stated notion that men emphasise “hard” aspects (A and R) while women emphasise “soft” ones (M and C).

The paper demonstrates that support for the importance of each of the four aspects – meaning, authority, rationality and care – as perspectives in analysing and understanding organisations can be found in the organisational research literature. The authors' contribution is to argue the case that they represent four important human needs that need to be attended to in balance in an organisation if cooperation between the individuals in the organisation is to be sustainable from a human‐centred perspective. MARC is designed to help visualise and focus this balance.

The Neoclassical approach to analysing personal choice is compared with an approach contained in a Biblical Christian mode of analysis. This paper compares the Neoclassical and Christian positions via analysis of characteristics of the Neoclassical rational choice model. The main characteristic examined is a basic assumption of the rational choice model that human choice is explained as the optimisation of utility via rational self‐interest. The two positions are compared in terms of how they treat self‐interest and rationality, the degree to which basic assumptions about human behaviour are specified, the importance they attach to the realism of assumptions underlying their models, and the explanatory and predictive purposes for which the models are used. The conclusion of the comparison is that the Biblical Christian perspective encompasses the variables regarded as important in Neoclassical explanation, but presents them in the context of a more embracing worldview perspective than the Neoclassical. This Christian belief perspective is applicable to human behaviour in both “economic” and “non‐economic” domains.

The purpose of this paper is to show the feasibility of effectual ethics on foundations of micro and macro issues of economics.

In this paper, the library research method has been used to reflect some ideas about the necessity of changing the concept of economic rationality and modifying it from some famous economists.

The entrance of ethics in economic discussions may affect them and suggests the new solutions or make considerable quantitative or qualitative changes to them.

If research is reported on in the paper this section must be completed and should include suggestions for future research and any identified limitations in the research process.

It may be possible to objectify the extended rationality presumption by revising public culture and correcting it in such a way that ethical values and norm are institutionalized in society.

This research shows that if ethical values and norms beyond economic benefits are institutionalized in a society, economic outcomes seen in economic books may be otherwise.

Comparative analysis of different effects of the two concepts of rationality – economic rationality and extended rationality – on life‐cycle hypothesis and efficiency of pollution tax shows new solutions or makes considerable quantitative or qualitative changes to them because of ethics.

The Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework has been developed for mapping and measuring social impact. It may be used for legitimating organisations and projects. The framework is often criticised for its overemphasis of the SROI ratio, i.e. the relationship between monetised benefits and costs. This study aims to demonstrate how the SROI method legitimates organisations or projects with multiple other discursive ways besides the SROI ratio. It also discusses the status of these other ways of legitimation in relation to the quantifying and monetising core tendency of SROI.

The empirical data consist of an SROI guidebook and 12 SROI reports. Their study applies Theo van Leeuwen’s ideas for analysing the discursive legitimation of social practices. The study takes place broadly in the framework of Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis, aided by qualitative content analysis.

In the analysis, the full spectrum of the van Leeuwenian legitimation means used by SROI – authorisation, rationalisation, moral evaluation and mythopoetical narration – is brought out in the data and the status and social context of the legitimation means are assessed and discussed. It is shown that there is existing potential for broader and more visible use of different legitimation means.

Based on the findings of the study, suggestions for the improvement of SROI reporting by a more balanced explicit use of the multitude of legitimation means are presented.

The study is original both in its subject (the spectrum of legitimation in SROI) and its method (qualitative discursive and contentual analysis of SROI as a legitimating discourse).