essay in organization and management

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• AI in Action
• Most Popular
• The Truth Behind the Nursing Crisis
• Work/23: The Big Shift
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

The spring 2024 issue’s special report looks at how to take advantage of market opportunities in the digital space, and provides advice on building culture and friendships at work; maximizing the benefits of LLMs, corporate venture capital initiatives, and innovation contests; and scaling automation and digital health platform.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

The Processes of Organization and Management

A unifying framework for thinking about processes — or sequences of tasks and activities — that provides an integrated, dynamic picture of organizations and managerial behavior.

• Organizational Structure

Managers today are enamored of processes. It’s easy to see why. Many modern organizations are functional and hierarchical; they suffer from isolated departments, poor coordination, and limited lateral communication. All too often, work is fragmented and compartmentalized, and managers find it difficult to get things done. Scholars have faced similar problems in their research, struggling to describe organizational functioning in other than static, highly aggregated terms. For real progress to be made, the “proverbial ‘black box,’ the firm, has to be opened and studied from within.” 1

Processes provide a likely solution. In the broadest sense, they can be defined as collections of tasks and activities that together — and only together — transform inputs into outputs. Within organizations, these inputs and outputs can be as varied as materials, information, and people. Common examples of processes include new product development, order fulfillment, and customer service; less obvious but equally legitimate candidates are resource allocation and decision making.

Over the years, there have been a number of process theories in the academic literature, but seldom has anyone reviewed them systematically or in an integrated way. Process theories have appeared in organization theory, strategic management, operations management, group dynamics, and studies of managerial behavior. The few scholarly efforts to tackle processes as a collective phenomenon either have been tightly focused theoretical or methodological statements or have focused primarily on a single type of process theory. 2

Yet when the theories are taken together, they provide a powerful lens for understanding organizations and management:

First, processes provide a convenient, intermediate level of analysis. Because they consist of diverse, interlinked tasks, they open up the black box of the firm without exposing analysts to the “part-whole” problems that have plagued earlier research. 3 Past studies have tended to focus on either the trees (individual tasks or activities) or the forest (the organization as a whole); they have not combined the two. A process perspective gives the needed integration, ensuring that the realities of work practice are linked explicitly to the firm’s overall functioning. 4

Second, a process lens provides new insights into managerial behavior. Most studies have been straightforward descriptions of time allocation, roles, and activity streams, with few attempts to integrate activities into a coherent whole.

About the Author

David A. Garvin is the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School.

1. B.S. Chakravarthy and Y. Doz, “Strategy Process Research: Focusing on Corporate Self-Renewal,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 13, special issue, Summer 1992, pp. 5–14, quote from p. 6.

2. L.B. Mohr, Explaining Organizational Behavior (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982); P.R. Monge, “Theoretical and Analytical Issues in Studying Organizational Processes,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 4, 1990, pp. 406–430; A.H. Van de Ven, “Suggestions for Studying Strategy Process: A Research Note,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 13, special issue, Summer 1992, pp. 169–188; and A.H. Van de Ven and G. Huber, “Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 3, 1990, pp. 213–219.

3. A.H. Van de Ven, “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation,” Management Science, volume 32, number 5, 1986, pp. 590–606.

4. L.R. Sayles, Leadership: Managing in Real Organizations, second edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989).

5. C.P. Hales, “What Do Managers Do?,” Journal of Management Studies, volume 23, number 1, 1986, pp. 88–115; and H. Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).

6. For discussions of processes in the quality literature, see: H.J. Harrington, Business Process Improvement (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991); E.J. Kane, “IBM’s Quality Focus on the Business Process,” Quality Progress, volume 19, April 1986, pp. 24–33; E.H. Melan, “Process Management: A Unifying Framework,” National Productivity Review, volume 8, 1989, number 4, pp. 395–406; R.D. Moen and T.W. Nolan, “Process Improvement,” Quality Progress, volume 20, September 1987, pp. 62–68; and G.D. Robson, Continuous Process Improvemen (New York: Free Press, 1991). For discussions of processes in the reengineering literature, see: T.H. Davenport, Process Innovation (Boston: Harvar Business School Press, 1993); M. Hammer and J. Champy, Reengineering the Corporation (New York: Harper Business, 1993); and T.A. Stewart,”Reengineeering: The Hot New Managing Tool,” Fortune, 23 August 1993, pp. 40–48.

7. M. Hammer, “Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate,” Harvard Business Review, volume 68, July–August 1990, pp. 104–112.

8. J.D. Blackburn, “Time-Based Competition: White-Collar Activities,” Business Horizons, volume 35, July–August 1992, pp. 96–101.

9. E.H. Melan, “Process Management in Service and Administrative Operations,” Quality Progress, volume 18, June 1985, pp. 52–59.

10. Davenport (1993), chapter 7; Hammer and Champy (1993), chapter 3; Harrington (1991), chapter 6; and Kane (1986).

11. Hammer and Champy (1993), pp. 108–109; Kane (1986); and Melan (1989), p. 398.

12. Moen and Nolan (1987); and Robson (1991).

13. Davenport (1993), pp. 10–15; and Hammer and Champy (1993), pp. 32–34.

14. T.H. Davenport and N. Nohria, “Case Management and the Integration of Labor,” Sloan Management Review, volume 35, Winter 1994, pp. 11–23, quote from p. 11.

15. I. Price, “Aligning People and Processes during Business-Focused Change in BP Exploration,” Prism, fourth quarter, 1993, pp. 19–31.

16. Kane (1986); and Melan (1985) and (1989).

17. H. Gitlow, S. Gitlow, A. Oppenheim, and R. Oppenheim, Tools and Methods for the Improvement of Quality (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1989), chapter 8.

18. P.F. Schlesinger, V. Sathe, L.A. Schlesinger, and J.P. Kotter, Organization: Text, Cases, and Readings on the Management of Organization Design and Change (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1992), pp. 106–110.

19. J. Browning, “The Power of Process Redesign,” McKinsey Quarterly , volume 1, number 1, 1993, pp. 47–58; J.R. Galbraith, Organization Design (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1977), pp. 118–119; and B.P. Shapiro, K. Rangan and J.J. Sviokla, “Staple Yourself to an Order,” Harvard Business Review, volume 70, July–August 1992, pp. 113–122.

20. For example, see: A. March and D.A. Garvin, “Arthur D. Little, Inc.” (Boston: Harvard Business School, case no. 9-396-060, 1995).

21. K.E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, second edition (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1979), p. 34.

22. S.C. Wheelwright and K.B. Clark, Revolutionizing Product Development (New York: Free Press, 1992).

23. C.I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), pp. 185–189, 205–206; and H.A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, third edition (New York: Free Press, 1976), pp. 96–109, 220–228.

24. L.A. Hill, Becoming a Manager ( Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992), pp. 20–21.

25. For reviews, see: J.L. Bower and Y. Doz, “Strategy Formulation: A Social and Political Process,” in D.H. Schendel and C.H. Hofer, eds., Strategic Management (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979), pp. 152–166; and A.S. Huff and R.K. Reger, “A Review of Strategic Process Research,” Journal of Management, volume 13, number 2, 1987, pp. 211–236.

26. H. Mintzberg, D. Raisinghani, and A. Théorêt, “The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 21, June 1976, pp. 246–275; P.C. Nutt, “Types of Organizational Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 29, September 1984, pp. 414–450; and E. Witte, “Field Research on Complex Decision-Making Processes — The Phase Theorem,” International Studies of Management and Organization, volume 2, Summer 1972, pp. 156–182.

27. Witte (1972), p. 179.

28. Mintzberg et al. (1976); and Nutt (1984).

29. For studies on capital budgeting, see: R.W. Ackerman, “Influence of Integration and Diversity on the Investment Process,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 15, September 1970, pp. 341–351; and J.L. Bower, Managing the Resource Allocation Process (Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1970). For studies on foreign investments, see: Y. Aharoni, The Foreign Investment Decision Process (Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1966). For studies on strategic planning, see: P. Haspeslagh, “Portfolio Planning: Uses and Limits,” Harvard Business Review, volume 60, January–February 1982, pp. 58–74; and R. Simons, “Planning, Control, and Uncertainty: A Process View,” in W.J. Bruns, Jr. and R.S. Kaplan, eds., Accounting and Management: Field Study Perspectives (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987), pp. 339–367. For studies on internal corporate venturing, see: R.A. Burgelman, “A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 28, June 1983, pp. 223–244; and R.A. Burgelman, “Strategy Making as a Social Learning Process: The Case of Internal Corporate Venturing,” Interfaces, volume 18, number 3, 1988, pp. 74–85. For studies on business exit, see: R.A. Burgelman, “Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 39, March 1994, pp. 24–56.

30. Bower (1970).

31. G.T. Allison, Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971); I.L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972); L.J. Bourgeois, III and K.M. Eisenhardt, “Strategic Decision Processes in High-Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry,” Management Science, volume 34, number 7, 1988, pp. 816–835; K.M. Eisenhardt, “Speed and Strategic Choice: How Managers Accelerate Decision Making,” California Management Review, volume 32, Spring 1990, pp. 39–54; J.W. Fredrickson and T.R. Mitchell, “Strategic Decision Processes: Comprehensiveness and Performance in an Industry with an Unstable Environment,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 27, number 2, 1984, pp. 399–423; J.W. Fredrickson, “The Comprehensiveness of Strategic Decision Processes: Extension, Observations, Future Directions,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 27, number 4, 1984, pp. 445–466; and I. Nonaka and J.K. Johansson, “Organizational Learning in Japanese Companies,” in R. Lamb and P. Shrivastava, eds., Advances in Strategic Management, volume 3 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 277–296.

32. Janis (1972).

33. A.C. Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 39, number 1, 1996, pp. 123–148; D.M. Schweiger, W.R. Sandberg, and J.W. Ragan, “Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 29, number 1, 1986, pp. 51–71; and D.M. Schweiger, W.R. Sandberg, and P.L. Rechner, “Experimental Effects of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy, and Consensus Approaches to Strategic Decision Making,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 32, number 4, 1989, pp. 745–772.

34. Janis (1972), pp. 146–149.

35. Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988).

36. E.H. Schein, Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development, second edition (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1988), pp. 17–19.

37. D.G. Ancona and D.A. Nadler, “Top Hats and Executive Tales: Designing the Senior Team,” Sloan Management Review, volume 31, Fall 1989, pp. 19–28; and D.C. Hambrick, “Top Management Groups: A Conceptual Integration and Reconsideration of the ‘Team’ Label,” in B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, volume 16 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1994), pp. 171–214.

38. Schein (1988), p. 21.

39. Ibid., pp. 22–39.

40. O. Hauptman, “Making Communication Work,” Prism, second quarter, 1992, pp. 71–81; and D. Krackhardt and J.R. Hanson, “Informal Networks: The Company behind the Chart,” Harvard Business Review, volume 71, July–August 1993, pp. 104–111.

41. Ancona and Nadler (1989), p. 24; Schein (1988), p. 50.

42. D. McGregor, The Professional Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill. 1967), pp. 173–174; and Schein (1988), pp. 57–58, 81–82.

43. R.L. Daft and G.P. Huber, “How Organizations Learn: A Communication Framework,” in S.B. Bacharach and N. DiTomaso, eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations, volume 5 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1987), pp. 1–36; C.M. Fiol and M.A. Lyles, “Organizational Learning,” Academy of Management Review, volume 10, number 4, 1985, pp. 803–813; G.P. Huber, “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures,” Organization Science, volume 2, number 1,1991, pp. 88–115; B. Levitt and J.G. March, “Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology, volume 14, 1988, pp. 319–340; and P. Shrivastava, “A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems,” Journal of Management Studies, volume 20, number 1, 1983, pp. 7–28.

44. P.M. Brenner, “Assessing the Learning Capabilities of an Organization” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Sloan School of Management, unpublished master’s thesis, 1994); Daft and Huber (1987), pp. 24–28; D.A. Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization,” Harvard Business Review, volume 71, July–August 1993, pp. 78–91; Levitt and March (1988), p. 320; and E.C. Nevis, A.J. DiBella, and J.M. Gould, “Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems,” Sloan Management Review, volume 37, Winter 1995, pp. 73–85.

45. Nevis et al. (1995), p. 76.

46. T. Kiely, “The Idea Makers,” Technology Review, 96, January 1993, pp. 32–40; M.A. Cusumano and R.W. Selby, Microsoft Secrets (New York: Free Press, 1995); Garvin (1993); J. Simpson, L. Field, and D.A. Garvin, “The Boeing 767: From Concept to Production (A)” (Boston: Harvard Business School, case 9-688-040, 1988); R.C. Camp, Benchmarking (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press, 1989); and R.E. Mittelstaedt, Jr., “Benchmarking: How to Learn from Best-in-Class Practices,” National Productivity Review, volume 11, Summer 1992, pp. 301–315; A. De Geus, “Planning as Learning,” Harvard Business Review, volume 66, March–April 1988, pp. 70–74; Huber (1991), pp. 105–107; Levitt and March (1988), pp. 326–329; and J.P. Walsh and G.R. Ungson, “Organizational Memory,” Academy of Management Review, volume 16, number 1, 1991, pp. 57–91.

47. Shrivastava (1983), p. 16.

48. Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988); and Eisenhardt (1990).

49. B. Blumenthal and P. Haspeslagh, “Toward a Definition of Corporate Transformation,” Sloan Management Review, volume 35, Spring 1994, pp. 101–106.

50. A.M. Pettigrew, “Longitudinal Field Research: Theory and Practice,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 3, 1990, pp. 267–292, quote from p. 270.

51. Van de Ven (1992), p. 80.

52. Van de Ven and Huber (1990).

53. C.J.G. Gersick, “Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm,” Academy of Management Review, volume 16, number 1, 1991, pp. 10–36.

54. For studies on creation, see: D.N.T. Perkins, V.F. Nieva, and E.E. Lawler III, Managing Creation: The Challenge of Building a New Organization (New York: Wiley, 1983); S.B. Sarason, The Creation of Settings and the Future Societies (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972); and A.H. Van de Ven, “Early Planning, Implementation, and Performance of New Organizations,” in J.R. Kimberly, R.H. Miles, and associates, The Organizational Life Cycle (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980), pp. 83–134. For studies on growth, see: W.H. Starbuck, ed., Organizational Growth and Development: Selected Readings (Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1971). For studies on transformation, see: J.R. Kimberly and R.E. Quinn, eds., New Futures: The Challenge of Managing Corporate Transitions (Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1984); A.M. Mohrman, Jr., S.A. Mohrman, G.E. Ledford, Jr., T.G. Cummings, E.E. Lawler III, and associates, Large-Scale Organizational Change (San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989). For studies on decline, see: D.C. Hambrick and R.A. D’Aveni, “Large Corporate Failures as Downward Spirals,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 33, March 1988, pp. 1–23; R.I. Sutton, “Organizational Decline Processes: A Social Psychological Perspective,” in B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, volume 12 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1990), pp. 205–253; and S. Venkataraman, A.H. Van de Ven, J. Buckeye, and R. Hudson, “Starting Up in a Turbulent Environment,” Journal of Business Venturing, volume 5, number 5, 1990, pp. 277–295.

55. Gersick (1991), p. 10.

56. M. Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 196; Gersick (1991); H. Mintzberg, “Patterns in Strategy Formation,” Management Science, volume 24, number 9, 1978, pp. 934–948; Starbuck (1971), p. 68; and Van de Ven (1992).

57. L.E. Greiner, “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,” Harvard Business Review, volume 50, July–August 1972, pp. 37–46; and M.L. Tushman and P. Anderson, “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 31, September 1986, pp. 439–465.

58. P. Selznick, Leadership in Administration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957), pp. 103–104.

59. Tushman, W.H. Newman, and E. Romanelli, “Convergence and Upheaval: Managing the Unsteady Pace of Organizational Evolution,” California Management Review, volume 29, Fall 1986, pp. 29–44.

60. R.M. Kanter, B.A. Stein, and T.D. Jick, The Challenge of Organizational Change (New York: Free Press, 1992), pp. 375–377.

61. R. Beckhard and R.T. Harris, Organizational Transitions, second edition (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1987); K. Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science (New York: Harper, 1951); E.H. Schein, Professional Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), pp. 76–84; and N. Tichy and M. Devanna, The Transformational Leader (New York: Wiley, 1986).

62. A. Abbott, “A Primer on Sequence Methods,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 4, 1990, pp. 375–392; Monge (1990); A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research (Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990: chapter 9; and Witte (1972).

63. C. Perrow, “A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations,” American Sociological Review, volume 32, number 2, 1967, pp. 194–208, quote from p. 195.

64. D.A. Garvin, “Leveraging Processes for Strategic Advantage, Harvard Business Review, volume 73, September–October 1995, pp. 76–90.

65. See, for example: Galbraith (1977); and Schlesinger, Sathe, Schlesinger, and Kotter (1992).

66. W.G. Astley and A.H. Van de Ven, “Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 28, June 1983, pp. 245–273, quote from p. 263.

67. C.A. Bartlett and S. Ghoshal, “Beyond the M-Form: Toward a Managerial Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 14, special issue, Winter 1993, pp. 23–46.

68. Hales (1986); Mintzberg (1973); Sayles (1989); and L.R. Sayles, Managerial Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).

69. J. Pfeffer, “Understanding Power in Organizations,” California Management Review, volume 34, Winter 1992, pp. 29–50, quote from p. 29.

70. Crozier (1964); J.G. March, “The Business Firm as a Political Coalition,” Journal of Politics, volume 24, number 4, 1962, pp. 662–678; Sayles (1989); and M.L. Tushman, “A Political Approach to Organizations: A Review and Rationale,” Academy of Management Review, volume 2, April 1977, pp. 206–216.

71. Hales (1986); J.P. Kotter, The General Managers (New York: Free Press, 1982); Mintzberg (1973); and H.E. Wrapp, “Good Managers Don’t Make Policy Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, volume 45, September–October 1967, pp. 91–99.

72. E.M. Leifer and H.C. White, “Wheeling and Annealing: Federal and Multidivisional Control,” in J.F. Short, Jr., ed., The Social Fabric (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1986), pp. 223–242.

73. Hill (1992); and Kotter (1982).

74. W. Skinner and W.E. Sasser, “Managers with Impact: Versatile and Inconsistent,” Harvard Business Review, volume 55, November–December 1977, pp. 140–148.

75. Examples include The Soul of a New Machine, featuring Tom West, the leader of a project to build a new minicomputer at Data General Corporation, and My Years with General Motors, written by Alfred Sloan, who resurrected General Motors in the more than twenty years that he served as the company’s chief executive and chairman. See: J.T. Kidder, The Soul of a New Machine (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981); and A.P. Sloan, Jr., My Years with General Motors (New York: Doubleday, 1963).

76. Mintzberg (1973), p. 92; Sayles (1964), chapter 9; and Hales (1986).

77. Kotter (1982).

78. J.J. Gabarro, The Dynamics of Taking Charge (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987); and R. Simons, “How New Top Managers Use Control Systems as Levers of Strategic Renewal,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 15, number 3, 1994, pp. 169–189.

79. Sayles (1964).

80. Hill (1992); Kotter (1982); F. Luthans, R.M. Hodgetts, and S.A. Rosenkrantz, Real Managers (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1988); and Mintzberg (1973).

81. D.J. Isenberg, “How Senior Managers Think,” Harvard Business Review, volume 62, November–December 1984, pp. 80–90, quote from p. 84.

82. Sayles (1964).

83. J.E. Dutton and S.J. Ashford, “Selling Issues to Top Management,” Academy of Management Review, volume 18, number 3, 1993, pp. 397–428; and I.C. MacMillan and W.D. Guth, “Strategy Implementation and Middle Management Coalitions,” in R. Lamb and P. Shrivastava, eds., Advances in Strategic Management, volume 3 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 233–254.

84. D.C. Hambrick and A.A. Cannella, “Strategy Implementation as Substance and Selling,” Academy of Management Executive, volume 3, number 4, 1989, pp. 278–285.

85. Mintzberg (1973), pp. 67–71; and Sayles (1964).

86. Isenberg (1984); and M.A. Lyles and I.I. Mitroff, “Organizational Problem Formulation: An Empirical Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 25, March 1980, pp. 102–119.

87. Sayles (1964), pp. 170.

88. Mintzberg (1973), pp. 67–71.

89. D.A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner (New York: Basic Books, 1983), chapters 1, 2, and 8.

90. MacMillan and Guth (1985); and Bower and Doz (1979), pp.152–153.

91. Mohr (1982), p. 43.

92. E.D. Chapple and L.R. Sayles, The Measure of Management (New York: Macmillan, 1961), pp. 49–50.

93. Garvin (1995).

94. E.H. Schein, Process Consultation: Lessons for Managers and Consultants (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1987); and Schein (1988).

Acknowledgments

More like this, add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Law

Essay On Organization And Management

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Law , Information , Management , Decision Making , Company , Economics , Thinking , Employment

Words: 1700

Published: 01/17/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Arguably, decision making is very crucial to organizations, as well as individuals. As a matter of fact, decision making incorporates various skills, expertise, character and knowledge. The decisions made by individuals has various impacts, especially when the outcome is realized. Programmed decisions define the decisions which are made in situations that are routine, well-structured, and repetitive and predetermined decision rules. They may have a basis of established policies, habit, procedures or rules that stem from prior technical knowledge or experience concerning what can work or cannot work in given circumstances. For instance, firms usually have standard routines applicable in handling discipline of employees or complaints from customers. Notably, the problems or issued requiring programmed decisions are well-structured which imply that the manager does not face trouble or incur expenses in getting an involved process of decision making (Wagner, 2005). Importantly, these decisions have been made severally in previous occasions making managers develop guidelines or rules for application when situations occur. Additionally, these decisions are made routinely for the firm to run smoothly. The majority of these decisions has a relationship with daily activities in the firm. Consequently, errors are rare in these decisions because of the guidelines and rules that create a routine and information needed to be followed by other people. Non-programmed decisions define unique decisions that involve a solution that is custom-made. This occurs when a novel or ill-structured problem confronts a manager in a situation where the ‘cut and dried solution’ is not found. Notably, such decisions are non-recurring and unique; hence, requires a response that is custom-made (Ramalingam, 2006). For instance, a decision involving the creation of a marketing strategy in a firm is a non-programmed decision. Additionally, these decisions are a response to unusual threats and opportunities in the firm. Notably, these decisions are non-routine and involve considerable decisions that have long-term effect on the firm. Furthermore, these decisions require no guidelines or rules because of the uncertain or unexpected situations. Crucial to note, making these decisions is likely to result to, errors and cause more problems due to new challenges and relying on intuition for quick response to these concerns. Juliet is required to make a non-programmed decision in her firm. This is because she is supposed to decide on whether the graduate recruitment program that has operated for five years will be required next year due to the economic state (Sanderson, 2006). This decision is new at the firm because this is the first time the program is operating in the firm, in such state of the economy. This is an unusual situation involving a different decision because of the new condition or state of the economy in the firm. This implies that there are certain conditions that have changed in the firm in this case the state of the economy. This decision is also long-term rather than related to daily activities of the organization. This is because the decision that Juliet will make will determine whether the firm will sustain the program on the long-term basis or not. This is because the state of the economy may not be predictable (Schultz, 1981). Additionally, this state of the economy is an unusual threat in the firm as it may result in an end of the graduate recruitment program which offers opportunities in the firm. Therefore, a non-programmed decision is required to provide a way ahead to make certain that the firm does not succumb to the threat. This implies that Juliet has to be extra careful due to likely errors and problems that may result. The two models of decision making are classical and administrative. Classical model is an approach that is prescriptive outlining how managers should make their decisions. It is also known as rational model. This model has a basis of economic assumptions asserting that managers are rational, logical individuals making decisions in the best interest of the firm. On the other hand, behavioral model is a descriptive approach outlining how managers do make decisions. This is also known as organizational, or neo classical (Kolbin, 2003). The classical or rational economic model focuses on how decisions should be made. The model has an assumption that the decision maker is ultimately rational. This implies that such an individual seeks to utilize a process that is planned, consistent, orderly and unbiased. Also, assumes that decision makers have all information they require in making decisions and considers all possible alternatives. The decision maker is expected to select the best or optimum choice (Emory, 2001). Notably, decision making progresses in the order of a sequence of steps. These are identifying the problem, developing criteria where alternative solutions are evaluated, identifying alternative courses of action, evaluating of alternatives, selecting the best alternative and implementing the best of all the options. Behavioral or administrative model describes how decisions are made. Decision makers simplify problems making them less complex because their individual capabilities are limited by the conditions of the firm such as availability of resources. This model has assumptions that decision makers perform with bounded or limited rationality. This implies that decision makers become rational within a model that is simplified. This may which contain limited components such as options or criteria of decision making. They also assume that decision makers identify criteria of decision making that is limited, examine limited alternatives, which are highly visible and easy or those slightly different from the status quo. The decision makers do not possess all information required in making a decision. The decision makers select an alternative that is satisfactory and good enough to meet the minimum criteria required for a desired solution. Decision making is a sequential process where alternatives are examined, and the best is selected (Byrd, 1982). Juliet will use behavioral model in making her decision. This is because her situation is unusual in the organization. This implies that she has limited options and criteria in making her decision. This is because this problem is new in the firm which means that there are no set rules and procedures to be applied in making this decision. Juliet will use this model because she does not have all information required to handle this issue and make decisions. This is simply because this problem has not been handled before in the organization thus there is no information to refer to and make this process easy. Notably, the firm does not have a sequence or procedure to be followed in making this decision because it is new at the firm (Lindley, 2005). Juliet has to apply this model in order to search for the best alternatives, examine and evaluate them well and choose the best option in making her decision. She should do this keenly as this will have a long-term effect on the future of the firm. In this situation, Juliet may decide that the firm will need the graduate recruitment program next year on the basis of some factors. She has to make her decision by identifying all options and selecting the best of them all. Some crucial in this decision include availability of financial resources to support the program (Beerman, 2002). This implies that Juliet has to consider the resources required in running the program and the firm should cater for these costs. The firm should have strategies of ensuring that this program is sustained at all times of different states of the economy. This implies that the firm should not strain financially in supporting the program as this may drain the resources in the firm. The decision has to be backed up by her boss and other administrators in charge. The decision Juliet will make has to be in agreement with the higher administrators in the firm. This implies that she should analyze her decision and provide support why she is making that decision. Her points should be well analyzed to ensure that they are easy to understand and present them to the other administrators. This is essential in determining whether her decision will be implemented or dismissed. The firm should also be in a position to implement this program without straining. This will ensure smooth running of the program at different economic status of the firm. Additionally, the short-term and long-term benefit of the program to the firm is a factor that will play a role in her decision. Juliet should analyze the benefit of the program to the firm. This implies that the program will be needed if there are benefits attached to it. The program should have positive results both experienced and anticipated benefits such as improved process of recruitment and improved staff (Zey, 1992). The decisions have been made severally in previous occasions making managers develop guidelines or rules for application when situations occur. Juliet is required to make a non-programmed decision in her firm. This is because she is supposed to decide on whether the graduate recruitment program. Non-programmed decisions define unique decisions that involve a solution that is custom-made. In general perspective, it is clear that decision making should be made in a rational manner regardless of the type of managerial decision process. The model used in making decisions should focus on short term and long term effects.

Beerman, S., & Musson, J. (2002). Eldercare 911: the caregiver's complete handbook for making decisions. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Byrd, J., & Moore, L. T. (1982). Decision models for management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Emory, W., & Niland, P. (2001). Making management decisions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Juniper, D. F. (1998). Making decisions how to develop effective skills for making good decisions.. Oxford: How To Books. Kolbin, V. V. (2003). Decision making and programming. River Edge, N.J.: World Scientific. Lindley, D. V. (2005). Making decisions. London: Wiley-Interscience. Ramalingam, P. R. (2006). Systems analysis for managerial decisions: a computer approach. New York: Wiley. Sanderson, C. J. (2006). Analytical models for decision making. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Schultz, R. L. (1981). Marketing decision models. New York: North Holland. Sengupta, J. (1982). Decision models in stochastic programming: operational methods of decision making under uncertainty. New York: North Holland Wagner, H. M. (2005). Principles of operations research: with applications to managerial decisions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Zey, M. (1992). Decision making: alternatives to rational choice models. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2532

This paper is created by writer with

ID 264773119

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Survival of the fittest essay sample, free micro economic analysis for business decision making essay example, poetry case study examples, sample case study on environmental impacts ground transportation infrastructure development, essay on does the american dream still exist, good hatha yoga its history uses and benefits essay example, asiana airlines flight 214 research paper example, essay on workbook, example of trend analysis and the effects of cultural and global influences on contemporary report, essay on local and regional media, example of essay on an op ed about the recent morocco political tension, notes on religious discussions essays example, biblical discussion question essay examples, character relationship in manuel puigs kiss of the spider woman research paper examples, good example of cluster or grid high performance computing research paper, starbucks growth applied to class knowledge essay example, example of essay on betty newman, free relationship of folklore and other oral stories worldwide research paper sample, calculating and interpreting elasticity essay sample, good example of book review on letters from apartheid street negotiation and communication, good example of course work on communication forms, good essay on brain fagan and events in the medieval world, good case study on bipolar disorders, free job dream essay sample, bremmer essays, briana essays, brandi essays, bowling team essays, bokhari essays, bring to the table essays, boost juice essays, blais essays, bosack essays, briney essays, pertinent essays, inhuman essays, should be legalized essays, maria essays, scarce resources reports, best practice reports, bargaining power reports.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

An Essay about a Philosophical Attitude in Management and Organization Studies Based on Parrhesia

• Open access
• Published: 10 April 2023
• Volume 22 , pages 587–618, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jesus Rodriguez-Pomeda   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5341-4042 1  

1501 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Management and organization studies (MOS) scholarship is at a crossroads. The grand challenges (such as the climate emergency) humankind must face today require an improved contribution from all knowledge fields. The number of academics who criticize the lack of influence and social impact of MOS has recently grown. The scientific field structure of MOS is based on its members’ accumulation of symbolic capital. This structure hinders speaking truth to the elite dominating neoliberal society. Our literature review suggested that a deeper interaction between MOS and philosophy could aid in improving the social impact of MOS. Specifically, an attitude by MOS scholars based on parrhesia (παρρησíα, to speak truth to power) could revitalize the field through heterodox approaches and, consequently, allow them to utter sound criticisms of the capitalist system. Parrhesia would lead MOS scholars towards a convergence of ethics and politics. We investigate whether daring to speak inconvenient truths to the powerful (some peers in the field and some individuals and corporations in society) can be a straightforward tool for revitalizing MOS. Boosting a candid philosophy-MOS interaction requires the fulfilment of three objectives: practical dialogue between these fields, reconsideration of the fields’ structures based on symbolic capital, and a post-disciplinary approach to philosophy. That fulfilment implies the delimitation of the MOS-philosophy interaction, a respectful mutual framework, mutual curiosity, and moving from prescriptive theoretical reflection towards more socially useful MOS. Ethical betterment through parrhesia could be the key to surpassing MOS stagnation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Revisiting the Received Image of Machiavelli in Business Ethics Through a Close Reading of The Prince and Discourses

Moutusy Maity, Nandita Roy, … Prasanta Chakravarty

Questions and Themes in Ethics and Leadership

In Search of Indian Management

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Management and organization studies (MOS) suffer from a growing disconnection with the great contemporary problems voiced by many authors who advocate a new academic practice for increasing the discipline’s social impact. MOS do not quickly adapt to emerging social needs. Like other disciplines, MOS are structured as a scientific field. Some egocentric academic interests pursue the accumulation of symbolic capital by each academic (Bourdieu 1975 , 1984 ). The field is hierarchized based on the symbolic capital each scholar possesses. Those occupying high positions in the field are legitimized to establish research agendas and distribute resources. The “Matthew effect” (Merton 1968 , 1988 ) reinforces the power of these people, further increasing their symbolic capital.

Therefore, rebalancing the ethical and political approaches of MOS academics would mitigate the centralized control of scientific activity related to the stagnation of MOS. The aim would be “to rebuild an environment in which the selfless search for truth and knowledge is once again enshrined as the central purpose of academic life” (Tourish 2019 : 251). The truth (and its practice) appears at the confluence between ethics and politics. Consequently, parrhesia can contribute to overcoming the limitations representing established practices and ideas in every scientific field (including MOS). Moreover, parrhesia, in deviating from the doxa, can spread innovative ideas. Indeed, parrhesia requires courage to produce ideas that challenge the status quo.

Remarkably, the power exercised by scientific authorities is projected through their control over publications in academic journals. They define the prevalent metrics of symbolic capital (and, consequently, those determining the scientific authority of each academic) based on the number of publications and citations in high-ranked journals. Consequently, the current problem of MOS has an external manifestation (decrease in its social impact compared to other fields in a world defined by the so-called “grand challenges”) and an internal one (scientific sclerotization preventing adequate reaction to external changes). In this essay, we propose a revitalization of MOS by spreading an ethical attitude based on parrhesia among its academics. The aim is to develop an internal dynamic for MOS that guarantees the search for truth, democratizes the field, and allows it to recover lost scientific rigour. Therefore, MOS scholars should reconsider their attitudes and scientific procedures.

Such attitudes and procedures have—on occasion—several flaws, such as “questionable research practices” (QRPs), including data fraud, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, p-hacking (inappropriate null hypothesis analysis), and HARKing (hypothesizing after test results are known) (Tourish 2019 ). Certain consequences of some of these defects have been observed since the late 1950s: greater fragmentation of the field together with an exaggerated emphasis on research methodology involving the exclusion of validity or relevance (Starbuck 2003 : 442).

MOS could thus use the talent of all their members (not only those with the highest scientific authority) to effectively contribute (along with other fields) to overcoming the “grand challenges”. “Grand challenges” are “formulations of global problems that can be plausibly addressed through coordinated and collaborative effort.” (George et al. 2016 : 1880). Considering the huge damaging effects of inadequate treatment of these challenges, it is advisable to adopt a prudent, precautionary approach to them. Additionally, some of those challenges (such as the climate emergency) will affect further generations.Thus, careful ethical considerations by present generations will avoid irreversible effects for newcomers.

Such a contribution requires MOS members to behave outwardly as parrhesiastes; this implies the same courage in defending the truth as they must use inwardly. The reason is clear: the “grand challenges” derive from the neoliberal economic system currently dominating the world and run by an elite (individuals and corporations) acting exclusively in their own interests. Therefore, parrhesia represents a link between the ethics of MOS academics and the political spheres in which they operate (within the scientific field and externally in society overall).

Consequently, revitalizing the philosophical perspective at the origins of MOS (Jones and ten Bos, 2007a ; Mir and Greenwood, 2022 )would allow its scholars to integrate its ethical premises more deeply with the political effects of their work. The philosophical perspective is not new in MOS since these studies have been considering ideas from epistemology or ethics, among other fields. However, ironically, ethics has been considered more as an object of study within organizational activities than as a crucial element in reflecting on the development of the scientific field.

MOS researchers’ freedom and responsibility reinforce the crucial importance of their professional ethics (Tsui and McKiernan 2022 ). A scientific practice based on deeper integration of ethics and politics would improve the contribution of MOS to solving the problems afflicting contemporary societies. Therefore, an ethic of speaking the truth, even if this means confronting the powerful, would help stop any temptation to complacency. Indeed, MOS academics are responsible for criticizing everything that delays the advancement of knowledge, both in an epistemological sense and in social practice.

In addition to the presence of philosophy in the origins of MOS, the need to revitalize the philosophical attitude of MOS academics is explained by two other arguments: all scientific activity has ontological, ethical, and epistemological roots, and, like any activity developed in society, it has political consequences.

In our view, increasing the interaction between MOS and philosophy activities would require—among others—achieving three objectives: exploring a practical dialogue between philosophers and MOS scholars, reconsidering the dynamics of symbolic capital accumulation in both fields, and facilitating the transmission of ideas from the philosophy through its “de-disciplination” (Frodeman 2013 ).

Firstly, through a practical dialogue with contemporary philosophers (especially those concerned with social ontology), MOS authors could benefit from a richer and deeper perspective on contemporary humans and societies. After a short review of the present MOS situation in Sect. 2, we address the four premises for building such a dialogue in the following sections of this essay.

Secondly, overcoming the current dynamics of symbolic capital accumulation in MOS could increase interactions among its scholars (regardless of each other’s symbolic capital) on a more egalitarian and candid basis. This increase (in quantity and quality) in interactions between all types of MOS scholars would probably generate new ideas and scientific approaches. Thus, the relevance and social utility of MOS would grow.

The “de-disciplining” of philosophy concerns philosophers. An interesting effort originates from the so-called “field philosophy”: an engagement with “our common lives” driven by improvisation, non-standard methodologies, working within interdisciplinary teams, focusing on the specificities of actual problems, and adjusting rigour and results to the team partners’ requirements (Brister and Frodeman, eds., 2020 ).

In this regard, for Frodeman ( 2013 : 1935):

Philosophy, and the humanities generally, should never have become disciplines. (…). A merely disciplined philosophy, where philosophers primarily work with and write for other philosophers, is in the end no philosophy at all.

Adopting a philosophical approach in a sufficiently large group of MOS scholars could lead them to use practices such as parrhesia, which externalize ethical reflection towards a political framework.

This call to renew the ethical commitment of MOS scholars also includes recovering and updating the discipline’s philosophical roots since this ethical commitment requires rethinking the discipline’s ontological and epistemological dimensions. Determining what the existing organizations are, how they interact with new societies, and how to understand them is essential in the current critical moment.

The remainder of this article has the following structure: after addressing (in Sect. 2) the present situation of MOS (scholarship, managerialism, standstill, and the relationship of their aims with philosophy), we analyze the previous premises (field of interaction in Sect. 3, mutual respect in Sect. 4, reciprocal curiosity between philosophy and MOS in Sect. 5, and a passage from a prescriptive theoretical reflection on an adequate academic practice in Sect. 6). Subsequently, we assess the contribution of philosophy to overcoming the current MOS impasse. Subsequently, we consider how to advance the social utility of MOS, considering the contributions of philosophy to the social sciences through its “de-disciplination” (in Sect. 7). Organizational scholars’ practice of parrhesia could offer the field internal and external benefits, internally reactivating scientific rigour and democratizing the field. Consequently, in the external dimension, MOS would improve their social impact by uttering truths in analyzing grand challenges (Sect. 8). We conclude (in Sect. 9, before the conclusions offered in Sect. 10) by proposing the adoption by MOS of a philosophical attitude based on the parrhesiastic asceticism of these scholars.

The Present Situation of MOS

Mos scholarship and managerialism.

MOS have accumulated contributions from diverse theoretical origins supporting conceptual ambiguities and contradictory in their methodologies, conclusions, and performance proposals (Clegg et al. 2022 ). MOS have been developed in parallel with the growth of the ‘organizational society’ as the epitome of the modernist ideal based on reason, progress, and justice (Little 2019 ; Reed 2006 ). In 2023, with a world built around the concept of organization, and especially the subset of organizations comprising companies (Chandler Jr 1963 ; Fligstein 2008 ), the prevalence of MOS as a dominant institution is closely related to the current modes of production, cultures, and political and ideological frameworks. A leading mainstream MOS scholar as Drucker ( 1954 :1) defends that prevalence:

The emergence of management as an essential, a distinct and a leading institution is a pivotal event in social history. Rarely, if ever, has a new basic institution, a new leading group, emerged as fast as has management since the turn of this century. (…). Management will remain a basic and dominant institution perhaps as long as Western civilization itself survives.

On the ideological relevance of MOS for actual societies, Ward ( 2012 : 47–48) offers a brilliant statement:

management helped create a moral and rhetorical ordering that defines and ranks people, activities and things in term of their rationality, efficiency, performity and productivity, while simultaneously legitimating the need for a group of specially trained people to oversee all that defining and ranking.

The consequence is the configuration of managerialism as a dominant institution nowadays. In Ward’s words (2012: 48):

[M]anagerialism can be seen both as specific set of ideas and practices that, under the direction of managers, arrange a group’s activities in particular efficiency- and production-minded ways and as a broader societal-level doxa that legitimates and expands the need for this particular type of control in practically all settings.

One of the consequences of management diffusion is the growing number of MOS scholars, and, consequently, of their production. Rigorous research on the current number of MOS scholars worldwide is scarce. Among available information on the issue, Ioannidis ( 2022 ) considered that 164,428 scholars were working in September 2022 on “Economics & Business” of a total of 9,071,122 scientists worldwide (roughly 1.8% of the total number of scientists then covered in the Scopus publication database). Clearly, “Economics & Business” is not the same as “Management and Organization Studies”; however, it appears a useful starting point to estimate the number of MOS scholars. In the absence of undisputed figures regarding how many scholars work in MOS worldwide, the size of this academic community can be realized based on some available data. The first is the number of members of the Academy of Management (AoM), one of the most relevant learned societies in MOS worldwide. The AoM had over 19,000 members in 2022. This number comprises not only faculty but also students and practitioners.

Second is the relative number of documents published by European authors in collaboration that have been indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases in the field of strategic management (only one of the areas covered in MOS) over the last quarter-century. With 1993 as the base year (1993 = 100%), the relative number of these documents attained more than 3,000% in 2017 (Kosch and Szarucki 2021 : 57).

Therefore, it could be concluded that scholars working on MOS are a large and rapidly growing scientific community. However, even when MOS has growing steadily in the recent decades, the social impact of their work has not evolved in the same way. Several authors have denounced the lack of connection between scholars and practitioners, as well as the low credibility, replicability and relevance of MOS research (Biggart 2016 ; Co-founders of RRBM (2017, rev. 2020); Haley, 2022 ; Hambrick, 1994 ; Kieser, Nicolai & Seidl, 2015 ; Latusek and Hensel, 2022 ; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002 ; Tourish, 2019 ; Tsui, 2021 ; Wickert et al., 2021 ). MOS suffers a specific crisis in “times [that] have not been kind to academia” (Elangovan and Hoffman 2021 : 68), and when research impact measurement is under high scrutiny (Williams 2020 ). The MOS mainstream approaches to current organizational problems (framed within present day societies) in useful and ethical ways are unsatisfactory (Haley 2022 ; Tourish 2019 ; Wickert et al. 2021 ).

MOS’ Stalemate

Climate emergency, recurrent economic crises, growing inequalities in wealth distribution, inefficiencies in organizations, mismatches in the organizational-, meso-, and macro-economic levels of the global economy, the threat of nuclear war, and poor global governance are some of the huge and connected problems facing civilization today. MOS, within its capabilities, should contribute to find solutions for portions of them (Chomsky and Waterstone 2021 ; Co-founders of RRBM, 2017, revised 2020; Roitman, 2014 ; Scales Avery, 2009 ; Tsui, 2021 ).

Tourish ( 2019 ) underlines the stagnation of MOS based on some of these problems. An alternative approach is necessary. This standstill derives from a lack of coherence between current changes in organizations and MOS research aims and methods (Davis 2015 ). Therefore, MOS has lost its adherence to world affairs, and, consequently, its external mission (Starbuck 2003 ). The main effect is a growing distrust in MOS (Harley 2019 ). Consequently, some conscientious MOS scholars have expressed concerns about the reduced relevance of their work to practice (Haley 2022 ). To address this issue, we examine some points related to the dialogue between MOS and philosophy. A philosophical attitude within MOS could improve the current approaches to 21st -century organizations.

The reason is that an updated philosophical approach implies a “back-to-basics” process within MOS because these studies were, since they began, (i) attentive to philosophical ideas and (ii) concerned with their members’ ethics. As a remarkable illustration of this concern with MOS scholarship ethics, for Tsui ( 2013 : 383), a priority for a socially responsible MOS scholarship is “to seek truth above all other considerations by engaging the literature and the research participants as ethically as possible”.

MOS academic ethics should guide the individual behaviour of the scholars in the field not only towards the external constituencies (e.g., practitioners) but also towards the colleagues and the usual practices existing in this scientific field. Jordan ( 2013 : 252) defines academic ethics as all the “standards of moral behaviour, expressed with reference to ethical theory (e.g., deontology), intended to guide all individuals employed as professionals in or working as staff or students in institutions of education, research, or scholarship”.

However, after a journey of decades, traditional academic values clash with current processes at business schools, universities, and scientific journals (Harley 2019 ). Therefore, MOS suffers “a series of developments, including an apparent lack of practical or academic impact from most published research, a narrowing of focus in the field, increases in unethical behaviour, the downgrading of teaching, and increased pressure in both publishing and teaching.” (Harley 2019 : 286). We believe that, in facing this situation, MOS scholars’ rethinking of ethics and epistemology (as well as politics) is highly advisable.

Harley and Fleming ( 2021 ) offer a vivid illustration of the sluggishness of MOS with their analysis of approximately 5,500 articles published in prestigious journals between 2008 and 2018. They found that only 2.8% of them aimed to address the so-called “grand challenges” (such as inequality, climate change, or severe discrimination behaviours) since the MOS academics who work in universities and business schools develop practices that, interacting with the guidelines for scientific journals, produce a “business school/elite journal gridlock” (Harley and Fleming 2021 : 133).

In sum, philosophy can infuse new ideas into MOS, following a general statement by Starbuck ( 2003 : 449):

scientific disciplines develop social structures and codes of behaviour that, despite their fundamental virtues, can stifle innovation, creativity, and progress. To prevent this drift into sterility, scientific development needs punctuation by extra-disciplinary influences.

These philosophical influences have been present in MOS from its origins, as is now evident.

MOS’ Aim and Philosophy

Since its inception, MOS has offered guidance about people behaviour within organizations. The phenomenon of organization dominates modern society where people are embedded (Krijnen 2015 ). Therefore, the presence of organizations within the world deserves clarification.

In a broad sense, it can be considered that philosophy and MOS have consistently been inseparable since acting in the world (and, specifically, in the organizational part of it) requires a philosophical approach (O’Doherty 2007 ). This does not imply that every agent conducts a prior, concurrent, or subsequent philosophical reflection on their action. Conversely, it means that everything surrounding that action is susceptible to philosophical analysis. Several premises must be specified for the relationship between philosophy and MOS to be more intellectually and socially fruitful from their perspectives. First, the field of interaction must be delimited, as we discuss in the following section. That is, it must be determined what aspects of MOS can enable appropriate dialogues. Among such aspects, social science, epistemology, ontology, and ethics are prominent (for both their scholars and readers). Second, a respectful relationship framework must be established, as we see in Sect. 4. This means overcoming, in the philosophical field, supposed intellectual superiorities of certain philosophers. In the field of MOS, this includes the contempt with which some disqualify philosophy as useless. Several authors call for a deep reflection on the philosophical foundations of MOS. For Tsoukas and Chia ( 2011 : 6):

The need for creating a deeper awareness of the ‘unconscious metaphysics’ underpinning our theorizing efforts is particularly acute in OT [Organization Theory].

The distance between philosophy and MOS is explained by Kaulinkfreks (2007: 40) as follows:

[P]hilosophy is of no use for managers and that it should be considered as a useless activity. By use I mean a means to an end. When stating that philosophy may be useless I mean that philosophy is not a means to an end outside the philosophical activity itself.

Finally, on the preconceived opinion about philosophy’s appearance in the sciences, Jackson and Carter ( 2007 : 146) think that.

In an epoch in which knowledge is judged by the dominant criteria of science and utility, this has led to it becoming discredited –the ‘end of philosophy’ argument (see, for example, Baynes et al., 1987)—and perceived as inferior to science, if not actually useless and irrelevant.

After these considerations about some criticisms on the relationship between philosophy and MOS (and sciences in general), we deal in Sect. 5 with the third premise of our proposal for the advance of the relationships between philosophy and MOS. This premise considers that building reciprocal curiosity should be riveting. Finally, the obstacles preventing movement from prescriptive theoretical reflection to a richer and more powerful academic practice must be understood and overcome, as we analyse in Sect. 6.

The Interaction Field between Philosophy and MOS

We now consider the first premise for constructing a worthy dialogue between philosophy and MOS. This premise is the delimitation of their interaction. In configuring the field of interaction, the first question is whether the world is considered an objective or subjective phenomenon. As O’Doherty ( 2007 ) states, this question is posed by Burrell and Morgan ( 1979 : 22) with their famous four possible paradigms for studying organizations (The Sociology of Radical Change: (I) ‘Radical humanist’ (subjective), (II) ‘Radical structuralist’ (objective); The Sociology of Regulation: (III) ‘Interpretive’ (subjective), and (IV) ‘Functionalist’ (objective)). Philosophers continue the debate about the characterization of the world as an objective or a subjective phenomenon. Some of them even question the mere existence of the world, as shown by Gabriel’s ( 2015 ) denial of such a circumstance, in accordance with his meta metaphysical nihilism. Connected with German idealism, Gabriel (a figure of growing influence in continental philosophy) seeks a realism rooted in the Habermasian ‘unity of reason’ that opposes the view of constructivism according to which personal affiliations shape people’s thinking (Gabriel 2015 : xii-xiii). In his words, (Gabriel 2013 : 83)

There is no over-arching structure, no archê governing the whole thing. For one thing, there is no whole thing, no world, but only the frayed plurality of manifold appearing. The world does not exist precisely because everything exists. By not taking place it gives place to everything. And it is even better that the world does not exist, because, things being this way, it is always up to us to negotiate our various decisions as to how to compensate the lack of world—as long as the evanescent flickering of semantic field within nothingness endures.

In MOS, attempts have been made to overcome this ontological pitfall from various theoretical perspectives. As O’Doherty ( 2007 ) highlights, Burrell and Morgan’s ( 1979 ) organizational analysis, influential for decades, incorporates several philosophical connections and derivations. He speaks of the dominance Parsons’ ‘functionalist sociology’ had in the late 1970s. According to O’Doherty, this was based on a conception of the world as a pre-existing and objective entity comprising structures, categories, and dynamics. That is, the objectivity of social phenomena implies the possibility of analyzing them through the methods of natural sciences. By placing Burrell and Morgan ( 1979 ) the mainstream of organizational analysis (especially for those who originated from business schools) in one of the four quadrants of their 2 × 2 matrix, they enabled MOS to be approached with other mentalities, particularly the postmodern ones. This was also a reaction to the then-dominant orthodoxy forgetting ontological and epistemological questions. The expansion and development of ontology (for example, with the work of the most recent decades on social ontology) and epistemology from the philosophical field would allow further extension of these theoretical characterizations of MOS.

Cognitive obstacles could also hamper MOS-philosophy collaborations. These are (MacLeod 2018 : 698).

…the more intellectual and technical cognitive, conceptual and methodological challenges researchers face coordination and integrating background concepts, methods, epistemic standards, and technologies of their respective scientific domains –particularly in the context of collaboration—in order to achieve some benefit for solving specific problems or sets of problems. (…) the domain specific (or ‘disciplinary’) structure of science may play an important role explaining why interdisciplinarity is often so difficult.

The interaction field between MOS and philosophy is related to blurred disciplinary boundaries. Disciplines enact boundaries based on its claims to assert an idea. Other disciplines could want to assess that assertive right. Therefore, interaction between disciplines begins. From a pragmatist’s perspective, both disciplines get involved in a process of reasoning or making inferences. This process allows the claim and its criticism to be contrasted. The consequence is a “warranted assertibility” (Dewey 1938 ) of the initial claim.

Hence, ontological, cognitive, assertive, as well as the social aspects of scientific practice (as the dynamics of symbolic capital) should be considered to create an actionable interaction field between MOS and philosophy.

Mutual Respect between Philosophy and MOS

After cope with the delimitation of the interaction field, the second premise to develop the more socially fruitful relationship between philosophy and MOS we propose is to nurture mutual respect between philosophy and MOS. This mutual respect requires to agree on the scope of collaboration and a duly assessment of the capacity of each group of academics to make relevant contributions. This is a difficult task since it must avoid the desire for superiority. Such a claim requires overcoming existing habits in the respective academic fields since these habits lead – among other things – to the fragmentation of knowledge and a search for the professional prestige of the academic and their affiliation group. Among recent examples of the search for this mutual respect, from the philosophical field, Krijnen recognized that ‘[N]on-philosophical scientific disciplines and philosophy are intrinsically intertwined’ (Krijnen 2015 : 31) and affirmed that ‘[T]he non-philosophical disciplinary attempts at justification of this presupposed meaning and validity of the concept of organization offer no solution’ (Krijnen 2015 : 31). One might think this is a philosophical reaction against the role of under-labourer that some MOS authors conferred on philosophy. As Spoelstra ( 2007 : 55–56) indicates,

[W]e might distinguish between two concepts of a radically different nature: philosophical concepts and social scientific concepts. They cannot be translated into one another, yet they affiliate. (…) organization studies tends to understand philosophy as the under-labourer for the social sciences. Philosophy, thus conceived becomes something located outside of organization studies rather than a positive force within organization studies.

Without a change of attitude in many of the members of both fields (philosophy and MOS), it is difficult to envision the necessary cooperation between them. This does not concern invading other territories, but mutual recognition based on different orientations, objectives, practices, and methods. The subordination of one field to another (or scientific imperialism) should be avoided (Persson et al. 2018 ). MOS-philosophy relationships should attain some integration of knowledge. This integration requires deciding among pluralist and unificationist attitudes to collaboration. For Persson et al. ( 2018 ), the pluralist view focuses on transitory interdisciplinary connections, whereas unificationist scholars believe disciplinary boundaries can be surmounted in the long term. Then, cultivating a philosophical attitude in the field of MOS could build bridges. However, authors such as Krijnen do not consider this feasible (2015 : 31):

The philosophical justification developed in the debate about the foundations of organization studies within organization studies themselves is not a solution either. Critical realism does indeed show that positivism and social constructionism are inadequate. The ontology of critical realism, however, is inadequate as well. In itself there is nothing peculiar about this inadequacy: in all sciences there are after all good and not so good theories.

Philosophy has useful and less useful theoretical systems. Primarily, based on the colossal challenges societies currently face, the most ethical, prudent, and useful option would be to seek cooperation frameworks between philosophy and MOS. Such cooperation will probably require revising the foundations of MOS using philosophy. However, the current social function of these and the developed academic framework must also be appreciated.

The reasons for a renewed ethical rooting in MOS are twofold: scholars’ behaviour and MOS foundations. Regarding MOS scholars’ behaviour, their ethical perspective is accompanied by their responsibility as scientists.

For Tsui and McKiernan ( 2022 : 1613), MOS scholars have four types of responsibility: general ethical (their behaviour as citizens), societal well-being (as advisers to the users of their work), contextual (as members of a stakeholder network), and epistemic (as trained scientific professionals). However, some current practices could erode their ethical compromise. For instance, the biases observed in top-ranked journals towards theory creation and quantitative methods, together with growing pressures on scholars for publication in those outlets, drive the homogenization of research (Harley 2019 : 288). Nevertheless, grand challenges require open-minded, creative, and offbeat research.

Another reason for a deep ethical compromise within the MOS community is the “disturbingly high incidence [of unethical conduct] in our field” (Harley 2019 : 289). Although it is challenging to estimate the diffusion of unethical behaviour in MOS, it appears to have grown in recent years. Alongside some cases of fake research, are the so-called ‘questionable research practices’ (QRP) (Tourish 2019 ). Of the five studies on QRP revised by Tourish ( 2019 ), one of the more interesting is by Bedeian, et al. ( 2010 ). This article, based on the responses of 438 management faculty in 104 US Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited business schools, found that almost 73% of the respondents reported knowledge of faculty engaging in QRP within the previous year.

Considering MOS foundations, ethics has been involved in different management and organizational areas since the field’s inception, including decision-making and individual and organizational models of action (Griseri 2013 ). Therefore, reinforcement of ethics reflection by MOS scholars would prevent some undesirable behaviours.

Thus, MOS scholars’ behaviour, epistemological evolution of MOS, and the study of arising phenomena (such as artificial intelligence) promote wide reconsideration of the interaction of philosophical developments on ethics, epistemology, or ontology with MOS. Rabetino, Kohtamäki and Federico ( 2016 ) offer an absorbing reflection on this reconsideration related to the foundations of the strategic management field.

That is, it is not a question of rewriting what was elaborated in MOS but reordering its theoretical and practical developments starting from more robust philosophical bases. These bases could originate from social metaphysics, a field still in its infancy (Epstein 2015 : 9). However, contemporary philosophical literature collects relevant contributions such as those of Searle ( 1995 , 2010 ), Toumela ( 2002 , 2007 ), Gilbert ( 1989 ), Bratman ( 1993 ), Pettit ( 1993 ), List and Pettit ( 2011 ), Little ( 2016 ), Lawson ( 2019 ), Patomäki ( 2020 ), and Archer ( 2013 , 2017 ), in some cases specifically aimed at social ontology. As is evident, also from MOS, it would be advisable to assess the elaboration of an open, humble, and collaborative vision towards philosophy. The field of MOS must discard contempt related to the supposed uselessness of philosophy. It must recognize that, like M. Jourdain, MOS speaks a language linking certain concepts within ideological frameworks typical of philosophical reflection.

A successful and relevant research line explores the relationships between philosophy and MOS (Griffin et al. 2015 ; Hassard 1999 ; Koslowski (ed.), 2010 ), even when MOS sometimes “seems a bit shy to embrace a philosophical orientation” (Mir and Greenwood 2022 : 17).

Erkal and Vandekerkhove ( 2021 ) offer an interesting analysis of the meta-theoretical discussions on philosophy of management. From that analysis, some trends appear: philosophy of management should adopt an analytic and prescriptive perspective (Laurie and Cherry 2001 ), need to understand properly systems thinking (Dearey 2002 ), should be a process philosophy (based on dialogue between philosophers and managers) (Platts and Harris 2011 ), and should question what management is (Blok 2020 ).

This article tries to adopt a synoptic view (Gare and Neesham 2022 ; Broad 1947 ) of the assimilation of parrhesia within MOS. The aim is to look for some inter-actions between MOS and philosophy considering several complexities present in organizational phenomena. These complexities are boosted by the increasing roughness of current societal challenges. A respectful relationship between MOS and philosophy is the premise to develop an actionable inter-action to tackle with those challenges.

Nevertheless –as academic fields— philosophy and MOS show dynamics pointed towards a symbolic capital accumulation that can thwart the blossom of parrhesia in academia. Parrhesia should be the key to overcome hesitations observed in MOS when dealing with current challenges.

Another trend within MOS –especially within authors oriented towards consultancy for practitioners— is to appreciate philosophical ideas, but to approximate them in a superficial way. It seems that those authors draw upon philosophy just to garnish their mental framework. So, they disguise that framework (focused only on the business’ bottom line) with intellectually prestigious references. An example of this behaviour is Iñiguez ( 2020 ).

Finally, as we have said in the introduction, to attain a more relevant inter-action between philosophy and MOS requires thirdly –in our view— the implementation of a reciprocal curiosity amidst both fields. We deal with this issue in the following section.

Building Reciprocal Curiosity between Philosophy and MOS

Curiosity for other fields’ novelties is a powerful source of renewal in any discipline. Indeed, “questioning out of curiosity can build new dialogue and open up new methodological avenues” (Kelemen et al., 2019: 3). Questioning is a premise for critique, dialogue, and progress in any knowledge area. Therefore, if MOS and philosophy are concerned with each other’s developments, new forms of questioning will arise. Another thought-provoking aftermath of the MOS-philosophy mutual curiosity could be improved concern for societal issues through new methodologies. For Kelemen et al. (2015: 25) “new methodologies could be promoted that not only ensure the co-production of knowledge, but also can engender a ‘giving back to the community’ sensibility.” Philosophy’s openness to new methodologies and topics (especially applied topics) will boost its development and social engagement (Brake 2017 ; Hicks and Holbrook, 2019).

Regarding reciprocal curiosity between philosophy and MOS, the distance that initially appears insurmountable between both fields could be addressed based on the study of specific actions of organizations (which MOS academics observe and analyze). An example is the actions of managers in current organizations and their inability to face problems of a higher order than the organization (like climate change). Such directive action unfolds within a specific paradigm. This dominant paradigm in managing organizations presents limits preventing them from solving that problem; this cannot be disputed because it is incommensurate with other alternative paradigms.

Resulting from the co-evolution of organizations and societies, organizational objectives nowadays are sharply connected with wider issues that –in contrast with the modernist view of the organization—are beyond the mere organizational borders. A clear, interesting and relevant example is ‘open innovation’ (OI). OI has evolved recently as a useful tool to tackle simultaneously with business and societal challenges, as McGahan et al. ( 2021 : 49) say:

…[I]deas, concepts, theory, and practice on open innovation that were developed primarily for business are deeply relevant to address the grand challenges of social impact that now loom as the most important management problems of this century.

Therefore, concrete organizational problems and pending challenges will guide the reciprocal curiosity between philosophy and MOS. However, there is a risk of considering as concrete only that clothed with an adequate appearance of reality. This is the society of the spectacle (Debord 1967 /2014: 14, 19):

The society based on modern industry is not accidentally or superficially spectacular, it is fundamentally spectaclist. In the spectacle –the visual reflection on the ruling economic order—goals are nothing, development is everything. The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself. (…) The spectacle inherits the weakness of the Western philosophical project, which attempted to understand activity by means of the categories of vision , and it is based on the relentless development of the particular technical rationality that grew out of that form of thought. The spectacle does not realize philosophy, it philosophizes reality, reducing everyone’s concrete life to a universe of speculation.

Precisely, the consideration of how the knowledge of what is considered real is obtained points again to the epistemologies applied in MOS, specifically, social constructionism. As Böhm indicates, it is typical of social constructionism to consider that conflicts between communities of practice must be resolved at the local level through politics understood as ‘dialogue, “language” and conflict management techniques’ (Böhm 2006 : 129). Referring to the social framework and appealing to the concepts of ‘non-synthesis’ by Benjamin ( 1996 ) and of ‘impossibility’ by Laclau and Mouffe ( 1985 ), he considers that the final integration of the parties in conflict is impossible. The conflict is linked to wide-ranging social and historical elaborations, and ‘it cannot simply be solved by establishing dialogue between oppositional parties. Resolving social conflict, that is, bringing about a final synthesis, is impossible’ (Böhm 2006 : 129). His analysis of Gergen’s work ( 1995 ) helps Böhm to conclude that his emphasis on the importance of dialogue (2006: 115–116),

[H]ighlights that, in his view, reality is always embedded in conversations and social interactions within communities rather that a pre-existing entity. (…) For these social constructionists, then, language does not reflect reality; instead, it constitutes it. That is, reality is constructed (inter-)subjectively through the communal construction of language, or ‘languaging’.

Finally, Böhm ( 2006 ) offers a critique from the perspective of the Frankfurt School, based on Adorno’s (1967) attack on Mannheim’s psychologism ( 1951 ), of the discourses of social constructionism. This criticism extends to the approaches of Berger and Luckman ( 1966 ), Weick ( 1995 ), and Hatch ( 1997 ), considering that (Böhm 2006 : 121),

Reality is seen as something that is produced by individuals reaching consensus and shared understanding through dialogue. (…) I argued that such views are based on a certain psychologism, which remains blind towards those social structures that endure over time and space and traverse local communities. One of these social structures is, for example, capital that always already shapes reality in specific ways and produces subjectivities along specific lines.

A possible escape from the limit psychologism establishes for the reciprocal questioning between philosophy and MOS could also originate from hermeneutics. In the 20th century, hermeneutics had relevance in some areas of organizations, such as culture, sensemaking, identity, and learning. In this sense, Barrett, Powley, and Pearce ( 2011 : 205) point out that.

With interpretation as a focal point of dialogue and deliberation, forms of dialogue shape meaning systems and action and thereby influence social actors’ action with and toward others. Practically speaking, dialogue becomes an actionable strategy by which organizational actors may influence, engage, enable, empower, or whatever suits them.

This dialogue implies an openness towards the other as well as proceeding to a mental openness from the awareness of prejudices (believing that one is alien to prejudices is the greatest of these) held as part of the experience (Gadamer 1960 ). Can this open-mindedness and overcoming of prejudices enable dialogue between philosophy and MOS in the short term? This would require awareness that, as Spoelstra states, ‘A meeting between philosophy and social science is never common sense’ (Spoesltra, 2007: 65).

It would be also useful to build and develop adequate platforms for dialogue: journals (such as Philosophy of Management ), scientific conferences to discuss issues of common interest for philosophers and MOS scholars and learned societies. Improved interactions with philosophers imply rethinking of what it means to be a MOS scholar: through a reflexive process, it becomes evident that approaches questioning the mainstream can revivify this academic field. MOS scholars should not absorb any philosophy study programme but should work from a critical perspective that enables them to overcome the scholastic practices that have sclerotized the field by focusing all efforts on accumulating symbolic capital, that is, gaining positions within the field hierarchy.

This essay addresses a special study of applied ethics related to MOS scholarship; thus, it could be framed within moral philosophy. The main ideas considered here come from Western tradition, as the parrhesia (arising from ancient Greece since c. V BC). However, the main authors in MOS thought could be related to several relevant themes in the Western tradition (heroism, rationalism, positivism, romanticism, existentialism and postmodernism), making its understanding advisable for MOS scholars (Joullié 2016 ).

A highly remarkable example of dialogue between philosophers and management and organization scholars is the study of parrhesia in MOS. Since the reception in MOS of Foucault’s ideas on the knowledge/power bond, different authors within the field have studied the so-called Foucault’s third period to consider parrhesia within organizations (Vandekerckhove and Langenberg 2012 ). Raffnsøe, Mennicken, & Miller ( 2019 ) situate parrhesia within Foucault’s fourth wave alongside his analysis on subjectivity.

In parrhesia, the subject assumes an active role in the event of the utterance of truth. The relationship between the subject and truth is one of the main axes of Western culture, as Vandekerckhove and Langenberg ( 2012 ) explain, offering an interesting reflection on truth and critique within organizations (Vandekerckhove and Langenberg 2012 : 35):

Foucault clarified his position towards modern, western analyses of truth through an elaboration of the concept of critique. In practicing resistance towards a dominating truth, a personal truth emerges. Any utterance of critique is speaking a personal truth (hence the acknowledgement of the subject) but this is done in an organizational context which is a relational and communicative reality. Thus critique in organizations appears as an interactive truth. (…) In foucauldian parlance, an interactive truth appears through the critical judgements which are part of a power game embedded in the organizational praxis.

In the Western philosophical tradition, the presence of truth in organizational activities can be studied from different perspectives, such as German idealism or critical realism, among others (Krijnen 2015 ). Truth in organizations is a hot issue, with a growing number of applications (authored by MOS scholars, regulators, and practitioners) concerning phenomena like whistleblowing, raising concerns, or the ethical dimension of organizational life (Vandekerckhove and Langenberg 2012 ). Several academics (Rodriguez-Pomeda and Casani 2022 ; Skinner 2011 ; Weiskopf and Willmott 2013 ) have applied the available knowledge to the study of parrhesia and critique within specific organizational situations, tracing links to not only Foucault but to the different parrhesiastic processes in the ancient Athenian democracies. These works illustrate how MOS scholars and philosophers can obtain mutual benefit from their interactions on parrhesia.

From Prescriptive Theoretical Reflection to Richer and more Powerful Academic Practice

In the introduction, we proposed that the collaboration between philosophy and MOS should deal with four aspects. Firstly, the delimitation of the interaction field. Secondly, the building of a respectful relationship. Thirdly, the implementation of useful modes for enhancing their reciprocal curiosity. The fourth and final aspect of the interaction we propose between philosophy and MOS refers to the passage from prescriptive theoretical reflection to an academic performance consistent with the times. As social fields, both philosophy and MOS reflect the features and behaviours of Bourdieu’s accurate analysis of academia ( 1975 : 19).

The “pure” universe of even the “purest” science is a social field like any other, with its distribution of power and its monopolies, its struggles and strategies, interests and profits, but it is a field in which all these invariants take on specific forms.

The academic field and the practices developed in it (such as communication and scientific publication or exchanging ideas and dialogues between people and groups) consistently reflect power relationships that must be analyzed contextually (Paasi 2017 ). The context in which these relationships develop has been characterized as ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Leslie 1997). This term includes a market mentality (behaviours, attitudes, values) assumed by both academics and the universities and research centres in which they work. This mentality is reflected in the competition for financing from external private sources (companies, foundations, and students). Success in attracting external funds – and the results of scientific publication and the generation of patents – is among the main determinants of academic evaluation. This evaluation sanctions the results of the struggle for control of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1975 , 1984).

Specific mechanisms (like mixed conferences) are examples of a useful dialogue between MOS and philosophy scholars. That dialogue, together with Bourdieu’s lucid vision concerning the dynamics of academic fields, and recent developments in the sociology of science, widens the understanding of MOS as an academic field.

From Merton’s traditional approach (Merton, 1957, 1973) regarding ‘Mode 1’ of knowledge production, other authors have studied the new contexts in which scientific activity occurs. Thus, concepts such as ‘post-academic science’ (Ziman 2000 ), ‘Mode 2’ (Gibbons et al. 1994 ), and the ‘n-tuples helix’ (Carayannis et al. 2018 ; Park 2014 ) appear. That is, the literature registers a heterogeneous evolution from modern to postmodern approaches to academic activity. Not all fields of knowledge observe their practices transform at the same speed, even when all are inserted in a social context that presses for a change guided by neoliberal ideology. This change is reflected in the passage from the ethos of modern science (determined by four institutional imperatives: communism, universalism, disinterestedness, organized scepticism – CUDOS –; Merton, 1973: 270) to the postmodern ‘industrial science’ (proprietary, local, authoritarian, commissioned, and expert, PLACE, Ziman 1995 ). However, that post-academic or industrial science is also subjected to the attacks of anti-scientific movements that question the role of academics as experts (Porter and Wollenweber 2018 ).

Post-academic science is ‘postmodern in its philosophy’ (Ziman 1996 : 77), and it has several essential characteristics. Among them are the following: it multiplies the places of knowledge production, opens scientific knowledge to public scrutiny, privatizes academic knowledge, facilitates interdisciplinary research, increases specialization, reinforces the link between science and social needs, and weakens the relationship between curiosity and science (Kellog 2006). The coexistence of areas where academic and industrial or post-academic science predominate makes the hybridization of both possible in a framework of mutual relationships dominated by economic, political, cultural, and social (communicative) factors. Thus, fractures and discontinuities are produced by fields of knowledge, supranational regions, and countries affecting the dialogue and interaction of academics. With different levels of acceptance of the academy-industry overlap, the literature registers emerging concepts concerning their social context, such as ‘open science’, which affects scientific communication, currently dominated by an editorial oligopoly (Larivière et al. 2015 ), or ‘open innovation’ (Smart et al. 2019 ). The interaction between academic fields may be driven by another new concept, such as that of ‘post-academic disciplinarity’ (Hellström et al. 2003 ). Overcoming disciplinary boundaries (and the limitations of any order they entail) is a necessity, according to Böhm ( 2007 : 112), that.

The relationship between philosophy and organization cannot be a linear one, as ‘philosophy’ and ‘organization’ themselves are not given constructs. That is, before we can even problematize this relationship, we have to first envisage the destruction of philosophy and organization.

Previously, we argued about the four premises needed –in our view—to construct a relationship amid philosophy and MOS that enhance their social contribution and boost MOS scholarship. Those premises are –regarding both disciplines— the delimitation of their inter-action field, the enablement of a respectful relationship framework, the development of reciprocal curiosity, and, finally, the movement from a prescriptive theoretical reflection to a more powerful academic practice.

Confluences and interchanges between disciplines are a central issue for interdisciplinary studies. Authors like Mäki ( 2016 ) have proposed the development of a new branch of philosophy of science called “philosophy of interdisciplinarity (PhID)”. That philosophy considers that one objective of PhID is to analyze “contactual information” (why disciplines contact others and the specific outcomes of these contacts). This huge work requires the collaboration—among other fields—of social epistemology, social philosophy, and social ontology with philosophy of science. Mäki ( 2016 ) believes that this “heavily collective” effort towards the understanding of interdisciplinarity from a philosophical lens should have two initial objectives. The first is to develop a systematic research agenda and the second to publish work jointly authored by philosophers, other scholars, and practitioners. These two objectives are also applicable to interdisciplinary collaborations between philosophy and MOS.

However, if philosophers want to develop interdisciplinary work with other disciplines, the characterization of philosophy should be modified. As Hoffman et al. ( 2013 : 1858) write.

interdisciplinarity can be perceived as a more fundamental challenge to philosophy itself; that is, as a challenge to the self-understanding and self-conceptualization of philosophy as an academic discipline, including its forms of institutionalization with funding procedures, academic careers, course programs, and teaching methods. (…). Philosophy ‘as’ interdisciplinarity calls for intensive and explicit philosophical engagement with ‘the world out there.’

As with all knowledge fields, philosophy has crystalized practices derived from the accumulation of symbolic capital over the years. For Frodeman ( 2013 : 1018), “twentieth century philosophy has been unhealthily insular”, so he calls for “the de-disciplining of philosophy.” Thus, philosophers should actively engage with ongoing problems (and the associated scientific debates). He considers that “[p]hilosophers need to get out of the study, and into the field.” (Frodeman 2013 : 1018).

All these proposals could widen the interaction opportunities between philosophy and MOS. Therefore, philosophy could facilitate compromising with MOS. So, although philosophy and MOS have had relevant connections throughout history, the future deepening of their links remains uncertain. We explain below how such a deepening could strongly benefit the advancement of MOS from their present situation.

Interaction with Philosophy as a Means to Overcome the Stagnation of MOS: Dedisciplinizing the Philosophy

The interest of the argument by O’Doherty on the philosophical connections of Burrell and Morgan ( 1979 ) (discussed in Sect. 3) illustrates a key question: should MOS be infused with philosophical premises? To answer affirmatively would imply supposing that MOS and philosophy are on the same plane of intellectual work. That is, a fruitful interaction between the two could be considered despite their considerable differences in objectives, approaches, and practices. This aporia could be overcome by specifying the level of interaction to be achieved between MOS and philosophy. On a radical level, both work on the human, their links with themself and other human beings, and what contextualizes them. By sharing this radical concern, it has been possible to develop collaborations in different areas, such as ethics or ontology. However, at a more superficial level (that on which MOS and philosophy meet due to their respective academic development), the differences become larger, hindering interaction.

As a social science, MOS have different methodological and teleological horizons from philosophy. Regarding philosophers, the freedom to elaborate new approaches is apparently broader (Laplane et al. 2019 ), even when each is framed in a certain philosophical tradition. They appear authorized to unlimitedly expand the tradition they ascribe to, which usually means departing (fighting fiercely at times) from other traditions. For social scientists who cultivate MOS, the degrees of freedom appear smaller since their mental frames are more clearly or apparently more rigidly defined. That is, the epistemological limits of action are expressly proclaimed and would be accepted more submissively.

Both fields (philosophy and MOS) are subject to the institutional (academic) context in which they are cultivated. Therefore, they share the obstacles to freedom of thought typical of their political dynamics (Bourdieu 1975 ). However, both are losing their real impact on societies as technoscientific change promotes historical transformations. Some philosophers advocate more intense participation in social debates (Epstein 2015 ), which would require dedisciplinizing the philosophy (Frodeman 2013 ) and extending their collaborations with other fields of knowledge (Hoffman et al. 2013 ). That is, their lack of social projection is mainly due to the disciplinary framework despite their strong capacity to open new paths of thought. The dedisciplinizing of philosophy should also regard the nature of the discussions within the field, and its links to reality in a broad sense, as Norrie ( 2018 : 647) says.

[T]he most plausible attempt at a non-partisan, umbrella philosophy has probably been the view that philosophy aims at a theory of the most general features of reality, over and above the particular theoretical domains of the sciences.

On the side of organizational scholars, the debate on the lack of relevance has a long history, which has intensified since the 1980s (Palmer et al. 2009 ).

This growing lack of relevance relates to, firstly, the definition of the social groups towards which the results of MOS scholars are directed. An important literature current considers that the main group is the managers (Palmer et al. 2009 ). Second, it relates to generating useful knowledge for managers and its transmission to them (Shapiro et al. 2007 ). Finally, it relates to the balance between rigour, relevance, and institutional structure (Bennis and O’Toole 2005 ; Gulati 2007 ). It should also be noted that the managers’ training needs, and the results of MOS research that could be useful to them, are also changing. Proof of this is the Rethinking the MBA project undertaken at the Harvard Business School in 2008, one century after its foundation. Such a project, among the imperatives for change in training MBA students, includes concerns for ‘research lacks relevance’, as well as on “the need for broader research approaches” (Datar et al. 2010 ).

This essay has a worry for the MOS social impact. A more fruitful inter-action amidst philosophy and MOS could pave the way for a higher social impact. This improved inter-action could get over the MOS impasse facing the mammoth challenges of this time. In the following section we discuss this issue.

Towards more Useful MOS: Philosophy and Social Sciences

The social impact of mos.

One of the symptoms of the crisis afflicting MOS is the growing debate concerning the utility or social impact of their products. Several works have recently addressed this issue, focusing on aspects such as the contributions of organizational development (OD) to organizational change (Cummings and Cummings 2020 ); the refocusing of the debate on relevance from a more rigorous elaboration of the theory (Kieser et al. 2015 ); a more complete characterization of the concept of impact, considering its scholarly, practical, societal, policy, and educational dimensions (Wickert et al. 2021 ); the role of consultants as intermediaries between management science and management practice (Bouwmeester, Heusinkveld and Tjemes, 2021); and a more comprehensive conceptualization of the theory from a typology of the same that includes explaining, comprehending, ordering, enacting, and provoking (Sandberg and Alvesson 2021 ).

An inextricable relationship exists between academic activities of education and research in MOS, whose impact on societies plagued by injustice, environmental disasters, and scandalous business ethics should be analyzed reflexively (Cunliffe 2020 ). This educational and research resource comprises criticizing and questioning the premises and practices conventionally assumed in organizations.

One must be careful not to fall into the reductionisms that abound when attempting to extrapolate critical theory to MOS. Thus, with the main reference to the works of Adorno ( 1998 ) and Benjamin ( 1996 ), it is noteworthy that all criticism, to be so, must be immanent. That is, it must be embedded in the social and political context of the historical moment in which it occurs. In the words of Böhm ( 2007 : 109),

‘Immanent critique’ asks how a phenomenon – for example, a phenomenon of organization – stands in relation to the antagonisms of society, and whether there are any techniques to confront and overcome these antagonisms. Only if one is immanently involved with these antagonisms one can speculate about a way beyond them.

Without losing sight of the immanent criticism, Cunliffe relates reflexivity to foresight and imagination to break the growing reductionism in MOS academic activity through Ingold’s ( 2011 ) metaphor of “wayfaring” (Cunliffe 2018 ). It is interesting to note the echoes existing between Ingold’s wayfaring and Heidegger’s erring: ‘[M]an’s flight from the mystery towards what is readily available, onwards from one current thing to the next, passing the mystery by –this is erring’ (Heidegger 1978 : 133).

Both concepts allude to the loss people suffer when wandering, which causes concealment of the truth. In a sense, this tendency towards failure characterizes philosophical activity (Kaulingfreks 2007 : 43):

Philosophy is in this sense opposed to science. It is a discipline of failure and is directed to not knowing. Philosophy is the discipline that knows that it does not know. Nicholas of Cusanas explained this paradoxical situation as docta ignorantia. (…) Wisdom is to see the borders of our knowledge.

From the viewpoint of scientific research in MOS, it would be necessary to avoid the danger of being irrelevant in the debates that, in society as a whole and all types of organizations, develop concerning the historical challenges humanity faces. If it is considered that the ethical and effective response to these grand challenges implies overcoming a neoliberal mentality, it may be agreed that a new MOS model integrating philosophy is not only convenient but necessary. In effect, philosophy is a useless activity within the dominant ideological framework, considering that useful activities serve to achieve a certain economic end (Kaulingfreks 2007 ).

Common Sense in the Social Sciences

While the social sciences operate with concepts based on common sense, philosophy analyzes how that common sense is presumed (Spoelstra 2007 ). What is commonly understood as reality and people’s relationship with it would be the caesura between social sciences and philosophy. Now, this caesura could exist only at the level of demand established socially towards the practices and results of social science. If contemporary social science is required to achieve nothing more than a series of developments with more or less relation to reality – as is generally assumed – no philosophical reflection is necessary. However, when the researcher, or certain social groups, are dissatisfied with the socially sanctioned image of reality (that is, when the status quo is questioned), that first level of scientific relationship with reality is insufficient. It is necessary to analyze the overlaps between the different levels of social activity. So, the social scientist should realize a series of acts based on their ethical principles. As explained below, the concept of parrhesia combines these ethical and political dimensions.

The convergence point of our rationale is parrhesia. Academic parrhesia is a powerful tool to renew fields that (as MOS) show a growing social impact depletion. One reason is that to speak truth to the people driving academic fields can be, sometimes, the only way to infuse fresh ideas in the scholastic debates. Another one is to prevent that academic capitalism (through its symbolic capital accumulation) can impose a MOS research agenda focused only on the interests of some agents, like big corporations.

Parrhesia, as an ascetical practice rooted in the ethical betterment of the parrhesiastic (παρρησíαστες, who exercises parrhesia), is built on longstanding philosophical workings. But also has a transformative potential on the parrhesiastic’s community. The parrhesiastic can serve as a role model for their peers fearful to say what they really think. In times of profound crises (as the ones we are living now in MOS and, more generally, in society as a whole), parrhesia could be the beacon that shed light on new paths. Paths guided by a social members’ clear ethical compromise. As Foucault say (1999: 7/67), considering the relationships between parrhesia and politics as them appear in Euripides plays,

…[ P ] arrhesia is an essential characteristic of Athenian democracy. (…) parrhesia was a guideline for democracy as well as an ethical and personal attitude characteristic of the good citizen.

Parrhesia, then, is a mighty lever to revitalize ethical compromises within communities (as MOS scholarship) as well as societies laid at critical crossroads. In the next section we examine this topic.

In ancient Greece, from c. V BC until c. V AD, the concept of parrhesia developed as an interaction between ethics and the political performance of the individual (Foucault 1999 ). The parrhesiastic assumes a risk (even death) by telling the truth to the powerful, be it the sovereign or society. Therefore, the behaviour of parrhesiastic links the personal dimension of caring for oneself with the collective dimension of caring for others. The long tradition of studying parrhesia was brilliantly continued by Foucault ( 1999 ) as part of his interest in the links between power and truth (Cooper, Ezzamel & Willmott, 2008 : 680). The parrhesiastic speaks when and how they deem appropriate, animated by a desire that others act virtuously, in the sense of living their life in accordance with the truth. Starting from this principle of conduct (telling the truth and ensuring others do the same), they adopt a political position without calculating what effects their proclamation will have. They do not harbour rhetorical concerns but honestly and completely state all their thoughts about an issue. With this, they consistently face the established order, whose survival is based on hypocrisy, silence, or flattery. Therefore, they are subversive.

Parrhesia, whose etymological meaning is ‘to say everything’ (Foucault 2004 : 36), implies accepting the risk of the reaction of power to reconsider what one can be at each moment. The person who practices parrhesia must ask themself what they want to be and what they are willing to do to achieve it. It is an act of ethical coherence that requires courage towards oneself and others since, according to Foucault ( 1999 : 2),

In parrhesía the speaker emphasizes the fact that he is both the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the enunciandum –that he himself is the subject of the opinion to which he refers. The specific ‘speech activity’ of the parrhesíastic enunciation thus takes the form: ‘I am the one who thinks this and that.’

Telling the truth is the essence of parrhesia, and how does a parrhesiastic know that they speak the truth? (Foucault 1999 : 3)

To my mind, the parrhesíastes says what is true because he knows that it is true; and he knows that it is true because it is really true. The parrhesíastes is not only sincere and says what is his opinion, but his opinion is also the truth. He says what he knows to be true (…) there is always an exact coincidence between belief and truth.

Thus, the parrhesiastic tells the truth, puts themselves in danger by doing so, and tells the listener (or listeners) how to behave. That is, they criticize the thinking or actions of another (generally, someone powerful, be it the sovereign or the people). Depending on who this other is, several types of parrhesia can be distinguished: citizen (which only Athenian citizens could exercise publicly), democratic (telling the assembly, gathered in the agora, what they do not want to hear), autocratic (telling the truth to the prince, who, if he does not want to appear a tyrant, is forbidden to ignore or punish the parrhesiastic), Socratic (when Socrates shows the ignorance or bad faith of his interlocutor) and ‘Hellenistic’ (the teacher covertly exposes the truth to their disciple) (Gros 2015 : XXX).

Based on the above, it can be deduced that practising parrhesia on the part of the faculty within and from the neoliberal university could be advisable (Rodriguez-Pomeda and Casani 2022 ). Firstly, it expresses a personal commitment to the inseparable truth of the teaching function. Secondly, it provokes a political action that aims to modify the behaviour of others to make it consistent with the truth. In a broader sense, the academic field harbours conflicts originating from the quest for power. Those who hold power exercise it to increase the cultural or symbolic capital they treasure (and can transform into other types of capital), prevent other people and groups from taking power from them, and perpetuate it through the co-option of their disciples (Bourdieu 1975 ).

If, together with these political dynamics, it is considered that the university (and, by extension, the academic field) also shows the characteristics of organizational hypocrisy – dissociation between the triple discourse of the dominant elites, that in which the organizational objectives are proclaimed, that corresponding to the decision-making, and that expressing the execution of the decisions (Brunsson 2002 ) –, the parrhesia can be a useful action of resistance.

In this context, parrhesia has a special meaning in the field of post-academic research (Hellström et al. 2003 ; Kellogg 2006 ; Ziman 2000 ). In this, the dominant economic agents set the objectives and lines of research deserving finance, seeking their benefit. Once objectives and lines have been established, the academic inner circles manage the research process. They do this by fixing the admissible methods, establishing the working conditions and, especially, controlling who can publish in scientific journals (which, to a large extent, are in the hands of an editorial syndicate (Larivière et al. 2015 )), which people and groups have access to the financing of their research activity, and who can hold positions in universities and research centres. The power of these academic inner circles is manifested in the determination of the mechanisms governing the accumulation of academic prestige and the consequent access to the advantages associated with it (however, this prestige as externalization of cultural capital is interchangeable for other types of capital).

Disciplinary knowledge appears to be among the social problems of modernity and postmodernity. The critical theory derived from the Frankfurt School is useful for the understanding of “the literary production of academic discipline.” (Agger 2013 : 3). As this author shows, the commodification of knowledge in contemporary universities requires an academic discourse intertwined with the organization of academic disciplines. The scholars dominating a scientific field shape its academic discourse (mainly published in scientific journals). Thus, they can enforce discipline within the field through some specific discourses constituting disciplinary knowledge (Agger 2013 ).

Disciplinary knowledge is the cornerstone of any scientific field, that is configurated (Bourdieu 1975 : 19, 25),

As a system of objective relations between positions already won (in previous struggles), the scientific field is the locus of a competitive struggle, in which the specific issue at stake in the monopoly of scientific authority , defined inseparably as technical capacity and social power, or, to put it another way, the monopoly of scientific competence , in the sense of a particular agent’s socially recognised capacity to speak and act legitimately (i.e. in authorised and authoritative way) in scientific matters. (…) Scientific authority is thus a particular kind of capital, which can be accumulated, transmitted, and even reconverted into other kinds of capital under certain conditions.

Academic publishing is at the core of disciplinary knowledge and, consequently, is key for hegemony within a scientific field (Weiner 1998 ). Therefore, the structure of academic fields, as well as technological changes in academic publishing, call for rethinking of academic publishing, as does the so-called “philosophy of academic publishing” (Peters et al. 2016 ).

That is the context in which the contemporary academic super-competitive atmosphere unfolds, revolving around anglophone hegemony articulated on a geopolitics/economy of knowledge, uneven writing spaces, and a publishing industrial complex, all within a framework defined by the following key dimensions: global(ization) political/knowledge economy, the state policy transfer (e.g. the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD), neoliberal rationality, globalization of academia, universities’ academic capitalism, claims for internationalization, English as lingua franca, ranking, evaluation and citation culture, entrepreneurial subjectivity, struggle over symbolic capital, and ISI journals’ visibility (Paasi, 2015: 518).

Twenty-first-century organizations are jeopardized by an increasingly intractable environment. MOS responses do not fit with that environment. Thus, a renewal of MOS is needed to build actionable ideas for current organizations and societies. Criticism has been a powerful renewal tool in all scientific fields. Following Foucault, Vandekerckhove & Langenberg ( 2012 : 35) consider that criticism is the lever of an interactive truth within organizational power games.

As power games also characterize scientific fields (including MOS), if conscientious academics (as discussed in Sects. 8 and 9) practise parrhesia as an ethical mandate facing disciplinary knowledge (Agger 2013 ), disorganization of the MOS dynamic occurs. Seeking truth is the epistemic responsibility of MOS academics (Tsui and McKiernan 2022 ), and seeking truth (“understood as a linguistic act driven by moral impulse, elicited by a critical perception and formed into a personal judgement”, Vandekerckhove and Langenberg, 2012 : 38)) requires differentiating between parrhesia and the institutionalized critique within MOS. Institutionalized critique provokes no substantial change in the academic field. However, parrhesia originates from sources differing from that institutionalized critique and has no intended effects (Vandekerckhove and Langenberg 2012 : 38 and 40):

The parrhesiastes has no agenda. Her critique is sudden and is one of ‘not this way, without alternatives, without foundation.’ (…) [p]arrhesia in organizations leads to a disorganization of the organizational dynamic, on the condition that others in the organization are prepared to hear the parrhesiastic truth-speaking (…). [i]f the organization is to continue to exist, disorganization is succeeded by a re-organization.

Therefore, if MOS are losing the ability to offer prompt responses to running organizational challenges (Starbuck 2003 ), parrhesia (linking academics telling and hearing the truth) could launch a much-needed reorganization process in the field. Parrhesia’s moral call resonates in the proposal by Mir, Willmott, and Greenwood ( 2016 : 6 and 10):

[i]t is incumbent on us all to resist continuity and to enact other forms of organizing and organization. Philosophy then becomes a dual act of disruption and creation, leading us back to life itself. (…) [a]n approach to organizational studies and research that decentres the taken-for-granted assumptions populating the ‘common sense’ of our field (…) invite a more reflective, inclusive and politically sensitive understanding of the working life and its challenges.

Performing parrhesia in the academic field where the academic super-competitive atmosphere occurs implies, as it must, certain risks for parrhesiastics. An illustration of such risks has been offered by Steele ( 2010 ) in the ​​international relations academic community. Considering these risks (along with other factors) should explain the growing deterioration of the role of teachers as examples for their students of seekers of freedom, as well as the gradual abandonment of teachers of the practice of speaking and acting together in countries such as the United Kingdom (Tamboukou 2012 ).

Parrhesia is a disposition to act based on truth to complete this proposal of academic conduct at the intersection between ethics and politics. This proposal is rooted in philosophical thoughts prior to the twelfth century. The separation between theory and practice, between thought and action, occurred much earlier than the relatively recent marketization of academic life and began with scholasticism (Case 2007 ). There is a longstanding tradition, increased after Enlightenment, of moral improvement through practising (Sloterdijk 2013 ). The integration between thought and action has already been proposed by various ancient philosophical schools, such as Stoicism (Hadot 1995 ). Briefly, as Case ( 2007 : 98) states, it would involve emphasizing ‘the importance of leading a virtuous life based on reasoned moral principles’.

Our proposal is not limited to defending a certain philosophical turn in MOS but approaching MOS from a philosophical attitude. The philosophical approach adopted so far in some areas of MOS has focused on discussing theories and concepts, the debate on the meaning and elaboration of knowledge, and, finally, studying ethics in organizations. One current also analyzes the political function of MOS, studying, and expanding, the concept of their social impact. The gigantic challenges facing contemporary societies require a clearer and broader contribution from MOS to maintain their legitimacy. Specifically, the philosophical attitude in MOS would start from the concept that, although they belong to an intellectual dimension other than philosophy, they can share some premises. Above its many differences, any rigorous perspective in the fields of MOS and philosophy should consider that both share the elaboration of abstract statements about some conceptual relationships. In philosophy, that elaboration develop specific modes of problematisation about the human (Norrie 2018 ). In MOS, that elaboration should consider empirical practices of some kinds (Clegg et al. 2022 ). The best efforts in philosophy and MOS throughout history has invited humankind to defy established ideas and to reflect on the unknown.

These include a radical critical sense that does not hesitate to question (overcome) the existing mental frameworks. Another premise is the search for the surprise that appears when approaching organizations from viewpoints other than the traditional ones (both theoretically and methodologically). The surprise is permanently hidden in the ineffable. Briefly, it is a willingness to advance in the territory of knowledge without fear of stumbling upon aporias (rather, looking for them) (Jones and ten Bos 2007b ).

To benefit from a new philosophical attitude within MOS it is worth to adopt a synoptic view. Philosophical thinking develops on three basic operations: analysis, synopsis, and synthesis (Broad 1947 ). This author considers that synopsis is “the deliberate viewing together of aspects of human experience which are generally viewed apart, and the endeavour to see how they are inter-related.” (Broad 1947 : 4). Synopsis prepares for the creative integration of some experiences’ aspects through synthesis. Notwithstanding analysis dominates actually the main part of the MOS. Gare and Neesham ( 2022 : 3) consider that “organization, as process and outcome of human action, is a complex phenomenon that requires synoptic investigation across disciplines.”

In our proposal, the idea of parrhesia has a leading role. Parrhesia is a key concept, situated between the Cynics, the Stoics, and the Epicureans (Aubert-Baillot 2015 ).

In The Porch, parrhesia appears (in texts from Zeno of Citium (after Stobaeus, Ecl. 3.14.4; 469.9–10 W. (= SVF 1.237), Marcus Aurelius, and Aristo of Chios (after Stobaeus, Ecl. 3.13.40; 462.2-4 W. (= SVF 1.383)) as a preparatory to philosophy, a must to become a sage (Aubert-Baillot 2015 : 73).

From these premises, the philosophical attitude would open new paths in the fields of knowledge and ethics in MOS. Regarding knowledge, its orderly advance requires confronting the structure and dynamics existing in the academic field of MOS. The results of the dialectic between those who treasure and defend their symbolic capital and those who wish to access it will determine the effective social contribution of those who participate in this academic field. The question is whether – among other things – our work helps solve contemporary challenges or continues to be mainly a product of self-consumption within the field oriented towards personal prestige within the current rules of the game.

Regarding ethics, it would be initially necessary to unmask the banal use of philosophy made by a significant part of the mainstream MOS and management since this use neutralizes the potential of philosophy, prevents fruitful dialogue between MOS and philosophy, and, ultimately, only seeks to reinforce the mainstream through its adornment with philosophical trifles.

Secondly, scholars must exercise themselves in the parrhesiastics’ model. The institutionalization of the academic field of MOS has led to the suppression of the individual and the collective practice of telling the truth to the powerful (those inside and outside the field, knowing that the former serves the latter). That is, our ascesis of parrhesia involves being aware that the successive compromises between ethics and politics it requires will remain imperfect since they will require accepting limitations in applying personal values.

We base our action proposal on a practice of parrhesia within MOS that starts with the fearless speech of the individual scholar and follows with a growing number of scholars doing the same.

The possible implementation this proposal should deal with the parrhesia’s political dimension that affects the organizational decision-making (as Skinner ( 2011 ) illustrates analysing parrhesia in a self-managed community devoted to organic farming), as well as with some technical problems. Among these problems, two of them are more relevant: to break down the individual’s resistance to recognize the truth, and to attain the apathetic mood that drives to self-sufficiency.

Dealing with those “technical problems” derived from the practice of parrhesia, Foucault ( 1999 : 52 ff.) studies Plutarch’s Moralia , which contains a text titled “How to tell a Flatterer from a Friend.” The friend that acts as a parrhesiastic help us to overcome our philautia (or “self-love”). This would be the first benefit that the human collectivities obtains from the practice of parrhesia. The second one, after Foucault’s reading of Plutarch, is to reinforce the steadiness of mind developed by the late Stoics (Foucault 1999 : 53). In fact, “destroying self-delusion and acquiring and maintaining continuity of mind are two ethico-moral activities which are linked to one another.” (Foucault 1999 : 53).

In the last part of Foucault ( 1999 ) appears the so-called “techniques of the parrhesiastic games.” These techniques are related to the labelled “technologies of the self”, which constitutes a relevant part of Foucault’s work (Besley 2005 ; Foucault 1988 ). To develop those parrhesiastic games technologies, there are three requirements: courage to see the truth about oneself, practice ( askesis ) of parrhesia, and situate the practice within a blurred spiritual exercises’ framework. A Stoic philosopher like Seneca (in De ira and De tranquillitate animi ) proposes self-examination as one of the main parrhesiastic exercises (Foucault 1999 : 56). Another one, Epictetus, advocates for a constant scrutiny of our representations. For him, the representations (and not the things represented) are the real perturbators of the human mind.

Foucault ( 1999 ) is a contribution “to construct a genealogy of the critical attitude in the Western philosophy” by analysing the problematization (this is, “how and why certain things (behaviour, phenomena, processes) became a problem”) of parrhesia (Foucault 1999 : 66). His analysis deals with (Foucault 1999 : 66).

These four questions about truth-telling as an activity –who is able to tell the truth, about what, with what consequences, and with what relation to power—seem to have emerged as philosophical problems towards the end of the Fifth Century around Socrates, especially through his confrontations with the Sophists about politics, rhetorics, and ethics.

Any parrhesiastic activity involves risk because the individual must assume negative consequences. For the academic parrhesiastic tenure and promotion are two high risk areas when they speak freely (Huckaby 2007 ).

In sum, we are proposing a philosophical attitude within MOS. This attitude could be extremely interesting not only for MOS scholarship, but also for managers (Ledoux 2012 ).

Sloterdijk ( 2013 ) and Hadot ( 1995 ) could contribute to design detailed links between philosophy and parrhesia as moral practice. The implementation of parrhesia is relevant for this essay’s aim because an ethical renewal of MOS scholarship is urgently needed to deal with the grand challenges from the organizational point of view. Business-as-usual is no longer an acceptable behaviour for a stagnant academic field as MOS is nowadays.

Adopting the proposed philosophical attitude through the asceticism of parrhesia would contribute to solving the question posed initially in the abstract (To dare to say the inconvenient truths to the peers (especially, to those of them with high influence on the field) can be a straightforward tool to revitalize MOS nowadays?) by finding a field of interaction between philosophy and MOS framed in respectful relationships that improve their mutual curiosity to achieve an academic practice of the richest and most powerful MOS. This path is arduous but full of meaning for those seeking the truth.

Academy of Management. 2022. Membership. https://aom.org/membership . Accessed 19 November 2022.

Adorno, T.W. 1967. Prisms . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Adorno, T. W. 1998. ‘Why still philosophy’. In Critical models, trans. H. W. Pickford . New York: Columbia University Press.

Google Scholar  

Agger, B. 2013. A critical theory of Public Life: knowledge, discourse and politics in an age of decline. Abingdon, Oxon . UK: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Archer, M. S., ed. 2013. Social morphogenesis . New York: Springer.

Archer, M. S., ed. 2017. Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity . New York: Springer.

Aubert-Baillot, S. 2015. Un cas particulier de franc-parler (παρρησία): le parler droit (ευθυρρηµοσυνη) des Stoïciens. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 33 (1): 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.71 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Barrett, F. J., E. H. Powley, and B. Pearce. 2011. Hermeneutic Philosophy and Organizational Theory. In Philosophy and Organization Theory , eds. Haridimos Tsoukas, and Robert Chia, 181–214. Bingley, UK: Emerald: Wagon Lane.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bedeian, A. G., S. G. Taylor, and A. N. Miller. 2010. Management Science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal Sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9 (4): 715–725.

Benjamin, W. 1996. On the Program of the Coming Philosophy. In Selected Writings, Volume 1, 1913–1926 , edited by Marcus Bullock & Michael W. Jennings (pp.100–110). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

Bennis, W. G., and J. O’Toole. 2005. May). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 1–9.

Berger, P. L., and T. Luckman. 1966. The Social Construction of reality . Hardmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Besley, T. 2005. Foucault, truth telling and technologies of the self in schools. Journal of Educational Inquiry 6 (1): 76–89.

Böhm, S. 2006. Repositioning Organization Theory. Impossibilities and strategies. Basingstoke . Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Böhm, S. 2007. Reading critical theory. In Campbell Jones & René. ten Bos, (Eds.), Philosophy and Organization (pp. 101–115). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Biggart, N. W. 2016. Biggart’s lament, or getting out of the theory cave. Journal of Management Studies 53 (8): 1381–1387.

Blok, V. 2020. What is (business) management? Laying the ground for a philosophy of management. Philosophy of Management 19: 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00126-9 .

Bourdieu, P. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14 (6): 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400602 .

Bourdieu, P. 1984. Homo Academicus Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Bouwmeester, O, Heusinkveld, S, & Tjemkes, B (2021). Intermediaries in the relevance-gap debate: A systematic review of consulting roles. International Journal of Management Reviews https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12267 .

Brake, E. 2017. Making philosophical progress: the big questions, applied philosophy, and the profession. Social Philosophy and Policy 34 (2): 23–45.

Bratman, M. E. 1993. Shared Intention. Ethics 104 (1): 97–113.

Brister, E., and R. Frodeman, eds. 2020. A guide to field philosophy: case studies and practical strategies . New York: Routledge.

Broad, C. D. 1947. Some Methods of Speculative Philosophy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 21 , 1–32.

Brunsson, N. 2002. The Organization of Hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in Organizations . Copenhagen: Abstrakt-Liber/Copenhaguen Business School Press.

Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological paradigms and Organisational Analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life . London: Heinemann.

Carayannis, E. G., E. Grigoroudis, D. F. Campbell, D. Meissner, and D. Stamati. 2018. The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management 48 (1): 148–162.

Case, P. 2007. Ask not what philosophy can do for critical management studies. In Philosophy and Organization , eds. Campbell Jones, and R. René ten Bos, 85–100. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Chandler, A. D. Jr. 1963. Strategy and Structure. Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, 2nd printing Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, N., and M. Waterstone. 2021. Consequences of capitalism. Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance . London: Hamish Hamilton.

Clegg, S., M. P. E. Cunha, and M. Berti. 2022. Research movements and theorizing dynamics in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review 47 (3): 382–401. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0466 .

Co-founders of RRBM (Responsible Research in Business and Management). 2017. revised 2020). A vision for responsible research in business and management: Striving for useful and credible knowledge. Position Paper. www.rrbm.network. Accessed 20 November 2022.

Cooper, D. J., M. Ezzamel, and H. Willmott. 2008. Examining ‘Institutionalization’: A Critical Theoretic Perspective. In Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin & Roy Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 673–701). London: Sage.

Cummings, T. G., and C. Cummings. 2020. The relevance challenge in management and Organization Studies: bringing Organizational Development Back in. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 56 (4): 521–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320961855 .

Cunliffe, A. L. 2018. Wayfaring: a scholarship of possibilities or let’s not get drunk on abstraction. M@n@gement 21 (4): 1429–1439.

Cunliffe, A. L. 2020. Reflexivity in Teaching and researching Organizational Studies. RAE-Revista de Administraçao de Empresas (Journal of Business Management) 60 (1): 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020200108 .

Datar, S. M., D. A. Garvin, P. G. Cullen, and P. Cullen. 2010. Rethinking the MBA: business education at a crossroads . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Davis, G. F. 2015. Editorial essay: what is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly 60: 179–188.

Dearey, P. 2002. Systems thinking: a philosophy of management. Philosophy of Management 2: 73–82. https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20022316 .

Debord, G. 1967/2014. The Society of Spectacle (annotated translation by K. Knabb) Berkeley, CA: Bureau of Public Secrets.

Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: the theory of inquiry . New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Drucker, P. 1954. The practice of management . New York: Harper.

Elangovan, A. R., and A. J. Hoffman. 2021. The pursuit of Success in Academia: Plato’s ghost asks “What then?”. Journal of Management Inquiry 30 (1): 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492619836729 .

Epstein, B. 2015. The ant trap. Rebuilding the Foundations of Social Science . New York: Oxford University Press.

Erkal, H., and W. Vandekerckhove. 2021. Twenty Years of Philosophy of Management. How has it Shaped the Field? Philosophy of Management . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00185-x .

Fligstein, N. 2008. Chandler and the sociology of Organizations. Business History Review 82 (2): 241–250.

Foucault, M. 1988. Technologies of the self. In Technologies of the self , eds. Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton, 16–49. London: Tavistock Publications.

Foucault, M. 1999. Discourse and Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia (six lectures given by Michel Foucault at Berkeley, Oct.-Nov. 1983) https://foucault.info/downloads/discourseandtruth.doc . Accessed 20 February 2020.

Foucault, M. 2004. Discurso y verdad en la antigua Grecia . Paidós: Barcelona.

Frodeman, R. 2013. Philosophy dedisciplined. Synthese, 190 : 1917–1936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0181-0 .

Gabriel, M. 2013. The Meaning of ‘Existence’ and the Contingence of Sense. Speculations IV , 74–83. Brooklyn, NY: punctum books.

Gabriel, M. 2015. Fields of sense: a new realist ontology . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Gadamer, H.-G. 1960. Truth and Method . New York: Continuum.

Gare, A., and C. Neesham. 2022. Reviving Methods of Speculative Philosophy. Towards a New Enlightenment in Organization Studies. In Cristina Neesham, Markus Reihlen, and Dennis Schoeneborn (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophy of Management Cham, CH: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48352-8 .

George, G., J. Howard-Grenville, A. Joshi, and L. Tihanyi. 2016. Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal 59 (6): 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007 .

Gergen, K. J. 1995. Social Construction and the Transformation of Identity Politics https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/kenneth-gergen/Social%20Construction_and_the_Transformation.pdf . Accessed 13 July 2022.

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The New production of knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies . London: Sage.

Gilbert, M. 1989. On social facts . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Griffin, M., M. Learmonth, and C. Elliott. 2015. “Non-domination, contestation and freedom: the contribution of Philip Pettit to learning and democracy in organisations”. Management learning 46 (3): 317–336.

Griseri, P. 2013. An introduction to the philosophy of management . London: SAGE.

Gros, F. 2015. Introduction. In M. Foucault, Œuvres , Vol. I, (pp. I-XXXIII). Paris: Bibliothèque de La Pléiade-Gallimard.

Gulati, R. 2007. Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: the rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal 50: 775–782.

Hadot, P. 1995. Philosophy as a way of life, ed. A. Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell.

Haley, U. C. V. 2022. Impact and the management researcher . Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Hambrick, D. C. 1994. What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review 19: 11–16.

Harley, B. 2019. Confronting the crisis of confidence in management studies: why senior scholars need to stop setting a bad example. Academy of Management Learning & Education 18 (2): 286–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0107 .

Harley, B., and P. Fleming. 2021. Not even trying to change the World: why do Elite Management Journals ignore the major problems facing humanity? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 57 (2): 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886321997189 .

Hassard, J. 1999. Postmodernism, philosophy and management: concepts and controversies. International Journal of Management Reviews 1: 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00011 .

Hatch, M. J. 1997. Jazzing up the theory of organizational improvisation. Advances in Strategic Management 14: 181–191.

Heidegger, M. 1978. On the essence of truth. In Basic Writings , ed. D. F. Krell, London: Routledge.

Hellström, T., M. Jacob, and S. G. Wenneberg. 2003. The ‘discipline’ of post-academic science: reconstructing the paradigmatic foundations of a virtual research institute. Science and Public Policy 30 (4): 251–260.

Hoffman, M. H. G., J. C. Schmidt, and N. J. Nersessian. 2013. Philosophy of and as Interdisciplinarity. Synthese 190 (11): 1857–1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0214-8 .

Huckaby, M. F. 2007. A conversation on practices of the self within relations of power: for scholars who speak dangerous truths. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20 (5): 513–529.

Iñiguez, S. 2020. In an Ideal Business. How the Ideas of 10 female philosophers bring Value into the Workplace . Cham, CH: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ingold, T. 2011. Being alive. Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Abingdon, Oxon. UK: Routledge.

Ioannidis, John P.A. 2022. “September 2022 data-update for “Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators"”, Mendeley Data, V5, https://doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.5 .

Jackson, N., and P. Carter. 2007. Workers of the world… relax! Introducing a philosophy of idleness to organization studies. In Campbell Jones and René ten Bos (eds.), Philosophy and Organization , 143–156. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Jones, C., and R. ten Bos, eds. 2007a. Philosophy and Organization. Abingdon, Oxon. UK: Routledge.

Jones, C., and R. ten Bos. 2007b. Introduction. In Campbell Jones and René ten Bos (Eds.), Philosophy and Organization , 1–17). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Jordan, S. R. 2013. Conceptual clarification and the Task of improving Research on Academic Ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics 11: 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9190-y .

Joullié, J.-E. 2016. The philosophical foundations of Management Thought. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5 (1): 157–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0393 .

Kaulingfreks, R. 2007. The useleness of philosophy. In Campbell Jones & René ten Bos, (Eds.), Philosophy and Organization (pp. 39–54). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Kellogg, D. 2006. Toward a post-academic Science Policy: Scientific Communication and the collapse of the Mertonian norms. International Journal of Communications Law & Policy, Autumn, 1–29.

Kieser, A., A. Nicolai, and D. Seidl. 2015. The practical relevance of Management Research: turning the debate on relevance into a Rigorous Scientific Research Program. The Academy of Management Annals 9 (1): 143–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1011853 .

Kosch, O., and M. Szarucki. 2021. An overview of 25 years of european scientific collaboration in the field of strategic management: a bibliometric analysis. European Management Review 18 (1): 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12401 .

Koslowski, P., ed. 2010. Elements of a philosophy of management and Organization . Berlin: Springer.

Krijnen, C. 2015. The very idea of Organization. Social Ontology today: Kantian and Hegelian Reconsiderations . Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy . London: Verso.

Laplane, L., P. Mantovani, R. Adolphs, H. Chang, A. Mantovani, M. McFall-Ngai, C. Rovelli, E. Sober, and T. Pradeu. 2019. Why science needs philosophy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (10), 3948–3952. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900357116 .

Larivière, V., S. Haustein, and P. Mongeon. 2015. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital era. Plos One 10 (6): e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 .

Latusek, D &, and P. G. Hensel. 2022. Can they trust us? The relevance debate and the perceived trustworthiness of the management scholarly community. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 38 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101193 .

Laurie, N., and C. Cherry. 2001. Wanted: philosophy of management. Philosophy of Management 1: 3–12. https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20011122 .

Lawson, T. 2019. The nature of social reality. Issues in Social Ontology . Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Ledoux, L. 2012. Philosophy: today’s manager’s best friend? Philosophy of Management 11 (3): 11–26.

List, C., and P. Pettit. 2011. Group Agency: the possibility, design, and Status of Corporate Agents . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Little, D. 2016. New directions in the philosophy of Social Science . London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Little, D. 2019. Theorizing about organizations https://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2019/05/theorizing-about-organizations.html . Accessed 27 July 2022.

MacLeod, M. 2018. What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese 195: 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4 .

Mannheim, K. 1951. Ideology and Utopia . New York: Harcourt Brace.

McGahan, A. M., M. L. A. M. Bogers, H. Chesbrough, and M. Holgersson. 2021. Tackling Societal Challenges with Open Innovation. California Management Review 63 (2): 49–61.

Merton, R.K. 1957. Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6): 635-659.

Merton, R. K. 1968. The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 159 (3810): 56–63.

Merton, R.K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Merton, R. K. 1988. The Matthew Effect in Science, II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis 79 (4): 606–623.

Mir, R &, and M. Greenwood. 2022. Philosophy and Management Studies. A Research Overview. Abingdon, Oxon . UK: Routledge.

Mir, R., H. Willmott, and M. Greenwood. 2016. Introduction: philosophy in organization studies. Life, knowledge and disruption. In Raza Mir, Hugh Willmott, and Michelle Greenwood, eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies , 1–12. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Mäki, U. 2016. Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6: 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0162-0 .

Norrie, S. J. E. 2018. What is Philosophy? Prolegomena to a sociological metaphilosophy. Metaphilosophy 49 (5): 646–673.

O’Doherty, D. 2007. Organization: recovering philosophy. In Campbell Jones & René ten Bos (Eds.), Philosophy and Organization (pp. 21–38). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Paasi, A. 2017. Academic capitalism and the geopolitics of knowledge. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography , eds. John Agnew, Virginie Mamadouh, Anna J. Secor, and Joanne Sharp, 509–523. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Palmer, D., B. Dick, and N. Freiburger. 2009. Rigor and relevance in Organization Studies. Journal of Management Inquiry 18 (4): 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492609343491 .

Park, H. W. . Carayannis, and F. J. David, and Campbell. 2014. Transition from the Triple Helix to N-Tuple helices? An interview with Elias G. Scientometrics 99: 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1124-3 .

Patomäki, H. 2020. On the historicity of social ontology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 50 (4): 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12254 .

Persson, J., A. Hornborg, L. Olsson, and H. Thorén. 2018. Toward an alternative dialogue between the social and natural sciences. Ecology and Society 23 (4): 14–26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10498-230414 .

Peters, M. A., P. Jandrić, R. Irwin, K. Locke, N. Devine, R. Heraud, A. Gibbons, T. Besley, J. White, D. Forster, L. Jackson, E. Grierson, C. Mika, G. Stewart, M. Tesar, S. Brighouse, S. Arndt, G. Lazaroiu, R. Mihaila, C. Legg, and L. Benade. 2016. Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory 48 (14): 1401–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 .

Pettit, P. 1993. The common mind . New York: Oxford University Press.

Pfeffer, J., and C. Fong. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education 1: 78–95.

Platts, J., and H. Harris. 2011. The place of Philosophy in Management. Philosophy of Management 10: 19–39. https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20111023 .

Porter, J. R., and B. Wollenweber. 2018. Science in an age of (non) reason. In Progress in Science, Progress in Society , ed. Alain Tressaud, 59–70. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Rabetino, R., M. Kohtamäki, and J. S. Federico. 2016. A (re)view of the philosophical foundations of Strategic Management. International Journal of Management Reviews 23: 151–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12244 .

Raffnsøe, S., A. Mennicken, and P. Miller. 2019. The Foucault Effect in Organization Studies. Organization Studies 40 (2): 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617745110 .

Reed, M. 2006. Organizational theorizing: a historically contested terrain. In The sage handbook of organization studies , eds. R. Stewart, Cynthia Clegg, Thomas B. Hardy, Lawrence, and Walter R. Nord, 2nd ed., 19–54. London: SAGE.

Rodriguez-Pomeda, J., and F. Casani. 2022. The Contemporary University: some ontological and empirical aspects. TRAMES A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 26 (3): 251–272.

Roitman, J. 2014. Anti-crisis . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Sandberg, J., and M. Alvesson. 2021. Meanings of theory: clarifying through Typification. Journal of Management Studies 58 (2): 487–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587 .

Scales Avery, J. 2009. Crisis 21. Civilization’s Crisis in the 21st Century https://www.johnavery.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Crisis-21-by-John-Avery.pdf . Accessed 7 August 2022.

Searle, J. R. 1995. The construction of social reality . New York: The Free Press.

Searle, J. R. 2010. Making the Social World: the structure of human civilization . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shapiro, D. L., B. L. Kirkman, and H. G. Courtney. 2007. From the editors: perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal 50: 249–266.

Skinner, D. 2011. Fearless speech: practising parrhesia in a self-managing community. Ephemera theory & politics in organization 11 (2): 157–175.

Slaughter, S., and Leslie, L.L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sloterdijk, P. 2013. You must change your life. On Anthropotechnics . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Smart, P., S. Holmes, F. Lettice, F. H. Pitts, J. B. Zwiegelaar, G. Schwartz, and S. Evans. 2019. Open Science and Open Innovation in a socio-political context: knowledge production for societal impact in an age of post-truth populism. R&D Management 49 (3): 279–297.

Spoelstra, S. 2007. What is philosophy of organization? In Campbell Jones & René ten Bos (Eds.), Philosophy and Organization (pp. 55–67). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Starbuck, W. H. 2003. Shouldn’t Organization Theory Emerge from Adolescence? Organization 10 (3): 439–452.

Steele, B. J. 2010. Of ‘witch’s brews and scholarly communities: the dangers and promise of academic parrhesia. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (1): 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570903548170 .

Tamboukou, M. 2012. Truth telling in Foucault and Arendt: parrhesia , the pariah and academics in dark times. Journal of Education Policy 27 (6): 849–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.694482 .

Tourish, D. 2019. Management Studies in Crisis. Fraud, Deception and Meaningless Research . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsoukas, H., and R. Chia. 2011. Introduction: Why Philosophy Matters to Organization Theory. In Haridimos Tsoukas and Robert Chia, Philosophy and Organization Theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 32 . Bingley, UK: Emerald, 1–22.

Tsui, A. S. 2013. The Spirit of Science and socially responsible scholarship. Management and Organization Review 9 (3): 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/more.12035 .

Tsui, A. S. 2021. Responsible research and responsible leadership studies. Academy of Management Discoveries 7 (2): 166–170. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0244 .

Tsui, A. S., and P. McKiernan. 2022. Understanding Scientific Freedom and Scientific responsibility in business and Management Research. Journal of Management Studies 59 (6): 1604–1627. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12816 .

Tuomela, R. 2002. The philosophy of Social Practices: a collective Acceptance View . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tuomela, R. 2007. The philosophy of sociality: the Shared Point of View . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vandekerckhove, W., and S. Langenberg. 2012. Can we organize courage? Implications of Foucault’s parrhesia. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies 17 (2): 35–44.

Ward, S. C. 2012. Neoliberalism and the Global Restructuring of Knowledge and Education . New York: Routledge.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations . London: Sage.

Weiner, G. 1998, September. Scholarship, disciplinary hegemony, and power in academic publishing. In European Conference for Educational Research, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia , Vol. 20, p. 2005.

Weiskopf, R., and H. Willmott (2013). Ethics as Critical Practice: The “Pentagon Papers”, Deciding Responsibly, Truth-telling, and the Unsettling of Organizational Morality, Organization Studies, 34(4) : 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612470256 .

Wickert, C., C. Post, J. P. Doh, J. D. Prescott, and A. Prencipe. 2021. Management Research that makes a difference broadening the meaning of Impact. Journal of Management Studies 58 (2): 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12666 .

Williams, K. 2020. Playing the fields: theorizing research impact and its assessment. Research Evaluation 29 (2): 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa001 .

Ziman, J. M. 1995. Of one mind: the collectivization of Science . Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics.

Ziman, J. M. 1996. “Postacademic Science”: constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 9 (1): 67–80.

Ziman, J. M. 2000. Real Science: what it is, and what it means . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dept. of Business Organization, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Autonomous University of Madrid), Room E-8-310, 5, Francisco Tomas y Valiente St., Madrid, 28049, Spain

Jesus Rodriguez-Pomeda

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesus Rodriguez-Pomeda .

Ethics declarations

No funds, grants, or other support was received. The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. An Essay about a Philosophical Attitude in Management and Organization Studies Based on Parrhesia. Philosophy of Management 22 , 587–618 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00232-9

Download citation

Received : 21 April 2022

Accepted : 09 March 2023

Published : 10 April 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00232-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Organization studies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to structure an essay: Templates and tips

How to Structure an Essay | Tips & Templates

Published on September 18, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

The basic structure of an essay always consists of an introduction , a body , and a conclusion . But for many students, the most difficult part of structuring an essay is deciding how to organize information within the body.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

The basics of essay structure, chronological structure, compare-and-contrast structure, problems-methods-solutions structure, signposting to clarify your structure, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about essay structure.

There are two main things to keep in mind when working on your essay structure: making sure to include the right information in each part, and deciding how you’ll organize the information within the body.

Parts of an essay

The three parts that make up all essays are described in the table below.

Order of information

You’ll also have to consider how to present information within the body. There are a few general principles that can guide you here.

The first is that your argument should move from the simplest claim to the most complex . The body of a good argumentative essay often begins with simple and widely accepted claims, and then moves towards more complex and contentious ones.

For example, you might begin by describing a generally accepted philosophical concept, and then apply it to a new topic. The grounding in the general concept will allow the reader to understand your unique application of it.

The second principle is that background information should appear towards the beginning of your essay . General background is presented in the introduction. If you have additional background to present, this information will usually come at the start of the body.

The third principle is that everything in your essay should be relevant to the thesis . Ask yourself whether each piece of information advances your argument or provides necessary background. And make sure that the text clearly expresses each piece of information’s relevance.

The sections below present several organizational templates for essays: the chronological approach, the compare-and-contrast approach, and the problems-methods-solutions approach.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The chronological approach (sometimes called the cause-and-effect approach) is probably the simplest way to structure an essay. It just means discussing events in the order in which they occurred, discussing how they are related (i.e. the cause and effect involved) as you go.

A chronological approach can be useful when your essay is about a series of events. Don’t rule out other approaches, though—even when the chronological approach is the obvious one, you might be able to bring out more with a different structure.

Explore the tabs below to see a general template and a specific example outline from an essay on the invention of the printing press.

• Thesis statement
• Discussion of event/period
• Consequences
• Importance of topic
• Strong closing statement
• Claim that the printing press marks the end of the Middle Ages
• Background on the low levels of literacy before the printing press
• Thesis statement: The invention of the printing press increased circulation of information in Europe, paving the way for the Reformation
• High levels of illiteracy in medieval Europe
• Literacy and thus knowledge and education were mainly the domain of religious and political elites
• Consequence: this discouraged political and religious change
• Invention of the printing press in 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg
• Implications of the new technology for book production
• Consequence: Rapid spread of the technology and the printing of the Gutenberg Bible
• Trend for translating the Bible into vernacular languages during the years following the printing press’s invention
• Luther’s own translation of the Bible during the Reformation
• Consequence: The large-scale effects the Reformation would have on religion and politics
• Summarize the history described
• Stress the significance of the printing press to the events of this period

Essays with two or more main subjects are often structured around comparing and contrasting . For example, a literary analysis essay might compare two different texts, and an argumentative essay might compare the strengths of different arguments.

There are two main ways of structuring a compare-and-contrast essay: the alternating method, and the block method.

Alternating

In the alternating method, each paragraph compares your subjects in terms of a specific point of comparison. These points of comparison are therefore what defines each paragraph.

The tabs below show a general template for this structure, and a specific example for an essay comparing and contrasting distance learning with traditional classroom learning.

• Synthesis of arguments
• Topical relevance of distance learning in lockdown
• Increasing prevalence of distance learning over the last decade
• Thesis statement: While distance learning has certain advantages, it introduces multiple new accessibility issues that must be addressed for it to be as effective as classroom learning
• Classroom learning: Ease of identifying difficulties and privately discussing them
• Distance learning: Difficulty of noticing and unobtrusively helping
• Classroom learning: Difficulties accessing the classroom (disability, distance travelled from home)
• Distance learning: Difficulties with online work (lack of tech literacy, unreliable connection, distractions)
• Classroom learning: Tends to encourage personal engagement among students and with teacher, more relaxed social environment
• Distance learning: Greater ability to reach out to teacher privately
• Sum up, emphasize that distance learning introduces more difficulties than it solves
• Stress the importance of addressing issues with distance learning as it becomes increasingly common
• Distance learning may prove to be the future, but it still has a long way to go

In the block method, each subject is covered all in one go, potentially across multiple paragraphs. For example, you might write two paragraphs about your first subject and then two about your second subject, making comparisons back to the first.

The tabs again show a general template, followed by another essay on distance learning, this time with the body structured in blocks.

• Point 1 (compare)
• Point 2 (compare)
• Point 3 (compare)
• Point 4 (compare)
• Advantages: Flexibility, accessibility
• Disadvantages: Discomfort, challenges for those with poor internet or tech literacy
• Advantages: Potential for teacher to discuss issues with a student in a separate private call
• Disadvantages: Difficulty of identifying struggling students and aiding them unobtrusively, lack of personal interaction among students
• Advantages: More accessible to those with low tech literacy, equality of all sharing one learning environment
• Disadvantages: Students must live close enough to attend, commutes may vary, classrooms not always accessible for disabled students
• Advantages: Ease of picking up on signs a student is struggling, more personal interaction among students
• Disadvantages: May be harder for students to approach teacher privately in person to raise issues

An essay that concerns a specific problem (practical or theoretical) may be structured according to the problems-methods-solutions approach.

This is just what it sounds like: You define the problem, characterize a method or theory that may solve it, and finally analyze the problem, using this method or theory to arrive at a solution. If the problem is theoretical, the solution might be the analysis you present in the essay itself; otherwise, you might just present a proposed solution.

The tabs below show a template for this structure and an example outline for an essay about the problem of fake news.

• Introduce the problem
• Provide background
• Describe your approach to solving it
• Define the problem precisely
• Describe why it’s important
• Indicate previous approaches to the problem
• Present your new approach, and why it’s better
• Apply the new method or theory to the problem
• Indicate the solution you arrive at by doing so
• Assess (potential or actual) effectiveness of solution
• Describe the implications
• Problem: The growth of “fake news” online
• Prevalence of polarized/conspiracy-focused news sources online
• Thesis statement: Rather than attempting to stamp out online fake news through social media moderation, an effective approach to combating it must work with educational institutions to improve media literacy
• Definition: Deliberate disinformation designed to spread virally online
• Popularization of the term, growth of the phenomenon
• Previous approaches: Labeling and moderation on social media platforms
• Critique: This approach feeds conspiracies; the real solution is to improve media literacy so users can better identify fake news
• Greater emphasis should be placed on media literacy education in schools
• This allows people to assess news sources independently, rather than just being told which ones to trust
• This is a long-term solution but could be highly effective
• It would require significant organization and investment, but would equip people to judge news sources more effectively
• Rather than trying to contain the spread of fake news, we must teach the next generation not to fall for it

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Signposting means guiding the reader through your essay with language that describes or hints at the structure of what follows.  It can help you clarify your structure for yourself as well as helping your reader follow your ideas.

The essay overview

In longer essays whose body is split into multiple named sections, the introduction often ends with an overview of the rest of the essay. This gives a brief description of the main idea or argument of each section.

The overview allows the reader to immediately understand what will be covered in the essay and in what order. Though it describes what  comes later in the text, it is generally written in the present tense . The following example is from a literary analysis essay on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein .

Transitions

Transition words and phrases are used throughout all good essays to link together different ideas. They help guide the reader through your text, and an essay that uses them effectively will be much easier to follow.

Various different relationships can be expressed by transition words, as shown in this example.

Because Hitler failed to respond to the British ultimatum, France and the UK declared war on Germany. Although it was an outcome the Allies had hoped to avoid, they were prepared to back up their ultimatum in order to combat the existential threat posed by the Third Reich.

Transition sentences may be included to transition between different paragraphs or sections of an essay. A good transition sentence moves the reader on to the next topic while indicating how it relates to the previous one.

… Distance learning, then, seems to improve accessibility in some ways while representing a step backwards in others.

However , considering the issue of personal interaction among students presents a different picture.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

The structure of an essay is divided into an introduction that presents your topic and thesis statement , a body containing your in-depth analysis and arguments, and a conclusion wrapping up your ideas.

The structure of the body is flexible, but you should always spend some time thinking about how you can organize your essay to best serve your ideas.

An essay isn’t just a loose collection of facts and ideas. Instead, it should be centered on an overarching argument (summarized in your thesis statement ) that every part of the essay relates to.

The way you structure your essay is crucial to presenting your argument coherently. A well-structured essay helps your reader follow the logic of your ideas and understand your overall point.

Comparisons in essays are generally structured in one of two ways:

• The alternating method, where you compare your subjects side by side according to one specific aspect at a time.
• The block method, where you cover each subject separately in its entirety.

It’s also possible to combine both methods, for example by writing a full paragraph on each of your topics and then a final paragraph contrasting the two according to a specific metric.

You should try to follow your outline as you write your essay . However, if your ideas change or it becomes clear that your structure could be better, it’s okay to depart from your essay outline . Just make sure you know why you’re doing so.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Structure an Essay | Tips & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved March 25, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/essay-structure/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, comparing and contrasting in an essay | tips & examples, how to write the body of an essay | drafting & redrafting, transition sentences | tips & examples for clear writing, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

2022 Impact Factor

• About   Publication Information Subscriptions Permissions Advertising Journal Rankings Best Article Award Press Releases
• Resources   Access Options Submission Guidelines Reviewer Guidelines Sample Articles Paper Calls Contact Us Submit & Review  
• Browse   Current Issue All Issues Featured Latest Topics Videos

California Management Review

California Management Review is a premier academic management journal published at UC Berkeley

CMR INSIGHTS

Generative ai adoption and three traps for organizational agility.

Image Credit | Ben Wicks

Introduction

Related cmr articles.

“Business Agility: Key Themes and Future Directions” by Stéphane J. G. Girod, Julian Birkinshaw, & Christiane Prange

“Agility as the Discovery of Slowness” by Christiane Prange

Agility is a necessity for organizations in the face of change and uncertainty. Generative AI, a powerful subset of artificial intelligence, has emerged as a transformative force. By automating creativity, it is capable of catalyzing innovation, informing strategizing and decision-making, and enhancing operational efficiency, all of which are key components of organizational agility.

Despite its potential, the rapid adoption of generative AI carries certain pitfalls. These pitfalls can inadvertently hinder the agility they seek to enhance. Managers face the challenge of integrating these powerful technologies while avoiding the ensnaring traps that can lead to ethical quandaries, overreliance, and unmanageable complexity and unpredictability.

This short article illustrates that the true value of generative AI lies not only in its ability to accelerate processes but also in its responsible utilization, ensuring that agility is coupled with ethical integrity and careful reflection. 

Three Traps for Organizational Agility

Trap 1: Rapid deployment circumventing ethical concerns

The speed at which generative AI can be deployed is alluring and promises immediate enhancements. However, the rapidity of this deployment often bypasses ethical deliberations. This oversight can lead to privacy violations, as seen with data protection non-compliance, unintended biases in recruitment algorithms, and a lack of accountability in automated decision-making. Here are three solutions that managers can keep in mind for this trap:

• Ethical AI frameworks: Organizations should consider adopting an ethical AI framework that is comprehensive and robust. This includes conducting impact assessments for high-risk AI systems, ensuring data governance measures are in place, and embedding mechanisms for human oversight. For instance, adopting a principle-based approach akin to the Asilomar AI Principles can ensure AI development aligns with human values and ethical standards.
• Ethical review boards: Establishing an ethical review board can be invaluable. This board should include cross-functional experts from both within and external to organizations, including ethicists, sociologists, and consumer advocates. They can review and approve AI projects, similar to the ethics board approach taken by the Ethics & Society team at Google DeepMind. 
• Stakeholder engagement: Developing a continuous stakeholder engagement process is crucial. This process should involve transparent communication with customers, regular consultations with advocacy groups, and collaborations with academic institutions to assess the impact of AI. Organizations like the Algorithmic Justice League offer interesting models for how to engage with a broad community to ensure AI systems are developed responsibly.

Trap 2: Overreliance on AI for ideation and decision-making

Generative AI’s capacity to ideate and facilitate decision-making offers rich potential. It can process and synthesize information at an unthinkable scale. However, its overuse risks overshadowing human expertise and can create feedback loops that recycle existing ideas instead of generating truly innovative concepts. This is apparent in the ‘echo chambers’ created by content recommendation algorithms, which often perpetuate existing consumer behaviors rather than fostering new interests. Below are three possible solutions for this trap:

• Hybrid decision-making models: To combat overreliance on AI, organizations can implement a hybrid decision-making model where AI-generated options are evaluated alongside human judgment. For instance, AI could generate several business strategies, which are then reviewed and refined by a team of human experts, ensuring that decisions are made with a full understanding of the business context and moral implications. This mirrors the ‘centaur’ approach in chess, where players combined with AI can outperform both AI and humans playing alone.
• Continuous training and education: A program of continuous learning and development must be instituted to keep employees up-to-date with the latest AI advancements and their ethical implications. This should include not only technical training but also workshops on critical thinking and ethics in AI, similar to Microsoft’s AI Business School, which aimed to educate leaders on responsible AI integration.
• Diverse teams for AI oversight: Creating diverse teams for AI development and deployment involves assembling groups from different backgrounds and disciplines. This can help challenge assumptions and prevent inertia. It is also vital to include voices that are often underrepresented in tech, to ensure that a variety of viewpoints. A prime example of this is the Partnership on AI, which brings together organizations, civil society, and academics to share best practices and ensure responsible AI development.

Trap 3: Complexity and unpredictability of AI

Generative AI systems can become enigmatic, even to their creators. This complexity can result in systems that are difficult to predict or control, leading to unexpected outcomes. For example, in autonomous vehicles, unpredictable AI behavior can have dangerous consequences, emphasizing the need for systems whose logic can be understood and anticipated. For this trap, the follow three solutions are suggested:

• Simplicity and transparency: Opting for simpler AI models that are more understandable and manageable is wise. Decision trees can often be used in place of neural networks for certain tasks, providing clear rationale for each decision. This approach is seen in industries like healthcare, where transparent AI systems are crucial for diagnosis and treatment, and any decisions made by AI need to be explainable to patients. 
• Explainable AI (XAI): Investing in XAI involves not just the adoption of tools, but also a commitment to research and development in this space. For example, DARPA’s XAI program aims to create a suite of machine learning techniques that produce more explainable models, while still maintaining a high level of learning performance. Organizations should seek to contribute to and apply such findings to ensure their AI systems can be understood by all stakeholders.
• Robust testing and monitoring: A comprehensive strategy for testing and monitoring AI systems must be developed to detect, report, and respond to unexpected behaviors. This includes implementing AI auditing, akin to financial auditing practices, to regularly assess AI systems. Organizations like Salesforce have developed AI monitoring systems that continuously evaluate AI decisions, ensuring they are consistent with expected outcomes and ethical guidelines.

Concluding Remarks

By considering and expanding upon these solutions, organizations can be better prepared to integrate generative AI responsibly without sacrificing the promise of agility. Each solution requires a commitment not only to the implementation of policies and procedures but also to the ongoing education and engagement of all stakeholders involved.

Recommended

Current issue.

Volume 66, Issue 2 Winter 2024

Recent CMR Articles

The Changing Ranks of Corporate Leaders

The Business Value of Gamification

Hope and Grit: How Human-Centered Product Design Enhanced Student Mental Health

Four Forms That Fit Most Organizations

SMEs’ Open Innovation: Applying a Barrier Approach

Berkeley-Haas's Premier Management Journal

Published at Berkeley Haas for more than sixty years, California Management Review seeks to share knowledge that challenges convention and shows a better way of doing business.

More From Forbes

Self-management skills necessary at work and home.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

icons8-team-r-enAOPw8Rs-unsplash

Do you remember the 1992 movie A Few Good Men ? This movie illustrated how things can go wrong when someone needs better self-management. Take the character Colonel Nathan Jessup (played by Jack Nicolson), who loses his composure and begins to rant uncontrollably, incriminating himself and his second-in-command—both were dishonorably discharged. Perhaps a self-management course may have saved him and his job.

Self-management is the ability to manage or redirect disruptive impulses and moods. It is about taking responsibility for your behavior. With low self-management, emotions run the show, and this is when you become your own worst enemy. Imagine working without self-management; there is no leader, strategy, or schedule for completing projects. You may lack self-discipline and cannot focus your energy amidst emotional distractions.

A simple way to start improving your self-management is creating a clean workplace; it sounds weird to some, but establishing neatness can improve functionality. There’s the adage that your exterior environment reflects your interior mind, aka, messy desk=messy mind. Strong self-management helps people become well-organized, resulting in the ability to plan, prioritize, and execute essential activities. Employees with good self-management skills often feel less pressure. When you look at two organizations with different levels of self-management, there's a clear difference between output and happiness. When you have a productive team where most people are organized, disciplined, and strategic, they and the company flourish. When the opposite is true, employees become demotivated, and work tends to be lower quality.

Trust and Integrity are Hallmarks of Self-Management.

Trust is a belief that someone is honest, practices what they preach, and walks the talk. It is doing what is right, even if no one observes you. Integrity in business brings many advantages. Research published by Harvard Business Review revealed that workers at companies with high trust report 106% greater energy in the office, 74% lower stress levels, 76% greater engagement, and 50% more productivity than their peers at low-trust businesses. Business integrity is an ethical framework that can be used to guide your professional conduct. For example, one can demonstrate integrity at work by treating others respectfully and taking responsibility for one's actions. Knowing how to act with business integrity can help you earn the trust of colleagues and supervisors and enhance your reputation. However, an organization's lack of trust and Integrity can have dire outcomes. Remember, in December 2001, innovative energy company Enron Corporation, a darling of Wall Street investors with $63.4 billion in assets, went bankrupt. It was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. Some of the corporation's executives, including the CEO and CFO, were imprisoned for fraud and other offenses. Enron filed for bankruptcy, and many of its 29,000 employees lost their jobs, paychecks, retirement savings, and pensions, all in one fell swoop. Enron's stock declined from a high of $90.75 to a low of below $1.00. Instead of integrating its RICE values (respect, Integrity, communication, and excellence) into operations, Enron's senior executives modeled greed, ambition, and risk-taking values.

According to HBR, the following practices can help business leaders be proactive, inspire their workforce, and stay ahead of the ethical revolution:

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

• Lead by example.
• Make your ethics code your own.
• Talk about it.
• Make sure employees know how to report violations.
• Demonstrate the consequences.
• Repetition/consistency matters.

Comfort with Ambiguity is a Hallmark of Self-Management.

Emotional Intelligence (EI) helps people become comfortable with the unknown. Not knowing the details and outputs can be nerve-racking. However, our world is a VUCA world (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous). When faced with an unclear situation, many people panic and resort to an autocratic management style to reduce ambiguity and maintain control. However, this is often counterproductive and can result in a loss of motivation among staff members or even lead them to ignore instructions from management. Managers who exhibit the ability to manage ambiguity demonstrate self-confidence, communication skills, decisiveness, analytical thinking abilities, leadership potential, and risk-taking attitude. Studies have discovered professionals with higher ambiguity tolerance tend to have higher job satisfaction, better mental health, and greater emotional intelligence.

Being Open to Change is a Hallmark of Self-Management.

Being open to change is constant, both at home and work. Communicating openly and empathetically with emotional intelligence is paramount for managing change, as it establishes a foundation of trust and understanding within the team. Open communication encourages transparency, providing employees with the information they need to comprehend the reasons for change. Understanding the "why" can positively impact the results, such as displaying adaptability, self-confidence, innovation, initiative, and serving as change catalysts ( Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000 ), Foltin and Keller (2012) .

Creating an environment characterized by communication freedom is crucial for introducing change to an organization. It is expected to observe how members of an organization become resistant and skeptical when faced with the need for change. Leadership is the engine of change, focusing on urgency, vision, empowering people, and seizing opportunity. The goal is to make change happen smarter and faster with accelerated efficiency. According to John Kotter , the process fuels large-scale transformation and emotional intelligence contributes to change leadership.

When one focuses on building a team to affect change, overcoming resistance is often challenging. However, in these inevitable shifts, EI becomes necessary at work. Cliche, yes, but it is true; change is the only constant. Remember when Blockbuster declined to purchase Netflix for $50 million in 2000? In March 2021 the letter to shareholders shared that Netflix had reached 200 million subscribers. As of February 09, 2024, Netflix's net worth is $242.92B. Blockbuster's downfall wasn't just a result of bad luck or poor management; it was a failure to adapt and change to a rapidly changing digital landscape. Simply, Block Buster was not open to change.

On an individual level, being open to change is an integral aspect of self-management as it involves the willingness to adapt, grow, and evolve in response to life's ever-changing circumstances. Embracing change requires self-awareness, resilience, and a growth mindset. It involves acknowledging and accepting that change is inevitable and that our attitudes and actions must adjust accordingly. By being open to change, individuals can proactively manage their emotions, behaviors, and goals, allowing them to navigate challenges more effectively and seize new opportunities for personal and professional development. Embracing change as a constant in life fosters flexibility, creativity, and a deeper sense of self-mastery.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Open Search

  Mobile Menu

< All Press Releases

Interior Department finalizes rule to reduce oil and gas waste on public and Tribal lands

Will cut energy waste from venting, flaring and leaks; generate $50 million annually for american taxpayers, organization, media contact:.

WASHINGTON  — The Department of the Interior today announced a  final rule  from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that will curb the waste of natural gas during the production of oil and gas on federal and Tribal lands. This final rule modernizes regulations that are more than 40 years old and will hold oil and gas companies accountable by requiring measures to avoid wasteful practices and find and fix leaks, while ensuring that American taxpayers and Tribal mineral owners are fairly compensated through royalty payments.

By building on technological advances and best management practices to help reduce waste, the rule is expected to generate more than $50 million in additional natural gas royalty payments each year to the federal taxpayer and Tribal mineral owners, while conserving billions of cubic feet of gas that might otherwise have been vented, flared, or leaked from oil and gas operations. This conserved gas will be available to power American homes and industries.

“This final rule, which updates 40-year-old regulations, furthers the Biden-Harris administration’s goals to prevent waste, protect our environment, and ensure a fair return to American taxpayers,” said Secretary Deb Haaland. “By leveraging modern technology and best practices to reduce natural gas waste, we are taking long-overdue steps that will increase accountability for oil and gas operators and benefit energy communities now and for generations to come.” 

“This rule represents a common sense, fair, and equitable solution to preventing waste that provides a level playing field for all of our energy-producing communities,” said Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning. “The BLM worked extensively with a wide range of stakeholders to modernize our decades-old regulations and help protect communities across the country.”   

Since the 1980s, as the pace of oil and gas development on public lands has rapidly expanded, the percentage of natural gas lost to venting (the intentional release of natural gas) and flaring (the burning of vented natural gas) has more than doubled. Between 2010 and 2020, the total venting and flaring reported by federal and Indian onshore lessees averaged approximately 44.2 billion cubic feet per year, enough to serve more than 675,000 homes. 

The final rule responds to a series of U.S. Government Accountability Office  reports  highlighting revenue lost due to the BLM’s outdated regulations. Several states, including Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA), have taken steps to limit venting, flaring and/or leaks from oil and gas operations either for purposes of preventing waste, as is BLM, or improving air quality. The BLM rule is separate and distinct from the EPA rule and ensures that operators can comply with applicable state, Tribal or federal rules while meeting these commonsense requirements.

The rule modernizes the BLM’s existing regulations to require current technology and practices to better account for the waste of natural gas. It requires operators of federal and Indian oil and gas leases to take reasonable steps to avoid natural gas waste from the very beginning of operations, carry out leak detection and repair across ongoing operations, and cut down on wasteful gas venting and flaring. Consistent with the Inflation Reduction Act, the rule also sets new limits on “royalty-free” flaring, so that public and Tribal mineral owners are properly compensated through royalty payments for avoidable losses of natural gas. 

The BLM received thousands of comments during an expansive public comment period before finalizing the rule, including from landowners, environmental groups, oil and gas producers, industry experts, academia and other stakeholders. The comments helped inform changes to the proposed rule.  More information about the final rule is available here.  

The Mineral Leasing Act obligates the Secretary of the Interior to use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil and gas and further requires oil and gas lessees to observe rules for the prevention of avoidable waste of natural gas. Today’s final rule is intended to better implement those obligations. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days. 

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land located primarily in 12 western states, including Alaska, on behalf of the American people. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. Our mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power: An Overview Essay

Introduction.

Various forms of power can be seen in the workplace or related environments. French and Raven developed Five Forms of Power that include legitimate, reward, expert, referent, and coercive. In a business setting, reward power is experienced when a leader is perceived to grant valuable rewards if those under them undertake his or her guidelines (Chapman & Scouller, 2020).

For example, at the end of the year, many companies share a given profit percentage with their highly performed employees who meet a certain criterion of work. The power is effective since it probes workers to put all their efforts into daily duties. The power reduces conflict because employees are significantly self-controlled (Chapman & Scouller, 2020). Coercive power is one where power comes from the aspect that a leader can take stern actions or punitive measures against those who do not follow instructions. For example, supervisors often threaten to terminate unproductive employees in a casual business setting. The power is ineffective since it brings a cold war between the supervisor and the workers (Kovach, 2020). Thus, it frequently brings internal and unhealthy politics that make working difficult.

Legitimate power is one where a person’s position in work gives the liberty to issue orders. In a business setting, a manager assigns his or her junior a project that requires certain criteria and monitoring progress (Kovach, 2020). The power is effective since it ensures timely completion of tasks and does not bring conflict but rather teamwork in work. Expert power comes when one has superior knowledge or experience in a given task in the workplace (Chapman & Scouller, 2020). For example, software engineers frequently breach working policies while solving a specific digital program, which may make them snub all other duties or even come late to work. The power is effective because it allows the prioritized task to complete and gives team optimism that results in harmony hence, no collisions or politics.

Referent power streams from a leader’s traits and characteristics, such as charisma, image, and background (Chapman & Scouller, 2020). In a business setting, the director or proprietor of the enterprise is respected by everyone due to their capacity to create jobs for others. The power is effective as it enables all duties to be implemented on time and allows the subordinates to commit to the objectives of the business hence, high chances of a peaceful working environment.

Chapman, A., & Scouller, J. (2020). Sources of leadership power – French and Raven . BusinessBalls.com . Web.

Kovach, M. (2020). Leader influence: A research review of French & Raven’s (1959) power dynamics. Journal of Values-Based Leadership , 13 (2), 5–11. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 5). French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power: An Overview. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-leadership-and-management-theories/

"French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power: An Overview." IvyPanda , 5 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-leadership-and-management-theories/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power: An Overview'. 5 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power: An Overview." December 5, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-leadership-and-management-theories/.

1. IvyPanda . "French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power: An Overview." December 5, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-leadership-and-management-theories/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power: An Overview." December 5, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizational-leadership-and-management-theories/.

• Referent Power: Examples
• Why Howard Stern is an Effective Communicator
• Lost Love of the Narrator in “The Raven” by Poe
• Literature Symbols in "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe
• Comparing Browning’s “My Last Duchess” With Poe’s “The Raven”
• Power Sources in the Working Environment
• Edgar Allan Poe: Interpretation of "The Raven"
• Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Raven” Review
• "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe
• "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe: Poem Analysis
• Transcendental Leadership and Total Quality Management Theories
• The Theory of Change for Achieving Long-Term Goals
• Management Models in Comparison
• St. Augustine’s Principles Guiding Mentorship in Business
• Behavioral Theories of Leadership