Search results

In this chapter, the authors introduce Ludwik Fleck and his ideas of “thought style” and “thought collective” to suggest a re-thinking of the divide between “micro” and “macro” that has perhaps more inhibited than inspired organization studies in general, and institutional theory in particular. With Fleck, the authors argue that there is no such thing as thought style-neutral cognition or undirected perception: meaning, constituted through a specific thought style shared by a thought collective, permeates cognition, judgment, perception, and thought. The authors illustrate our argument with the longitudinal case study of Sydney 2030 (i.e., the strategy-making process of the City of Sydney, Australia). The case suggests that – regardless of its actual implementation – a strategy is successful to the extent to which it shapes the socio-cognitive infrastructure of a collective and enables those engaged in city-making to think and act collectively.

In this article an epistemological interpretation of the role of subject literature in scholarly communication shall be proposed. Such an interpretation will focus on the epistemological dimension of communicating knowledge through literature and how this is achieved through discursive and rhetorical means. It will be argued that library and information science (LIS) theory on scholarly communication can be supplemented and strengthened by this interpretation. By establishing a social epistemology of subject literature the article contributes with a sketch of a coherent theory of scholarly literature explaining the epistemological and communicative division of labor between the various types of subject literature. Such a theory is in line with the current revival of social epistemology in LIS. The article is structured into three main sections. The first section will outline an epistemological position that pays particular attention to knowledge acquired through social interaction in general, and through interaction with written texts in particular. The works of the later Wittgenstein and Ludwik Fleck will be used as the theoretical frameworks. Having established this epistemological framework, the second section will outline what is considered to be the main types of subject literature, with emphasis on their discursive and rhetorical functions in scholarly communication. The third section will synthesize the two other sections into a sketch of a theory that will be labeled the social epistemology of subject literature and point to some implications for LIS research of this theory.

Even the smartest organizations believe that “good enough is never good enough.” Highly intelligent people may be able to do important things individually; still, it is their accumulated brainpower that allows them to do great things. Collective intelligence means when a group of people do things that seem intelligent. On the other hand, when intelligent people are gathered or hired in an organization, they tend toward collective stupidity and slow-wittedness. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to develop a model of the factors affecting and affected by collective stupidity.

This study was conducted using a mixed-method approach and in two phases: qualitative and quantitative. First, in the qualitative phase and in order to achieve new findings, semi-structured interviews with experts from 12 knowledge-based companies were used to design a conceptual model and formulate the hypotheses. At the end of the qualitative phase, the conceptual model and relationships between variables were drawn. Then, in the quantitative phase, by running structural equation modeling, the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity derived from the qualitative phase findings were analyzed and the research hypotheses were tested in 110 industrial knowledge-based companies.

The results of the qualitative phase revealed that individual, group and organizational factors were the antecedents of collective stupidity, with individual factors having three dimensions, collective ones including two dimensions and organizational ones focusing on the characteristics of managers/companies. It was also found that collective stupidity had individual consequences in three dimensions and organizational consequences in five dimensions; and one-sidedness, non-strategic thinking, organizational injustice and weakness in the management of key personnel were extracted as mediators. The results of the quantitative phase confirmed the research model and showed that individual factors and organizational consequences had the lowest (0.037) and highest (1.084) effect sizes on collective stupidity, respectively.

The study of the phenomenon in a particular context and the difficulty of generalizing the findings to other situations, the small size of the study population due to the disproportionate number of experts to the total staff in the qualitative phase, and the limited participation of experts due to the negative nature of the issue in the quantitative phase. Taking advantage of the diversity of experts' mental abilities through equipping the organization with tools for recognizing collective stupidity, improving collective decision-making, enhancing the efficiency of think tanks and organizational prosperity in the age of knowledge economy, preventing damage to the body of knowledge of the company and reducing social loafing can be the main operational implications of this study.

Using a mixed-method approach for analyzing the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity in this study and examining such a phenomenon in a knowledge-based organizational context and its implementation in a developing country can be among the innovations of the present research. By following a few studies conducted in this field in addition to the organizational pathology of the phenomenon using a fundamental method, this study obtained deep results on how to make the maximum use of experts’ capacities. This was to the extent that in all of the three sections, i.e. the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity, a new factor emerged.

The intention of this paper is: first, to raise awareness in organizations of the ubiquitous nature of thinking in teams and informal groups; second, to provide the reader with conceptual tools for understanding the subtle dynamics of “team‐level” thinking; and third, to offer some practical suggestions to leaders and consultants on ways of actively working to increase the quality of collective thinking in work places.

The paper is largely theoretical and extends current theory about the utilization of knowledge and intelligence in teams and organizations.

The four core elements to effective collective thinking are proposed as: shared clarity of purpose; emotionally and psychologically mature functioning on the part of key players; the necessity for psychologically safe “thinking spaces”; and shared responsibility for building, maintaining and utilizing the thinking space. It is further proposed that many essential influences on collective thinking exist outside the usual limits of awareness – that is, they occur as unconscious processes – and so developing powerful collective thinking requires that attention be paid to symbolic, non‐rational and intuitive patterns in teams and organizations.

The paper provides theoretical and practical frameworks that enable members of organizations directly address factors influencing the quality of collective thinking in the systems in which they are involved.

The fresh contribution of this paper is largely that it integrates intuitive, subtle and unconscious dynamics with rational logical principles so as to create powerful new principles to enable leaders and consultants to enhance organizational effectiveness.

Presents a broad review of theory and research about organizations as social, information processing, interpretive, and inquiring systems which locates the origins of key concepts behind organization learning. Shows how different schools of thought explain what is behind routine versus creative action in organizations, and what might be done to help people collectively unlearn old habits and develop new behaviours. Looks at contemporary models and practices, and considers to what extent holistic thinking and work arrangements will promote organizational learning, and how measures to enhance collective consciousness could enable people to learn how to learn.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how consensus decision making serves as a foundation for organizing an alternative economy while the agency of the economic project itself organizes participants because it serves to distribute resources as people need them and foment a community of sharing based on the concept that as individuals we are lacking but as a community we have enough. The paper asserts that as activists looking to foment change, alternative economic projects in themselves are actors in organizing community building and resistance to capitalism.

El Cambalache (The Swap in English), located in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico, is an exchange-based money-less economy that trades unwanted items as well as knowledge, abilities and skills that one wants to share. The project receives anything; specifically used, broken and/or unwanted electronics as well as just about anything else that one might possess. In exchange people provide laptop maintenance classes, language exchange, land to be worked, rooms, gardening services, objects, stories, etc. The rules in this money-less non-capitalist economy organize participation through one exchange or many.

Consensus decision making is an effective method for engaging in non-hierarchical research projects.

This project contributes to research in heterodox economies by presenting an original project with a new suggestion for exchange value as an inclusive process of exchange among participants in the economy. It also provides evidence that consensus decision making can be a useful and productive method for research.

Mary Parker Follett has been categorized as both an individualist and a collectivist, based on statements in her varied writings over two decades. This paper argues that, instead, Follett approached the issue of the true nature of man using a Hegelian dialectical technique, emerging with a distinct position that merges the best of both extremes into a unique synthesis. While the traditional individualist/collectivist dichotomy still holds sway in much of the management literature, several recent theories that take a perspective similar to Follett’s are discussed. The analysis makes clear that, once again, Follett’s ideas were ahead of their time.