The current downsizing literature has neglected the cognitions and behaviors of layoff agents. In this article, layoff agents are defined as employees who assist in the implementation of layoffs in their employing organizations. The article develops a theoretical framework that focuses on the cognitions and perceptions of those individuals. This framework suggests that layoff agents have the potential to experience cognitive dissonance as a result of their layoff agency activities, and under some conditions they will seek to reduce that dissonance by altering their perceptions of organizational downsizing. The framework specifies variables that moderate the relationship between layoff agency and cognitive dissonance and also variables that moderate the relationship between layoff agency—induced cognitive dissonance and agent perceptions of organizational downsizing. The moderating effects of these variables are captured in a set of propositions suitable for testing in future empirical research on the psychology of layoff agents.
In a recent article published in this journal, Stohl and Stohl (2011) examine the phenomenon of clandestine organizations from a communication-centered perspective. The authors draw primarily on the work of the ‘Montreal School’ of organizational communication, which stresses the constitutive role of communication for organizations. In this response, we argue that the Stohls’ paper does not make full use of the paradigmatic turn that the Montreal School offers to organization studies. In our view, the authors overemphasize the role of communication among organizational members in the constitution of organizations. In contrast, we argue that organizations can also be ‘talked into existence’ by the communicative acts of third parties (e.g., the media), a view that is consistent with the Montreal School’s work. Moreover, drawing on the Stohls’ central example of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, we suggest that the attribute ‘clandestine’ does not capture the essence of that organization because it is characterized by extreme invisibility of its governance structures and by extreme visibility of its terrorist activities. We believe it is the reversion of the relation between invisibility and visibility that differentiates al Qaeda from legitimate organizations such as private businesses and ensures its perpetuation against all odds.
Over the last decades, the idea that communication constitutes organizations (CCO) has been gaining considerable momentum in organization studies. The CCO perspective provides new insights into key organizational issues, such as the relation between stability and change, between micro-level and macro-level phenomena, or between emergence and control. However, despite various theoretical advancements, the CCO perspective’s range of methodologies is still limited to analyzing local communication episodes, rather than studying organizations as broader networks of communication episodes. In this paper, we present a new methodological approach to the study of the relation between organization and communication, based on network analysis. Following a discussion of existing network approaches, we incorporate the fundamental assumptions of the CCO perspective into a methodology that places communication at the center of network analysis by turning the prevalent network perspective inside out, so that the vertices of the network represent communication episodes and the edges represent individuals. We illustrate our methodology with an empirical case study, in which we examine the structures and dynamics of an actual organization as a network of communication episodes.
Ce cas décrit les enjeux politiques soulevés au moment de la mise en oeuvre d'une politique gouvernementale visant l'amélioration des services de santé.
Ce cas décrit la structure organisationnelle en place dans une régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux, ainsi que le processus de prise de décision pour un dossier particulier : la mise en œuvre d'un programme d'interruption volontaire de grossesses dans la région. L'objectif est d'illustrer comment la structure organisationnelle peut influencer (positivement ou négativement) la façon de traiter les dossiers et les résultats qui en découlent.
In this essay I argue that organization theory has witnessed a significant displacement of ends over the last 30 years. Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s the dominant goal of the discipline was achieving consensus on the validity status of theories, today the overriding goal appears to be development of new theory. Formerly new theory development was considered a means to the end of attaining consensus on theory validity, but was not the only activity deemed necessary to accomplish that goal. In addition, instrumental standardization and replication were viewed as important. The contemporary displacement of ends toward new theory development creates the paradox that organization theory today is both epistemologically simpler (in terms of the intellectual activity deemed desirable) and more complex theoretically than it was 30 years ago. I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the displacement of ends toward new theory development in organization theory, and offer some possible remedies that are designed to reallocate priorities and resources toward the instrumentation, theory testing, and replication components of the research process. I also propose an agenda of future research in the history and sociology of organization science that would study the displacement of ends hypothesized here, with a view to improving our understanding of how organization theory has evolved and how its knowledge could be made more useful to managers.
This essay borrows the construct of “heedful interrelating” from Weick and Roberts’s (1993) study of aircraft carrier flight decks, and uses the construct to analyze the social processes that structure contemporary scholarship in organization theory. We argue that organization theory often operates as a low-heed discipline, in which scholars take minimal heed of the contributions of their fellows. This condition of low heed is revealed in several specific aspects of the discipline: lack of attention to testing previously published theories, lack of emphasis on replication of published empirical research, low standardization of construct definition and measurement, and a minimally developed division of labor between theorists and empirical researchers. We explore the causes of this low-heed state in contemporary organization theory, and we also enumerate some advantages of low heed in the discipline. We devote attention to the effects of low heed on the training of newcomers to the field, and we argue that doctoral education in organization theory is both an effect and a cause of low heed. Finally, we offer some suggestions for incorporating more scholarly heed into organization theory without destroying the major advantage of a low-heed discipline – freedom of inquiry. We also indicate how a cautious increase of heedful interrelating in organization theory might improve the perceived relevance of its research results for management practice.
