Search results

Many recent studies have voiced the growing concern that the body of knowledge that springs from organization science is hardly taken notice of in management practice. This has given rise to urgent calls for making organization research more relevant to practitioners and an intensive debate on how to realize this aim has set in (e.g., Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001; Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001; MacLean & MacIntosh, 2002; Baldridge, Floyd, & Markoczy, 2004; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). In most of the existing literature one can identify three main reasons for the observable lack of connection between organization research and practice: research is not sufficiently focused on the “real” problems of practitioners (e.g., Rynes, McNatt, & Breetz, 1999), research results are not properly disseminated to practitioners (e.g., Spencer, 2001), and the language of science is not properly translated into the language practitioners' use (e.g., Starkey & Madan, 2001; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). The underlying assumption is that if scientists redressed these shortcomings, their findings would be utilized by practitioners and thus the gap between theory and practice would be bridged.

Organizations are affected top-down by the overarching societies and bottom-up by foundational face-to-face encounters: societies provide norms, values, laws, institutions, beliefs, markets, political structures, and knowledge bases. What happens within organizations is done by people interacting with other people, arguing, discussing, convincing each other when preparing and making decisions. Organizations operate within social environments that leave their – however indirect – imprint on what is going on within organizations. This article argues that organizational sociology can benefit from an integrated theoretical framework that accounts for the embeddedness of organizations within the micro- and macro-levels of social order. The argument is developed in two main points: First, this article introduces the multilevel framework provided by Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory to demonstrate how organizations are shaped by the functionally differentiated macro-structure of society. Organizations follow and reproduce the operational logics of societal domains such as the political system, the economy, science, law, religion, etc. Second, this paper demonstrates how organizations are shaped by micro-level dynamics of face-to-face interactions. Face-to-face encounters form a social reality of its own kind that restricts and resists the formalization of organizational processes. Here, this article draws on Erving Goffman’s and Randall Collins’ work on interaction rituals, emotions, and solidarity, which is inspired by Durkheimian micro-sociology. At the end, this article brings together all the elements into one general account of organizations within the context of their macro- and micro-structural social environments. This account can yield a deeper and more sociological understanding of organizational behavior.

This article seeks to discuss trust within the context of public health crises using an autopoietic systems perspective that positions communication as one of its core concepts. This article will explore trust studies conducted during public health crises in this Millennium (from SARS to COVID-19 pandemics), including their problems; briefly summarize Luhmann's concept of Vertrauen; and use this concept to analyze trust issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article will explore trust studies conducted during public health crises from SARS to COVID-19 pandemics, including their problems. The perspective used is an explication of Niklas Luhmann's theory regarding Vertrauen which was derived as a framework for reading empirical facts on trust issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research design and exploration stages were inspired by the theory of autopoiesis systems by Niklas Luhmann.

From a systems perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extraordinary complexity of the linkages between social systems. Trust will continue to evolve dynamically as new variants emerge in society. Consequently, the pandemic has provided the momentum necessary for maximally exploring the concept of trust. Indonesia thus experienced significant obstacles when making and implementing disaster mitigation policies. Owing to the lack of a trust system, greater emphasis was given to control and power. There has been little preparedness to create and reinforce public trust, and this in turn has stifled efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19.

This study of trust, communication and public health crises has provided space to reflect on the development of trust within the social system. This study shows that trust can prove to be a very important factor in resolving a crisis. However, the complexity of the interrelationships of the social system can affect the quality of trust. The context of Indonesia's social system which is very complex due to population density and the dynamics of the development of its social system which is very diverse as an archipelagic country has contributed to the originality of the study of trust in times of crisis in a growing contemporary society.

Still recently, one could read that social constructivism as a paradigm in sociology has yet generated no substantive theory of globalization (Risse, 2007). The argument was that even though social constructivism could certainly contribute to our understanding of globalization, notably by stressing the role of language and cultural norms in the organization of collective activities on a world scale, it could not satisfactorily account in its own terms for the entire phenomena under examination, due to the fact that globalization is not solely or even primarily about language and cultural norms. The exposition of such a position in the academic literature is worth mentioning, indeed even significant, if only for the reason that it occurred in a collection of essays edited by David Held and Anthony McGrew, who have done so much over the past decade to establish globalization studies as a solid research field, all at once theoretically sophisticated and empirically informed, with the publication of a long series of books on Global transformations (Held, McGrew, Golblatt, & Perraton, 1999; Held, 2004a, 2004b; Held & McGrew, 2002, 2003, 2007a, 2007b; Held & Kaya, 2007; Held & Koenig-Archibugi, 2003; see also McGrew & Lewis, 1992; Held, 1995). In spite of such credentials, the present article aims directly at challenging and overcoming this position by developing what would be the basis or the framework for a full-fledged social constructivist theory of globalization. Admittedly, this requires us to redefine globalization in a fundamental manner. Such a transformation is possible when one turns toward a new kind of social constructivism: Niklas Luhmann's radical constructivism as grounded in his systems theory (Luhmann, 2002; see also Luhmann, 1982a, 1989, 1990, 1995, 2000a, 2000b). I contend that globalization is neither a process of social change nor a historical set of forces of transformation having to do with the way human beings shape space through their collective activities; rather, globalization is one of contemporary society's self-descriptions.

Drawing on the functional structural systems theory of Niklas Luhmann and the theory of colonisation of the social lifeworld advanced by Jurgen Habermas, it is argued that the Big Society project in the UK is about the creation of an alternative non-state welfare infrastructure by the linking of wealthy donors with opportunities to engage in venture philanthropy in the third sector. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper outlines key features of Luhmann's theory relating to autopoiesis and structural coupling to illustrate its conceptual strength in making the colonisation process visible.

The paper illustrates the ways in which system imperatives underpinning the colonisation process absorb and subordinate public activism to narrow market principles forcing the third sector to communicate in the language of the market rather than caritas.

The real implication of these developments for the character of the voluntary sector requires further critical examination not only because the state's enduring commitment to welfare may be in question but also for the growing significance of entrepreneurial philanthropy in shaping the character of volunteering and charitable activities and welfare relationships.

The paper applies Luhmann's theory relating to autopoiesis and structural coupling to make key features of government colonisation of the third sector visible.

Executive coaching has emerged as a widely used leadership development practice in organizations. To date, however, the literature on coaching is largely devoid of studies of how coaching works in practice and no unified comprehensive theoretical framework has been agreed upon which supports the practice of coaching. This paper aims to draw on the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann and argue that the distinction between first‐ and second‐order observations is central to the practice of coaching.

The paper reports on a yearlong study of the coaching of site managers in construction projects. The study shows that coaching actively helped the site managers to relate to their previous experiences and modes of operating and to conceive of new and effective ways of leading their work.

The participating site managers looked upon the coaching program as being helpful both with regard to dealing with practical day‐to‐day problems and concerns and with regard to their development as managers. Above all, the site managers appreciated being provided with a space where they could articulate their problems and discuss them with an external interlocutor.

Coaching programs may be helpful for both site and other managers in the construction industry, and in other industries. Further research is needed to explore the benefits and limitations of executive coaching.

The paper contributes to the literature on coaching by providing a study of coaching wherein both coaches and coachees are given a voice and by means of references to Luhmann's work.

The paper discusses possible implications of Heinz von Foerster's notion of second‐order cybernetics for management thinking. The purpose of this paper is to outline challenges of as well as prospective further developments for management theory that emanate from second‐order cybernetics.

As a conceptual paper, the paper tries to develop its findings through theoretically applying von Foerster's insights to management thinking's conventional assumptions. When looking for applications of von Foerster's approach within the social sciences, at least in german‐speaking countries one sooner or later comes across Niklas Luhmann's system sociology. Hence, Luhmann's version of the theory of the observer is introduced and its take on organization and management is briefly outlined. Drawing upon von Foerster's and Luhmann's reflections, possible implications for management thinking are presented – ideas that might be disagreeable for “classical” management science but might set out a path for further developments of management thinking.

What difference might second‐order cybernetics (and autopoietic systems sociology) make for management thinking? As a conclusion, deliberately poignant statements are formulated, calling for a higher degree of self‐reflection, for critical readings of conventional texts, for more complex descriptions of organizations and for a more modest, low‐key take on management theory's endeavours.

Whereas first‐order cybernetics has been fairly well‐received in management theory, second‐order cybernetics, which poses troubling questions to conventional epistemologies, remained relatively unpopular. Acts of “observing observers” reclaim these questions, possibly leading to valuable insights for researchers and reflected practitioners alike.

This paper aims to enhance the understanding of the distinct origins, mechanisms, growth paths and societal impacts of misinformation and disinformation through the theoretical lens of Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory, particularly focusing on structural coupling and penetration.

This paper is based on a conceptual study that investigates the phenomena of mis-/disinformation based on reviews of the literature on social systems theory, particularly focusing on structural coupling and penetration.

This theoretical analysis has led to the postulations that mis-/disinformation would cause social conflicts through divergent routes and that they do not necessarily have negative consequences in society. That is, conflicts or communication of contradictions serve for the reproduction and change in social systems and, furthermore, serve society as an immune mechanism. We speculate that similarities in the manifestation of mis-/disinformation could stem from the influence of amplifiers, such as moral intervention. Nevertheless, we posit that disinformation stemming from intentional penetration is more likely to cause societal dysfunction than misinformation, leading to conflict overload, polarized information ecosystems and potential system failures.

It provides a broader theoretical perspective for a better understanding of the roots and mechanisms of mis-/disinformation and their social consequences. It also engages with unresolved debates over structural couplings and penetration, showing how distinguishing these concepts enhance analytical clarity and explanatory power.

The term strategic communication has become firmly established in recent years. The emergence of the term was associated with the hope of finding a more fitting description for overlapping communication processes, since existing approaches can hardly fulfill these expectations. To date, the research has been dominated by communication-focused and, in particular, organization-focused approaches that show little interest in the alternative perspective. An integrating perspective can overcome the wall that exists between the communication level and the organizational level.

The integrating communication and organizational theory framework is developed on the basis of Niklas Luhmann’s “Theory of Social Systems” (TSS), which can be attributed to the “Communication Constitutes Organization” (CCO) perspective. This perspective seems appropriate because its communication theory integrates the sender and addressee perspectives, and its extended organization theory can be used to describe in detail the organizational structures of strategic communication.

The communication theoretical framework states that one of the functions of strategic communication is to reduce complexity to a single follow-up option. From the sender’s perspective, strategic communication can be defined as an attempt to encourage acceptance of a follow-up option proposed out of self-interest. The organizational theory framework that both builds on this and is linked to it first shows the diversity of strategic organizational communications before explaining their formal and informal structures.

This paper is the first to offer a comprehensive framework that integrates concrete strategic communication activities as well as the (in)formal organizational structures that lead to their emergence. On the one hand, this enables a more differentiated description of all relevant aspects of communication theory (e.g. tonality, clarity vs. ambiguity and technical dissemination medium). On the other, the organizational theoretical framework offers a systematization that can be used to describe various formal and informal structures comparatively. Above all, this kind of inclusive, integrating framework is the prerequisite for research that relates the diverse concrete strategic communication activities to an organization’s formal and informal rules and thus understands them as (primarily) the result of organizational decisions.

Public debates on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are strongly influenced by the nongovernmental organization (NGO)-led advocacy, most of which is harshly critical of genetic engineering. This advocacy has resulted in discourse failures marked by the disregard for the scientific consensus on the risks and benefits of GMOs. This paper aims to present a theoretical inquiry into this phenomenon.

Drawing on American institutionalism and Niklas Luhmann social systems theory, the paper explains these discourse failures in terms of the problematic relationship between institutions and technology.

Clarence Ayres would likely see these discourse failures as a form of “institutional resistance” to the progress of science and technology. In contrast, Marc Tool’s social value principle stresses the importance of democratic legitimation and public acceptance of new technologies, while being sensitive to the possibility of ideologically biased discourses. It is argued that the institutionalist understanding of the interplay between democracy, science and technology would benefit from a better account of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of “complexity reduction”.

The study shows that some NGOs are powerful enough to actively shape, if not manipulate, public attitudes and sentiments against GMOs.

The case of the anti-GMO advocacy calls for a new conceptualization of how democracy, science and technology fit together.