An Analytical Methodology for Management Research: Insights from Semiotics

Authors

  • Raquel Sastre Universidad de Buenos Aires, Faculty of Economics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18559/SOEP.2016.5.12

Keywords:

Management, Manager

Abstract

In the field of business management, managers have a tendency to think in a linear fashion that is restricted to cause and effect relationships. This mindset limits understanding of complex phenomena, including those that managers and business people face in their activities. This article proposes an Analytical Methodology for Management Research (AMMR) using a triadic logic gleaned from semiotics. The AMMR tool used herein diagnoses the meaning people assign to complex concepts such as "business success" and is based on three logical categories within semiotics where success is understood as business sustainability over time. This article ap- plies the AMMR to an empirical sample comprised of managers and business people. The results highlight the similarities and differences in attributing meaning to the concept of sustainability. The study also analyses the knowledge, behaviours and values that respondents considered most important for the success of an enterprise, i.e. its sustainability. This article concludes that the applied methodology creatively enriches the analy- sis of the phenomenon studied opening up many possible responses. The AMMR can be applied to the assessment of managers and business people from different organisations or people working in the same organisation at different hierarchical levels. In addition, the analysis can be performed individually or collectively. The classification of the responses obtained by applying the AMMR is open for future research, following 10 possible configurations, with each of them emerging as a logical combination that allows for the organisation of the emphasis given to concepts, behaviours and values.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson, D.R., 1999, Business Ethics and the Pragmatic Attitude, in: Frederick, R. (ed.), A Companion to Business Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56-64.
View in Google Scholar

Andrews, K.R., 1989, Ethics in Practice: Managing the Moral Corporation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
View in Google Scholar

Argyris, C., Schön, D., 1978, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective , Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
View in Google Scholar

Arjaliès, D.L., Lorino, P., Simpson, B., 2013, Understanding Organizational Creativity: Insights from Pragmatism , in: Kelemen, M., Rumens, N. (eds.). American Pragmatism and Organization - Issues and Controversies, 131-145. Retrieved from http://SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2285534 [access: October 2015].
View in Google Scholar

Buchholz, R.A., Rosenthal, S.B., 1998, Business Ethics. The Pragmatic Path Beyond Principles to Process, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
View in Google Scholar

Bunge, M., 2000, Status epistemológico de la administración , En Ader, J.J. (Comp.) Organizaciones,Paidós, Buenos Aires, pp. 52-64.
View in Google Scholar

Cavanagh, G., 1976, American Business Values in Transition,Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
View in Google Scholar

Clarke, T., 2004, Theories of Corporate Governance. The Philosophical Foundations of Corporate Governance , Routledge, London.
View in Google Scholar

Crespo, R., Tohmé, F., Heymann, D., 2010, Abducing the Crisis, in: Magnani, L., Carnielli, W., Pizzi, C. (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology: Abduction, Logic and Computational Discovery, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
View in Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1996, Creativity, HarperCollins, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Cunliffe, A.L., 2009, The Philosopher Leader: On Relationalism. Ethics and Reflexivity. A Critical Perspective to Teaching Leadership, Management Learning, vol.40(1), pp. 87-101.
View in Google Scholar

Dewey, J., 1997, Experience & Education, Touchstone, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Dewey, J., 1916, Democracy & Education, MacMillan, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Eco, U., 1976, A Theory of Semiotics , Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Foucault, M., 1989, Archaeology of Knowledge ,Routledge, London.
View in Google Scholar

Goodpaster, K.E., Nash, L.L., Claude de Bettignies, H., 2006, Business Ethics: Policies and Persons ,(4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
View in Google Scholar

Guerri, C., Acebal, M., Alisio, J., Binnevies, A., Bohorquez Nates, M., Pertot, W., Voto, C., 2014, Nonágono semiótico. Un modelo operative para la investigación cualitativa, Eudeba, Buenos Aires.
View in Google Scholar

Hartshorne, C.; Weiss, P., Burks, A., 1931, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (eds.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
View in Google Scholar

Jastroch, N., Marlowe, T.J., 2010, Knowledge Transfer in Collaborative Knowledge Management: A Semiotic View , Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, JSCI, vol. 8(6), pp. 6-11.
View in Google Scholar

Lacan, J., 1966, Ecrits, Seuil, Paris.
View in Google Scholar

Liszka, J., 1996, A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles S. Peirce, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
View in Google Scholar

Lorino, P., 2001, A Pragmatic Analysis of the Role of Management Systems in Orga- nizational Learning, in: Sanchez, R. Knowledge Management and Organizatio- nal Competence, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar

Lorino, P., Clot, Y., Tricard, B., 2010, Research Methods for Non-Representational Approaches of Organizational Complexity. The Dialogical and Mediated Inquiry, Organization Studies, vol.32(6), pp. 769-801.
View in Google Scholar

Melé Carné, D., 2011, Management Ethics: Placing Ethics at the Core of Good Management,Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Myers, D., 2006, Exploring Social Psichology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Norton, B.G., 1999, Pragmatism Adaptive Management, and Sustainability, Environmental Values, vol.8,(4), pp. 451-466.
View in Google Scholar

Nubiola, J., 1996, La renovación pragmatista de la filosofía analítica, Eunsa, Pamplona.
View in Google Scholar

Peirce, C.S. [1931 (1893)], Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce,Vols. V-VI.
View in Google Scholar

Hartshorne, D., Weiss, P. (eds.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
View in Google Scholar

Perrow, C., 1986, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. (3th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Polanyi, M., 1967, The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Ruwhiu, D., Cone, Malcom, 2010, Advancing a Pragmatist Epistemology in Organisational Research, Quality Research in Organisations and Management, An International Journal, vol. 5(2), pp. 108-126.
View in Google Scholar

Savan, D., 1988, An Introduction to C.S. Peirce's Full System of Semeiotic, Semiotic Circle, Toronto.
View in Google Scholar

Schatzki, T.R., 2005, The Sites of Organizations, Organization Studies, vol. 26(3), pp. 465-484.
View in Google Scholar

Schön, D., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, Temple Smith, London.
View in Google Scholar

Shalley, C., Gilson, L., 2004, What Leaders Need to Know: A Review of Social and Contextual Factors that Can Foster or Hinder Creativity, The Leadership Quarte r ly, vol.15(1), pp. 33-53.
View in Google Scholar

Smets, M., Morris, T., Greengood, R., 2012, From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven Institutional Change, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 5(4), pp. 877-904.
View in Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H., Chia, R., 2002, On Organizational Becoming : Rethinking Organizational Change, Organization Science, vol.13(5), pp. 567-582.
View in Google Scholar

Weick, K., 2009, Making Sense of the Organization, vol. 2, Wiley, West Sussex.
View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

2016-05-31

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Sastre , R. (2016). An Analytical Methodology for Management Research: Insights from Semiotics. Studia Oeconomica Posnaniensia, 4(5), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.18559/SOEP.2016.5.12