An Analytical Methodology for Management Research: Insights from Semiotics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18559/SOEP.2016.5.12Słowa kluczowe:
Zarządzanie, MenedżerAbstrakt
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.
Pobrania
Bibliografia
Anderson, D.R., 1999, Business Ethics and the Pragmatic Attitude, in: Frederick, R. (ed.), A Companion to Business Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56-64.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Andrews, K.R., 1989, Ethics in Practice: Managing the Moral Corporation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Argyris, C., Schön, D., 1978, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective , Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Zobacz w 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].
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Buchholz, R.A., Rosenthal, S.B., 1998, Business Ethics. The Pragmatic Path Beyond Principles to Process, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Bunge, M., 2000, Status epistemológico de la administración , En Ader, J.J. (Comp.) Organizaciones,Paidós, Buenos Aires, pp. 52-64.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Cavanagh, G., 1976, American Business Values in Transition,Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Clarke, T., 2004, Theories of Corporate Governance. The Philosophical Foundations of Corporate Governance , Routledge, London.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1996, Creativity, HarperCollins, New York.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Dewey, J., 1997, Experience & Education, Touchstone, New York.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Dewey, J., 1916, Democracy & Education, MacMillan, New York.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Eco, U., 1976, A Theory of Semiotics , Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Foucault, M., 1989, Archaeology of Knowledge ,Routledge, London.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Goodpaster, K.E., Nash, L.L., Claude de Bettignies, H., 2006, Business Ethics: Policies and Persons ,(4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Hartshorne, C.; Weiss, P., Burks, A., 1931, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (eds.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Lacan, J., 1966, Ecrits, Seuil, Paris.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Liszka, J., 1996, A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles S. Peirce, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Melé Carné, D., 2011, Management Ethics: Placing Ethics at the Core of Good Management,Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Myers, D., 2006, Exploring Social Psichology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Norton, B.G., 1999, Pragmatism Adaptive Management, and Sustainability, Environmental Values, vol.8,(4), pp. 451-466.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Nubiola, J., 1996, La renovación pragmatista de la filosofía analítica, Eunsa, Pamplona.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S. [1931 (1893)], Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce,Vols. V-VI.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Hartshorne, D., Weiss, P. (eds.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Perrow, C., 1986, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. (3th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Polanyi, M., 1967, The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books, New York.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Savan, D., 1988, An Introduction to C.S. Peirce's Full System of Semeiotic, Semiotic Circle, Toronto.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Schatzki, T.R., 2005, The Sites of Organizations, Organization Studies, vol. 26(3), pp. 465-484.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Schön, D., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, Temple Smith, London.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w 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.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H., Chia, R., 2002, On Organizational Becoming : Rethinking Organizational Change, Organization Science, vol.13(5), pp. 567-582.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Weick, K., 2009, Making Sense of the Organization, vol. 2, Wiley, West Sussex.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
