Search results

This paper aims to elucidate some of the arguments against egoism in the current debate, as well as to create some new arguments, or rather objections (epistemological and ontological from the position of egoism as moral solipsism), and to explicate some arguments against egoism (descriptive, normative, and ideological) as being not so convincing. It also aims to explicate Jesus's second commandment in a fashion similar to that of Adam Smith when he tried to combine self‐love with sympathy.

This paper is based on the premise that some foundational philosophies, worldviews, or paradigms exemplify at least one type of egoism/selfish strategy. In that light the analysis of egoism and the objections are formulated.

They paper finds that present arguments in favour of egoism in business, and especially as certain “business ethics”, are not acceptable, at least on the practical and theoretical grounds on which they are presented as sound arguments.

The paper implies that there is fundamental difference between theoretical and practical egoism, and that practical egoism sometimes uses the theoretical one as its “quasi‐justification”.

The paper can be summarized in a series of general advices about an altruistic attitude and practices which in the long term show more benefits than costs for any group, and consequently for business organizations as well.

The paper presents ontological and epistemological interpretations and objections against egoism, emphasizing the somewhat neutral or at least bivalent position of Adam Smith regarding the matter in question, and introducing altruistic strategies as being compatible with the basic ideas of a free‐market system.

I propose in this chapter that the dominant practice of critical management studies (CMS) is characterised by white masculinity, where theorising tends to assume a white universal norm while commodifying difference. This approach treats diversity as something CMS has, rather than is. In order to disrupt the prevailing practice, I explore how anti-racist feminisms (a term I use here to refer to the diverse movements of postcolonial feminism and feminisms of colour) may shape CMS towards a more reflexive and meaningful engagement with difference. In reflecting on my own performance of white masculinity as an aspiring critical management scholar, I suggest that an anti-racist feminist approach bears the potential to challenge relations of domination within CMS and reinvigorate our pursuits for emancipation. It is my hope that the anti-racist feminist perspective advanced in this chapter may offer an opportunity for critical management scholars to ‘do’ critique differently through a radical inclusion of previously marginalised perspectives.

The purpose of this short reflection is to allow for an informed use of both phenomenography and phenomenology in information studies and cognate fields.

The paper apprises uses of phenomenography found particularly in accounts of information literacy commonly describing phenomenography as distinct from phenomenology.

Both phenomenography and phenomenology continue to hold much credence in methods applied across scores of academic fields, with information studies being among those in the vanguard. Claims displaying differences of phenomenography from phenomenology are misleading and incomplete descriptions of phenomenology.

The paper presents newer materials on the origins of phenomenography and phenomenology to advocate for tighter relationships between and clearer applications of these methods in information studies and beyond.

Organisations have been working towards becoming more sustainable; where their efforts have been mainly on a steady state focussing on internal proactive changes. The purpose of this paper is to analyse how external events, e.g. COVID-19, affect organisations and their sustainability efforts.

A survey was sent to a database of 11,657 contacts, with a response rate of 5.60% obtained. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics, ranking and a ratio analysis comparing different types of organisations (corporations, higher education institutions, civil society and public sector organisations).

COVID-19 changed the organisation drivers for and barriers to sustainability perspective towards external stimuli, rather than internal factors. COVID-19 also affected the system elements negatively, with the exception of organisational systems. The results also show that the system elements are affected by an external event or crisis and are dependent on the type of organisation.

This paper proposes the “Organisational sustainability transition forced by exogenous events” framework to help organisations better understand and be prepared for unexpected external events. Organisations should learn from the experiences in dealing with COVID-19 and adopt a more humanistic approach to their sustainability efforts, rather than traditional approaches based on solipsism and techno-managerial centrism.

The practitioners of postmodern organization theory have had to respond to the charge that postmodernism has a declivity toward skepticism. Their response to organizational skepticisim is to decenter dominant theories, paradigms and organizational forms, rather than to negate them. Decentering supplements discourse by augmenting its repertoire; the opposite of skepticism, which diminishes its object. The main ways in which postmodern organization theories try to overcome the specific sceptical position of paradigm incommensurability (the reduction of discourse about organizations and organizational discourse to a solipsism of private language games) are described and assessed in terms of three positions: John Hassard’s “multiple paradigm” approach on the level of methodology, Stewart Clegg’s “embedded rationalities” on the level of empirical conceptualization, and Kenneth Gergen’s “heteroglossia” on the level of discursive practice. Hassard and Clegg are engaged in the mapping function of postmodern organization theory, whereas Gergen is engaged in deconstraining organizations.

This chapter highlights the personal side of research methods. We begin with an overview of Hans-Georg Gadamer's insights into the general problem of method in the social sciences and hermeneutics. This is followed by an overview of Michael Polanyi's explanation of the practice of scientific investigation. The second half of the chapter considers implications of the personal side of methods for how we conduct management research. This section discusses critical realism as a philosophy of science consistent with the assumptions of our field, the reasons for methodological pluralism and possible responses, and management research as a social practice.

To present a new approach to scientific thinking (paradigm) that avoids the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the prevailing Newtonian approach.

The signs of a science in crisis are reviewed and some of its shortcomings are compiled and connected to some misleading fundamental assumptions of the reigning paradigm of science. Calls attention to a current fundamental misunderstanding of the human capacity of observation – especially the negligence of the conceptual feedback loops of the human mind that make up the core of human learning capacity.

When using a subject‐oriented approach (SOA) to science, which takes off from the individual knowing the subject (methodological solipsism), it is possible to consistently construct a knower's science where all today's misleading assumptions can be successfully removed. This effort results in an abstract constructivist epistemology, where the reversed cause‐effect chain severely upsets the classically trained mind – especially in natural science.

There is a great deal of work left to examine the soundness of these ideas and pave the way for such a profound re‐orientation of traditional science that as a first step will be concerned with elucidating and explicating a wide range of problems and concerns in set and decision theory, logic, and mathematics. This is essentially to launch a research programme in these areas that as a next step includes all natural and social sciences that will appear in a new light when viewed from a first person, SOA.

There is no other way for science to evade the prevailing crisis but to involve, in its very Kuhnian sense, a radical change of paradigm. In this view, the realist confusion, which is responsible for the genesis of Cartesian dualism and a row of other inconsistencies met with intoday's science, will slowly vanish, as will the embarrassing gulf between the natural and social sciences as well as humanism. This new “world‐view” that seems radical to the scientist will appear natural to the everyday man – but its impact on human culture will be monumental.

The SOA to science is based on a reversed cause‐effect thinking that will have a heavy influence on the way people think about the world and is accordingly a concern of all human beings as well as each researcher – of whatever of discipline.

Perspective-taking is a social competency to consider the world from other viewpoints (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008); it “allows an individual to anticipate the behavior and reactions of others” (Davis, 1983, p. 115) and helps to balance attention between self- and other-interests (Galinsky et al., 2008). Though often used interchangeably with the term empathy – “an other-focused emotional response that allows one person to affectively connect with another” (Galinsky et al., 2008, p. 378), clear evidence exists that demonstrates that the two concepts are distinct (Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Davis, 1983; Deutch & Madle, 1975; Hoffman, 1977; Oswald, 1996). Although both concepts refer to a social competency of taking another's perspective, empathy tends to be more affective while perspective taking leans toward the cognitive (Galinsky et al., 2008). For example, perspective taking is associated with personality characteristics such as high self-esteem and low neuroticism as opposed to emotionality (Davis, 1983). Perspective-takers are more capable of stepping outside the constraints of their own immediate, biased frames of reference (Moore, 2005) to reduce egocentric perceptions of fairness in competitive contexts (without it being at the expense of their own self-interest; Epley, Caruso, & Bazerman, 2006). Perspective taking has also been shown to be a more valuable strategy than empathy in strategic interactions because it helps negotiators find the necessary balance between competition and cooperation, between self- and other-interest (Galinsky et al., 2008). Achieving such a balance facilitates creative problem-solving (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). For instance, in negotiation, a focus only on self-interests is associated with excessive aggression and obstinacy whereas a focus only on other-interests encourages excessive concession making to the detriment of one's own outcomes (Galinsky et al., 2008). In contrast, perspective takers have the capacity to uncover underlying interests to generate creative solutions when an obvious deal is not possible (Galinsky et al., 2008). Consequently, the cognitive appreciation of another person's interests is capable of facilitating economically efficient outcomes by acting as a discovery heuristic that reveals hidden problems or solutions and as a tool that enables individuals to capture more value for themselves (Galinsky et al., 2008).

We argue that aspects of the Luhmannian strand of systems theory could be mobilized in a crypto-normative way for an immanent critique of certain trends in contemporary social development, especially the growing economic determination of different spheres of life and the formation of sectorial industries – such as healthcare, education, crime control, etc. – with the consequent erosion of the autonomy of these spheres and the progressive exhaustion of social conditions for the exercise of freedom and the experience of difference.

A decisive step in this approach to systems theory lies in the indication of certain “elective affinities” between Luhmann and Adorno, reinforcing the plausibility of an internal connection between these different theoretical conceptions – not their mere instrumental appropriation and external juxtaposition. From this point of view, we argue that aspects of Luhmann's conceptual construction – notably the way the system-environment relationship is thought – hold a strong family resemblance with the Adornian mode of conceiving the subject–object relationship in the speculative key of negative dialectics.

Conceived as a critical model that modulates society's real abstractions toward difference and systemic autonomy, and especially as a critical model that underlines possibilities of reciprocal mediation between system and environment, systems theory seems to emphatically put itself in tension with what, at least in part, could be seen as its other: neoliberal governmentality, the generalization of the commodity form and the instrumentalization of the individual by unilateral systemic imperatives in global capitalism.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between Husserl’s phenomenology and soft systems. An important idea arising from the action research programme at the University of Lancaster is the notion of soft systems. The concept of soft systems, that distinguished it from other systems (holistic) thinking of the time, was the conscious link between soft systems thinking and phenomenology. Phenomenology is that the realm of intentional consciousness that enables the phenomenologist to develop a radically unprejudiced justification of his (or her) basic views of the world and of himself and explore their rational interconnections. Similarly, in soft systems, it is acknowledged that reality is formed by sensation and fashioned by experience. It is not exclusively a process of thought (although this may shape how we process our experience), for us the world exists as the result of a subjective appreciation of it. In Part 1, the author explores how phenomenology informs soft systems theory and practice through the work of Husserl and some of those that influenced him and were influenced by him. In Part 2, the author explores a possible relationship between Husserl and Gadamer as a possible intellectual grounding for organisational inquiry.

The research was conducted by examining published material relating to the development of soft systems ideas and Husserl's phenomenology.

An analysis of the ideas within the material suggests that phenomenology can be considered as a underpinning the notion of soft systems

There is difficulty tracking down important papers that recorded the development of soft systems (i.e. 1970–1990) as Lancaster University had disposed of all issues. However, the author tracked down a source and was able to use this material as part of the research. In addition to helping research the origins of the idea, it also provides a paper trail for other researchers interested in these ideas.

Tracing the published material relating to soft systems necessitated visits to several universities as many of the important papers where no longer held by the University of Lancaster library.

It seems apposite that the ideas behind soft systems are resurrected as they offer an alternative way of thinking about complexity – which the modern world seems increasingly creating

There is a lack of research into soft systems as the publications describing the Lancaster research programme have centred around soft systems methodology (SSM). Checkland remarked a decade or so ago that said SSM should be taken as given and other ideas explored. There is little evidence that the soft ideas have been explored outside variations of SSM, this paper is intended to encourage more research into ‘soft’ systems.