Search results

The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize the link between individual learning and organizational learning and offer guidelines to harness the individual capability of learning for organizational objectives.

This is a conceptual paper using arguments from the theory of meaning structures.

The author shows that, learning, whether organizational or individual, is about the construction and accessibility of meaning, and that such processes thrive in a culture which fosters collaborative team work.

The theory presents a perspective of how organizational knowledge exists in a triad – private, accessible and collective – and the interrelationships to create organizational learning. These constructs can form the building blocks for future research.

The theory brings organizations closer to prioritizing and evaluating learning processes to ensure that they facilitate the accessibility of knowledge.

The theory can enable organizations to identify processes which inhibit the accessibility of knowledge and create the environment to promote such.

The theory opens a new insight into viewing organizational learning from the perspective of constructing and sharing meaning structures.

The purpose of this paper is to examine power from a multi‐theoretical perspective by comparing and analyzing different views and definitions of power in order to use the findings for further studying this construct as a key element for managerial purposes in the interorganizational context.

An overview of the literature is conducted examining the power from sociological, psychological and managerial perspectives specifying views on power, its sources and consequences of its use offered by selected theories.

This paper presents the opinion that the definitions of power by different theories resemble each other and the main differentiations in conceptualizations of power stem mostly from the differences in capturing sources and consequences of power. Power generally refers to the ability, capacity or potential to get others do something, to command, to influence, to determine or to control the behaviors, intentions, decisions or actions of others in the pursuit of one's own goals or interests despite resistance, as well as to induce changes.

The fact that power can be used as an effective tool to coordinate and manage others appears to be largely ignored in the literature. In order to understand how to use it for these purposes, it is necessary to define power, which is an elusive concept that has a variety of meanings and definitions, and there seems to be much disagreement to the precise meaning of power.

The purpose of this chapter is to review the historical development of identity theory from 1988 to the present, and then outline some thoughts about future directions for the theory.

The chapter discusses major advances in identity theory over the past 25 years such as the incorporation of the perceptual control system into the theory, the introduction of “resources” in which symbolic and sign meanings are important, new views of the social structure, the relevance of the situation in influencing the identity process, the idea of different bases of identities, broadening our understanding of multiple identities, studying identity change, and bringing in emotions into the theory.

Throughout the review, empirical work is identified and briefly discussed that supports the major advances of the theory.

The chapter suggests a number of ways that identity theory may be developed in the future such as examining negative or stigmatized identities. Additionally, there is a discussion as to ways in which the theory may be tied to other theoretical traditions such as affect control theory, exchange theory, and social identity theory.

Identity theory has had a number of applications to various areas in society, including understanding crime, education, race/ethnicity, gender, the family, and the environment.

This is the most recent overview of identity theory over the past 25 years. It becomes clear to the reader that the theory offers a way of understanding the person as a cognitive, emotional, and behavioral agent who influences the structure of society but who is also influenced by the social structure.

Relationships are socially constructed by companies in interaction. This study explains the dynamic character of business-to-business relationships with the aid of rules theory, a theory borrowed from the communications field. Two forms of rules are identified: constitutive rules guide the interpretation of the other's acts, and regulative rules guide the appropriate response to the interpreted act. Rules theory asserts that companies act as if applying these rules. Relationships provide not only the context in which the parties’ acts are performed but are also the result of such acts. Thus, relationships are potentially reshaped each time one party performs an act and the other party gives meaning to that act and reacts.

Concepts equip the mind with thought, provide our theories with ideas, and assign variables for testing our hypotheses. Much of contemporary research deals with narrowly circumscribed concepts, termed simple concepts herein, which are the grist for much empirical inquiry in the field. In contrast to simple concepts, which exhibit a kind of unity, complex concepts are structures of simple concepts, and in certain instances unveil meaning going beyond simple concepts or their aggregation. When expressed in hylomorphic structures, complex concepts achieve unique ontological status and serve particular explanatory capabilities. We develop the philosophical foundation for hylomorphic structures and show how they are rooted in dispositions, dispositional causality, and various mind–body trade-offs. Examples are provided for this emerging perspective on “Big concepts” or “Big Ideas.”

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to solving the complexity problem as increased complexity is a main reason why projects fail to reach their goals, and it is unclear what complexity is.

Conceptual development integrating theories of materiality, teleology, and complexity, decision-making theory, communication theory, coordination theory, and qualitative, quantitative and participatory approaches are used in this paper.

To understand complexity, it is necessary to develop a material-systemic process approach and to distinguish structured from unstructured complexity. The social actors construct a complex material-systemic process between themselves and nature to handle unwieldy outer nature. The material-systemic approach reveals how materiel life-world arenas are developed through increased complexity and specialization. Handling complexity is possible by materiality in general and structural material in special, the interplay between inner time (planning) and outer time (production), and between human subjects and an underlying coordination mechanism. It is a systematic organizational blockade that reproduces internal complexity as unstructured and incomprehensible complexity.

The practical models of organizing are tested to the highest degree in construction industry. It is a task to try and examine the models in other types of projects.

The paper offers a proposal to a theoretical solution to the complexity problem going back to the roots in Enlightenment and shows at the same time through practical models how increased complexity may be the most important productive force in future projects.