Human Relations - Semantic Scholar€¦ · ologies employed by leading management consulting...

http://hum.sagepub.com

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726702055010082 2002; 55; 1227 Human Relations

Nicolay Am Worren, Karl Moore and Richard Elliott When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/55/10/1227 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human Relations Additional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 2002 The Tavistock Institute. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 http://hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.php

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


When theories become tools: Toward aframework for pragmatic validityNicolay Worren, Karl Moore and Richard Elliott

A B S T R AC T In this article we discuss the characteristics of knowledge that lead

to practical utility. We first review previous efforts at identifying the

characteristics of useful knowledge. These contributions are grouped

into three perspectives according to which representational mode

they imply: propositional, narrative, or visual. We develop a frame-

work for pragmatic validity that encompasses knowledge rep-

resented in all three modes. However, we also note an over-reliance

on the propositional mode in academia, which contrasts with a

preference for narrative and visual knowledge among practitioners.

Explicit and propositional knowledge are key criteria for achieving

scientific validity, but more ambiguous knowledge serves important

functions in organizational life and may thus possess pragmatic validity.

We highlight the role of conceptual models expressed in a visual

format, a representational mode that has received little attention in

the literature. We end with suggestions for further research that may

extend the notion of pragmatic validity and lead to a more refined

framework for the development of useful knowledge.

K E Y W O R D S pragmatic validity � prescriptive theory � representationalmodes � tools

Introduction

A number of authors have discussed the characteristics of useful knowledgeand the process by which practitioners translate knowledge into action (e.g.

1 2 2 7

Human Relations

[0018-7267(200209)55:10]

Volume 55(10): 1227–1250: 028082

Copyright © 2002

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks CA,

New Delhi

99M 04worren (ds) 12/9/02 3:27 pm Page 1227


www.sagepublications.com


Heller, 1986; Lawler et al., 1985; Rynes et al., 2001; Thomas & Tymon,1982). The general view in this literature is that the traditional criteria forscientific validity do not in themselves guarantee usefulness to practitioners.In a field like business management, there is only occasional alignmentbetween the formal body of knowledge and the particular circumstances ofunique cases encountered by managers, which tend to be ‘not in the book’cases (Hoshmand & Polkinghorne, 1992; Schon, 1983). Even when there isa match between theory and the problem encountered in practice, the typeof knowledge required may be qualitatively different. Whereas some pro-fessions rely on a well-established and rigorous knowledge base, managerialpractice is far away from being the mere application of a set of well-definedfindings or theories. Managers rely primarily on tacit, procedural knowledge,derived from direct experience and trial-and-error learning. This does notimply that academically produced knowledge cannot or should not beutilized, but rather that the outputs of academic research must be compatiblewith these practical reasoning processes. Only then can researchers engage inan interactive and reciprocating process with managers aimed at buildinguseful theory (cf. Mahoney & Sanchez, 1997; Mohrman, 2001).

Hoshmand and Polkinghorne (1992) and Schon (1983) called for abetter articulated epistemology of practicing knowledge, which wouldilluminate the relationships between conceptual understanding,formal/scientific knowledge, and professional expertise. This perspective isrooted in the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. Aristotlereferred to praxis as the art of acting upon conditions one faces in order tochange them (Bernstein, 1971; Susman & Evered, 1978). He contrastedpraxis with theoria, ‘the sciences and activities that are concerned withknowing for its own sake’ (Bernstein, 1971: ix) and with techne, ‘the skillfulproduction of artifacts and the expert mastery of objectified tasks’(Habermas, 1973: 42). Whereas for Aristotle, there was a sharp distinctionbetween the theoretical and practical disciplines (Bernstein, 1971), philoso-phers in the pragmatist tradition have attempted to overcome the dichotomybetween theory and action. John Dewey called for a philosophy that wouldbecome a ‘philosophy of practical activity’ (quoted in Bernstein, 1971: xiii).1 He felt that traditional epistemology was excessively occupied with thelogic of proof and results rather than with the process by which one discovers, tests and modifies hypotheses.

The pragmatic validity of knowledge can be judged by the extent towhich goals or intended consequences can be achieved by producing certainactions or using particular instruments (cf. Rescher, 1977). Because tra-ditional criteria for scientific validity do not guarantee pragmatic validity,there is a need to identify the characteristics that lead to usefulness. Yet there

Human Relations 55(10)1 2 2 8




is little consensus in the literature regarding how pragmatically valid know-ledge is created. Previous work has discussed such factors as the origins ofresearch questions, the research techniques employed, the relationshipbetween researchers and managers during the research process, and differentapproaches to theory building. For example, in an analysis of studies pub-lished in the field of industrial psychology, Sackett (1994) found that the vastmajority of studies built on research questions derived from the existingliterature rather than from any applied problem. He argued that academicresearch would be more useful if the starting point was a real problem facedby an organization. However, one can also argue that too strong a focus onapplied problems would actually add little new knowledge to what prac-titioners already know (e.g. Donaldson, 1985, 1992). As for the researchprocess, Evered and Louis (1981) argued that much research has limited use-fulness because it is conducted ‘from the outside’ of organizations rather than‘from the inside’. However, Lawler et al. (1985) and Donaldson (1985)defended the use of large-scale and quantitative research ‘from the outside’to study the effects of different approaches to enhancing organizational effec-tiveness. Concerning theory building, a focus on prescriptive theory wasadvocated by Argyris (1996c), Meehan (1982) and Mahoney and Sanchez(1997), whereas Lewin and Stephens (1993), Mintzberg (1979) and Pettigrew(1990) argued that a descriptive approach actually enhances utility ofmanagement theory to managers.

Knowledge as design

One aspect that has been less prominent in this debate is the format of theoutput of the research. Theories and research findings can be representedin different ways, relatively independently of the research methodsemployed to produce them. This aspect of academic knowledge becomes acentral concern if one applies the pragmatist perspective described above.The pragmatist perspective focuses on the role knowledge plays as a con-ceptual tool in professional inquiry processes. This potentially tool-likecharacter of knowledge is often overlooked (Perkins, 1986). Perkins con-trasted the prevailing view of ‘knowledge as information’ with the alterna-tive view of ‘knowledge as design’. A design is a structure adapted to apurpose, for example, a knife constructed to be a tool for cutting. Forexample, the year 1492, when Columbus discovered America is not only apiece of information or an isolated ‘fact’, but can be a milestone date anda peg for parallel historical events: What happened in Europe at that time, or in the Far East? (Perkins, 1986). In other words, the same piece of

Worren et al. When theories become tools 1 2 2 9




knowledge – the year 1492 – can potentially be treated both as informationand as design (in this case, as a tool for grasping or holding other pieces ofinformation).

In order to develop a framework for pragmatic validity, we proposethat one can utilize principles from fields such as cognitive ergonomics, whichseeks to identify design principles that can be consulted by those who developuser interfaces of computer systems, buildings, cars, or any other physicalproduct. User-friendliness is a concern in many fields and it is possible thatthe same principles may apply whether one is considering the design ofphysical products or the design of cognitive tools such as conceptual modelsderived from academic theory. An example is the use of external cues toremind people of what to do in various situations. A physical product suchas a door handle may be designed to signal its proper operation (e.g. whethera slide or a pull is required) (Norman, 1990). A conceptual model may in thesame manner function as external memory that helps compensate for thelimited capacity of short term memory (Meyer, 1991; Argyris, 1996a). Forexample, the Five Forces diagram (Porter, 1985) might work as a mnemonicdevice and assist a management consultant in recalling the most importantelements that need to be considered when analysing a company’s competitivesituation.

In addition to cognitive ergonomics, one also needs to consider the rolethat tools play in shaping social processes. J.M. Levine et al. (1993) notedthat tools embody accepted ways of thinking and often invisibly shape thecourse of both individual and group cognitive activity (see also Meindl et al.,1994, and Bonora & Revang, 1993). Werr et al. (1997) studied the method-ologies employed by leading management consulting firms. They found thatall of the consulting firms had highly detailed and structured methods thatfacilitate ‘cognitive co-ordination’. The methods were used to co-ordinateaction both inside the consulting firms and in interaction with clients. Themethods represent a shared interface that support the exchange of experiencebecause communication can be based on a common vocabulary and refer-ence points among actors that might belong to different functional groups oreven different national practices.

Yet it is rare that theories in management can be used as cognitive toolsby practitioners without great modification. Argyris (1996a) noted that manytheories of organizational behaviour are too complicated for the mind/brainto use in everyday life. Mintzberg questioned whether the human brainprefers to think in terms of the continuous and bivariate relationships foundin formal research, and concluded that it searches for another kind of order,‘characterized by clusters or configurations, ideal and pure types’ (1979:588). In contrast with the characteristics of widely adopted conceptual





models, such as those used by consulting firms, the outputs of academicresearch are usually not tailored to how people process information and arethus difficult to apply under the constraints imposed by everyday situations,such as time pressure, uncertainty and complexity.

Knowledge in different representational modes

In focusing attention on the outputs of research and the role it plays as a cog-nitive tool for the practitioner, it is necessary to consider the different possibleways in which knowledge can be represented. For this purpose, it is helpfulto apply elements of the analytical framework developed by Kress and vanLeeuwen (1996) in the field of social semiotics. Social semiotics seeks tounderstand how different signs acquire meaning and the underlying grammarthat govern the production and interpretation of these signs. The mostcommonly analysed type of sign-making is the one that occurs through oralor written language. However, social semiotics emphasize that humansocieties use a variety of modes of representation, including gestures andfacial expressions, pictures and symbols, myths and stories, together withverbal and written language. One might be able to use the same analyticalframework for analysing sign-making in different representional modes. Aspointed out by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996), sometimes the same thing canbe ‘said’ both visually and verbally. For example, the choice between wordclasses and semantic structures in written language is in visual communi-cation expressed through, for instance, different uses of colour, perspectiveand line. At other times, the meanings that are realized in one representa-tional mode cannot be translated into a different mode without a loss ofmeaning. Kress and van Leeuwen observed that many of the meaningsconveyed via diagrams are difficult to convey verbally and are therefore leftunexplained in many textbooks and newspaper articles.

In the following we analyse some of the key contributions to the litera-ture on the usefulness of knowledge. We have grouped these contributionsinto one of three categories depending on the representational mode that theyimply: propositional, narrative or visual (these are summarized in Table 1).We describe the tenets of each perspective and analyse how knowledgeachieves pragmatic validity in each mode. As an example we show how thesame prescription – ‘adoption of Japanese manufacturing techniques will leadto higher productivity’ – may be represented in a propositional, narrative andvisual mode. We end with a discussion of how pragmatic validity may beincluded as a formal criterion for research and theory building in manage-ment and organization theory.





Pragmatic validity in the propositional mode

Sound description is the foundation for all knowledge systems, including onein which pragmatic validity is a key criterion. Descriptive accounts providethe starting point for intervention and also the reference points against whichthe effects of the intervention are assessed. Yet here we take the position thatalthough descriptive theory is necessary, it is not sufficient if academicresearch is to be useful. Useful knowledge does not only contain a descrip-tion of what is happening, or what is going to happen under certain con-ditions, but also specifications for how these conditions and actions can becreated in the first place (Argyris, 1996b; Meehan, 1982). Whereas descrip-tive theory might help answer the question ‘What caused an event to occur?’,prescriptive theory helps answer the question ‘How can that situation bechanged?’


Table 1 Perspectives on representing theory as tools for practitioners

Mode of representation Description Requirements for achieving pragmatic validity

Propositional Prescriptive statements about Testability through explicit, causal potential managerial actions propositionsand outcomes

Operational definitions of constructs

Descriptions of how implementation is toproceed to achieve desired outcomes

Narrative Stories and anecdotes that Vivid imagery and persuasiveness illustrate a particular concept or suggest a course of action Ambiguity – flexibility in interpretation

and application

Plausibility through logical consistency inthe ordering of the underlying plot

Visual Diagrams and other visual Appropriate symbolic and iconic depictions of conceptual representation of concepts and models relationships

Simplification or aggregation of complexinformation into meaningful patterns




Argyris (1996a, 1996b) and Meehan (1981, 1982) have both describedframeworks for how one should construct prescriptive theory that is useableby practitioners in their everyday context. Their perspective is a Popperianone, although it is applied to management and organizational learning ratherthan to science. In line with Popper’s theory of falsification, Argyris (1996c)argued that learning is often hampered when either practitioners or manage-ment scholars fail to specify the operational definitions they use or the pro-cedures that can be used for testing the validity of their claims. Consequently,a self-sealing process is created in which beliefs are protected from feedbackthat might otherwise have provided disconfirming evidence. The result is thatineffective theories are maintained instead of being replaced by more effec-tive theories.2

Pragmatically valid theory in the propositional mode contains threemajor components. First, there are explicit and causal propositions of theform ‘if you do A, then B is likely to follow, given certain conditions’.3 Thesecond component consists of rules that practitioners can use to test thevalidity of these causal claims. This requires a certain level of operational-ization of the construct. For example, the theory that states that ‘adoptionof Japanese manufacturing techniques will lead to higher quality and produc-tivity’ can be tested by observing whether the implementation of the tech-niques leads to the predicted consequences by observing indicators of qualityand productivity. Third, a pragmatic theory needs to contain explicit state-ments of how the results are created. In this case, it must specify the changesthat must be made to factory organization, automation, etc. in order toimplement the Japanese model (Figure 1).

Discussion – propositional perspective

There are important implications for theory building if the propositionalperspective gains wider acceptance. This perspective suggests that scholarsshould place increased emphasis on developing prescriptive theory that canbe tested by implementation in real organizational contexts. This contrastssharply with the observed state of affairs. Lutz (1982) and Moran andGhoshal (1996) saw little potential for deriving meaningful prescriptionsfrom the most popular models within organizational theory. Lutz (1982)remarked that what most of the current theories do is to tell managers thatthey are in trouble, and occasionally why, but they say nothing about howthey are supposed to get out of trouble. Indeed, many prominent theoriespresent a pessimistic view of the role of managers in effecting organizationalchange. Moran and Ghoshal concluded that current organization theory is





more concerned about ‘the unintended consequences of organizing thanabout organizing for [an] intended purpose’ (1996: 70).

Although many scholars are sympathetic to the need for relevance andutility of academic research, there are challenges that proponents of thepropositional perspective must address in order to present a viable guidingframework for future research. One challenge is the view of learning anddecision-making processes inherent in this perspective. There is a tendencywithin the propositional perspective to assume that learning only occurs byconscious or analytical reasoning. However, an emerging body of work incognitive psychology, summarized by Claxton (1997), shows how learningmay also accrue without conscious understanding – a process called inci-dental learning or learning by osmosis. There are in fact a number of poten-tially negative effects of encouraging people to be more reflective and explicitwhen learning a new task or making a decision. A study by Masters (1992)compared two groups of novice golf players: one group received explicit


Testable main proposition:Adoption of Japanese manufacturing practices leads to higher quality and productivity.

Description and constructs which have been operationalized:Manufacturing practices encompass all elements of the work organisation of a plant,including plant lay-out, work design, organisational structure, work processes, incentives,etc. Manufacturing practices are also influenced by product design and by the linkagesbetween personnel involved in manufacturing, marketing, and product design.

Classifications:1. Japanese ‘lean manufacturing’2. American ‘Tayloristic model’3. Swedish ‘human-centred model’.

Tools and methodologies exist that can help operations and manufacturing managers movetoward the Japanese model. These specify how changes are made to the followingelements of the firm system:• Product design (e.g. design for manufacturability, standardization of parts)• Buyer-supplier relations (e.g. long-term partnerships and alliances)• Work design (e.g. work cells)• Incentive systems (e.g. performance related pay; profit sharing)• Automation (e.g. automated assembly)• Human resource management (e.g. quality circles)• Work processes (e.g. ‘quality at source’, elimination of non-value adding activities)

Figure 1 The case for Japanese manufacturing principles: A propositional representation




instructions about how to stand, hold the club, and hit the ball, etc., whereasthe second group were left free to practise on their own. When the two groupswere tested against each other under stress (induced by the presence of a golfexpert and a financial reward), the group that received explicit instructionperformed worse than the group that had not. This effect, however, is depen-dent upon the task. Explicit strategies are predictive of success on well-defined, analytical tasks. Explicit strategies are predictive of failure for manyskill acquisition and insight tasks. Explicit strategies, which decompose infor-mation that can be reduced to words, tend to distort tacit representations(such as affective and sensory considerations) that may in fact be importantfor effective learning and problem solving. As Claxton (1997) pointed out,more ambiguous or intuitive tasks contain many considerations that are not(equally) verbalizable.

Argyris and Meehan acknowledge that there will always be gaps in themanagerial theories available to practitioners because the theories can neverrepresent the full complexity of the context in which the implementation isoccurring (Argyris, 1996c). Hence in any given situation, action will be aresult of combining theoretical knowledge with practical knowledge derivedfrom previous experience. Although this perspective thus emphasizes the roleof organizational learning, it is unclear what the role of improvisation isrelative to conscious design and planning. As Weick (1993) pointed out,effectiveness is not only achieved through intention, planning and implemen-tation, but may also result from improvisation. Improvisation is the organiz-ing strategy of ‘making it up as you go along’ (Miner & Moorman, 1995: 1)or more formally ‘activities in which composition and execution of actionapproach convergence with each other in time’ (Moorman & Miner, 1996:2). Intentions may set things in motion, but the stream of actions that isgenerated often lead to outcomes that were not specified in advance. Theseemergent structures may prove dysfunctional in some cases, but they mayalso prove effective and thus exhibit a ‘post hoc orderliness’. As stated byWeick (1993: 351):

(. . .) the source of coherence in the design lies elsewhere than in inten-tion. There [is] not a transition from imagination, through intention,into execution. Instead, there [is] an imaginative interpretation of exe-cution that [imputes] sufficient coherence to the execution that it couldeasily be mistaken for an intention.

There is some evidence that the ability to improvise is linked to effec-tiveness, particularly in organizations facing dynamic market conditions.For example, in a study of six product development projects, Brown and





Eisenhardt (1997) characterized the more successful projects as being in astate of dissipative equilibrium that required constant vigilance to avoidslipping into either pure chaos or rigid structure. This was most successfullydone by a combination of predetermined structures and procedures, andimprovisational tactics in response to unexpected events.

However, the fact that improvisation plays a role does not necessarilydiminish the importance of the propositional perspective as such. As pointedout by Kay (1995), to observe that organizations are complex and thatchange is adaptive helps little in deciding what to do. Prescriptive theory,for all its weaknesses, provides recipes for action and maps of processes thatmanagers can at least partially control. Yet the findings described above arehelpful in reminding us that intended action is continuously mixed and inte-grated with emergent patterns and structures to create successful adap-tation. They also point to some potential problems of forcing all learningand problem-solving efforts into an explicit and propositional format.

Pragmatic validity in the narrative mode

Authors with a postmodern or constructivist perspective have frequently crit-icised the prevailing emphasis on empirical precision and conceptual clarityin the organizational sciences. Indeed, Astley and Zammuto (1992) arguethat linguistically ambiguous knowledge – such as stories, metaphors orgeneral concepts – is often more useful to practitioners. Ambiguous know-ledge applies to a wider range of empirical phenomena and may therefore beused as a basis for designing interventions that address a number of differentmanagerial problems. Because substantive knowledge about cause–effectrelationships is lacking in many areas of organizational life, linguisticallyambiguous knowledge might actually improve the ability to deal with situ-ations involving high uncertainty.

Orr (1990) has shown that practical knowledge is often shared bymeans of story-telling between members of a community of practice. In astudy of photocopier repairmen, he found that many of the faults they hadto deal with were not covered in the machine manuals, as they involvedproblems that were not anticipated by the designers, such as problemsderiving from the interaction between the user and the machine rather thanfrom the machine itself. In contrast, the war stories and anecdotes circulat-ing among the repairmen combined facts about the machines with the contextof specific situations, and were often used to make sense of ambiguous situ-ations, such as when diagnosing a problem not previously encountered.

Astley and Zammuto (1992) and Barry and Elmes (1997) describe the





role of ambiguous knowledge in strategic decision-making. Ambiguoustheories frame the strategic discourse within the organization withoutmaking premature commitments to a particular decision. Poorly definedtheories might thus preserve options, in that managers can apply the sametheories even when the environment is changing. Ambiguous theories alsoappeal to a wider range of stakeholders, who are allowed to interpret thetheory in ways that fit their particular context. Different stakeholders might,for example, support the same policy for different reasons. The need for fos-tering coherence and identity among multiple stakeholders with varyinginterests is seen as increasingly important in a time when integrated hierar-chies are being replaced by loosely coupled or even virtual organizations. Insum, Astley and Zammuto argue that the most useful type of knowledge isnot prescriptions or techniques but concepts and ideas that can be used tointerpret events or, as rhetorical tools, to alter perceptions and galvanizecollective action.

Some types of ambiguous knowledge can be evaluated by using frame-works for analysing narratives (e.g. Barry & Elmes, 1997; Bruner, 1986).Narratives have been defined as the ‘symbolic presentation of a sequence ofevents connected by subject matter and related in time’ (Scholes, 1981: 205).Whereas propositional knowledge has deductive and generalized features,narrative knowledge has imaginative and contextualized qualities. Effectivenarratives have the power to persuade and facilitate understanding by beingmediators between the general and the particular. Hermans et al. (1992)noted that the parable is the oldest form of moral literature, and the anecdoteis the most common form of instruction. The usefulness of narrative know-ledge is indicated by the extensive use of case studies in contemporarybusiness education (Alvarez & Merchan, 1992). The fact that ambiguoustheory by definition lacks the propositional format of prescriptive theorydoes not imply that there are no criteria for judging the appropriateness oreffectiveness of this type of knowledge. To be effective, a narrative mustconform to rules for logical consistency in its descriptions of the connectionsbetween particular events, and must, at the same time, provide drama orimagery to arouse interest and attention. According to Barry and Elmes(1997), successful organizational stories tend to be those that are novel andstand out from other stories, are persuasive, and invoke retelling and sense-making among diverse stakeholders.

Narrative analysis draws on fields such as literary criticism, rhetoricaltheory and aesthetics to explain how stories provide a sense of meaning andcredibility. For example, archetypal figures and motifs can be employed topersuade readers of the viability of a theory. As pointed out by March (1995),one of the most conventional plots is to herald an age of uncertainty and


99M 04worren (ds) 12/9/02 3:27 pm 37



accelerating change. Another familiar plot is the emergence of an enemy orobstacle. By embarking on a ‘Hero’s Journey’, the company can then renewitself (while enduring hardship), confront the enemy, and finally succeed(Barry & Elmes, 1997). Consider the way lean manufacturing is described inthe book The machine that changed the world (see Figure 2), a text thatemploys many of the familiar rhetorical devices identified by scholarsanalysing narratives. The imperative for introducing ‘lean manufacturing’ iscouched in terms of a drama involving Japan versus the rest of the world:western companies have lost out during this struggle but can regain theirstrength if they adopt best practice. The authors also recount a number ofstories about individual characters. We are not reading about Toyota ingeneral but about Kiichero Toyoda and his nephew and how they managedto develop a new production system.

Interestingly, other researchers have subsequently contested many ofthe claims in this book. For example, Swedish researchers (Sandberg, 1995)disputed the productivity data that were provided, which were used to hailJapanese lean manufacturing and denounce the effectiveness of the neo-craft


‘Twice in this century [the auto industry] has changed our most fundamental ideas abouthow we make things. And how we make things dictate not only how we work but whatwe buy, how we think, and the way we live. [. . .] After World War 1, Henry Ford andGeneral Motors’ Alfred Sloan moved world manufacture from centuries of craftproduction – led by European firms – into the age of mass production. Largely as a result,the United States soon dominated the global economy. After World War 2, Eiji Toyodaand Taiichi Ohno at the Toyota Motor Company in Japan pioneered the concept of leanproduction. The rise of Japan to its current economic pre-eminence quickly followed, asother Japanese companies and industries copied this remarkable system.’

‘In the spring of 1950, a young Japanese engineer, Eiji Toyoda, set out on a three-monthpilgrimage to Ford’s Rouge plant in Detroit. In fact, the trip marked a second pilgrimagefor the family, since Eiji’s uncle, Kiichiro, had visited Ford in 1929. (. . .) Eiji was not anaverage engineer, either in ability or ambition. After carefully studying every inch of thevast Rouge, the largest and most efficient manufacturing facility in the world, Eiji wroteback to headquarters the he ‘thought there were some possibilities to improve theproduction system’. (. . .) But simply copying and improving the Rouge proved to be hardwork. Back at home in Nagoya, Eiji Toyoda and his production genius, Taiichi Ohno, soonconcluded (. . .) that mass production could never work in Japan. From this tentativebeginning were born what Toyota came to call the Toyota Production system and,ultimately, lean production.’

[Excerpt from Womack et al., 1991]

Figure 2 The case for Japanese manufacturing principles: A narrative representation




oriented assembly techniques that were practised at Volvo’s Uddevalla plant.The fact that these protests have not gained much attention in the businesscommunity may be the lack of an equally compelling ‘counter-story’ tosupport the Swedish model.

Discussion – narrative perspective

The narrative perspective has elucidated a mode of representation that waspreviously largely ignored. Representing knowledge in a narrative formatfrequently increases usefulness by enhancing interest, involvement andcredibility of a theory or concept. Narratives also facilitate encoding andrecall of information, in that people can use their general knowledge offamiliar plots and settings to structure the concepts of a story (Glass &Holyoak, 1986). At the same time, it is important to acknowledge limi-tations of this representational format. For example, although it is clear thatmuch organizational knowledge is transmitted in the form of stories (e.g.Barry & Elmes, 1997; Orr, 1990), this process is not unproblematical. It isoften difficult to extract lessons from the stories told in organizations,especially where one’s personal knowledge has to be pooled with knowledgegained by others, or in an environment where interpretations are politicallymotivated and aimed at establishing favourable reputations (Levinthal &March, 1993). While it is true that myths and stories play an important rolein complex organizations and that management theories may serve as inputmaterial to the story-telling process, these remain only a part of reality andnot the only reality (Lutz, 1982). Narrative knowledge is susceptible to dis-tortion (Mandler & Johnson, 1977) and we agree with Beyer (1992) thatprogress is difficult unless ambiguous knowledge is confronted with datafrom time to time. However, as we have pointed out earlier, the mostrelevant empirical test from a pragmatic viewpoint may not be the degreeof fit between the content of the narratives and reality per se, but rather thedegree of effectiveness in producing desired outcomes when utilizing thistype of knowledge. As conceptual tools, the most important role of narra-tives and other types of ambiguous knowledge is that of providing cognitivesupport by facilitating information encoding and retrieval, conveyingimplicit assumptions, and shaping interpretive frames of reference amongorganizational actors. As we shall discuss in more detail below, these effectsmight be identifiable and measurable, and therefore researchable using con-ventional methods.





Pragmatic validity in the visual mode

Knowledge in organizations is frequently codified and represented in a visualformat. For example, business processes, organizational structures and evenvision statements are frequently expressed by means of diagrams or othertypes of illustrations. Innovations such as television, colour printing tech-nologies and graphics software have enabled this proliferation of visuospa-tial representation of management concepts. The same trend is evident in theacademic world, where there has been an increase in the use of graphics andvisual media. One study compared different editions of a standard collegetextbook over four decades, and found that the average number of illustra-tions per 100 pages had increased markedly during the last 30 years (Mag-nussen et al., 1996).

Despite the increasing use of visual media, our knowledge about thefactors associated with pragmatic validity for visually represented infor-mation is largely intuitive. Visual communication has received scant atten-tion in the academic literature,4 and visual data have played a very minorrole in organizational research, which instead has relied on verbal reportsfrom subjects (Meyer, 1991). What is needed is an increased understandingof both the ‘grammar’ underlying the production of visual statements, andthe broader role that visual information plays in organizational processes.

Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) have developed a framework foranalysing the grammar of visual representation. They define grammar as therules that govern how depicted elements combine into visual ‘statements’ ofgreater or lesser complexity and extension. So far this framework is descrip-tive but they suggest that their investigation might lead to a normative frame-work that can help to develop ‘visual literacy’ supported by a set of moreformal rules for visual representation. It is interesting to note that visualgrammar might be more than just a matter of social convention. Researchsuggests that there exist universals in visual representation of both physicalobjects and abstract relationships. Blind people recognize a wide variety ofpictures and use many of the same devices as sighted illustrators do whenmaking drawings. For example, blind people can express visual metaphorssuch as a spinning wheel by drawing curves inside a circle (Kennedy, 1997).

Like any semiotic system, the visual mode provides an array of choicesof different ways objects and their relations may be represented. Figure 3provides a representation of some of the same concepts as in the proposi-tional and narrative examples in Figures 1 and 2. This diagram makes useof two basic codes for representing visual information. First, the conceptsare depicted as interacting with each other through the use of arrows, moreformally called vectors in Kress and van Leeuwen (1996). Vectors realize





similar meanings as ‘action verbs’ in language (such as ‘cause’ ‘transmit’,‘send’). Specifically, the arrows are used to indicate that introducingJapanese manufacturing principles leads to success. In other words, thissystem of objects represents a process of events that takes place over time.The figure also contains a classification in that two ‘intervening’ variables,quality and productivity, have been split into two different boxes. Becausethe two boxes are equally large it implicitly suggests that quality andproductivity are equal in some way, for example, they may contributeequally strongly to competitive advantage. The choice of geometrical shapesis also a way of conveying meaning. For example, one could imagine theboxes being replaced by circles or by triangles. Visual shapes are examplesof choices that are normally left unexplained in the accompanying text. Forexample, the size of boxes may indicate the importance attached to differentconcepts, and this may not have been made explicit. Similarly, the choice ofa circle over a rectangle may connote an ‘organic’ rather than a ‘mechanis-tic’ orientation.

In addition to social semiotics, there are frameworks within cognitivepsychology that can be used to analyse visual representations. Cognitive psy-chologists have documented how information can be organized best to aidencoding and retrieval (e.g. Card et al., 1999: 15–17; Glass & Holyoak,1986). The use of hierarchical organization of information and the use ofvisual symbols are ways of establishing memory cues and of ‘chunking’information into larger units to aid both encoding and retrieval (Glass &Holyoak, 1986). The importance of simple, parsimonious and flexible con-ceptual modes must be seen in relation to the typical work demands inmanagerial jobs. Managers work with and through people and must copewith discontinuity, variety and time pressure. Visual models help communi-cate complex relationships in an efficient manner and function as externalmemory that help compensate for the limited capacity of short-termworking memory.


Competitiveadvantage

Quality

ProductivityJapanese

manufacturingprinciples

Figure 3 The case for Japanese manufacturing principles: A visual representation




Discussion – visual perspective

Many of the most popular management models are expressed in a visualformat or at least accompanied by visual representations. We would suggestthat the popularity of Porter’s Five Forces framework is in part due to thesimple diagram with five boxes, each representing an external force that afirm must consider in defining its strategic position. Yet despite the popularityof such models, there is little research-based inquiry into how representa-tional modes influence their diffusion, adoption or effectiveness. Recent con-tributions have begun to rectify this imbalance by documenting thepervasiveness of visually encoded information and by taking the first steps indeveloping frameworks for analysing images (e.g. Glasgow et al., 1995; Kress& van Leeuwen, 1996; Stafford; 1996). Most of this work is still in its earlyphases, but promises to supplement the current interest in narratives and dis-course among postmodern scholars (Kilduff & Mehra, 1997) with an equallystrong foundation for understanding visual representations.

As with other representational modes, pragmatic validity in the visualmode is related to how effective the representation is in conveying meaningand providing cognitive support to managers. The effectiveness of visuallyrepresented information has been the subject of some experimental research.For example, Smith and Taffler (1996) studied the use of cartoon graphics toimprove the communication of accounting data. Accounting ratios wereassigned to facial features to illustrate, for example, ‘healthy’ and ‘distressed’companies. Their study compared three groups of users who were presentedwith the same information presented in different formats: accounting state-ments, financial ratios and ‘faces’ constructed by the application of financialratios to particular facial features (e.g. a smiling mouth indicated high profit-ability). Participants were asked to classify companies as solvent or bankrupt,and the speed and accuracy of their judgements were compared to assess theeffect of the three different presentation formats. The results show thatparticipants’ categorizations of solvency or bankruptcy were more accurateand made twice as fast when they were based on the faces compared withactual accounting statements and ratios.

Within operations research, the ‘travelling salesman’ is a classic puzzleused to demonstrate various techniques for optimization. The goal is to findthe best route for someone who wants to visit seven cities and return backto the starting point. The conventional way of solving this problem is toemploy an algorithm such as neighbourhood search (Pidd, 1996). A morerecent approach is visual interactive modelling, which represents the cities aspoints on the computer screen and asks the participant to indicate theshortest distance by simply drawing the mouse between the points. The





power of the visual mode is demonstrated by the fact that lay people usingthe visual interactive software reach a solution that is within 80 percent ofthe computationally derived optimal route (Hurrion, 1980).

There are, of course, potential drawbacks from representing knowledgein a visual mode. Visual information is subject to the same biases as othertypes of ambiguous knowledge such as narratives. We noted above that manydiagrams convey taxonomies through the use of boxes or circles. The result-ing diagram does not reflect a ‘natural’ classification but a rather subjectiveprocess of deciding which elements belong to the same class (Kress & vanLeeuwen, 1996). Visual representations can be highly persuasive even if theirimplicit premises are wrong (Meyer, 1991). The potential for misuse pointsto need for the type of analytical frameworks that we have described above,which can be used to increase people’s ‘visual literacy’ (Kress & van Leeuwen,1996; Stafford, 1996).

Conclusions

We have sought to demonstrate that pragmatic theory may be represented indifferent modes. The existing literature is flawed by a lack of balance on thispoint. The author’s epistemological stance, usually rooted in one representa-tional mode (typically narrative or propositional), is often promoted withoutany consideration for the domain that this form of knowledge might applyto, or the limitations of leaving other representational modes out. Within thepropositional perspective, rigour has come to mean reasoning in the formallanguages of logic and mathematics, with a subsequent neglect of visual andnarrative reasoning (Simon, 1995; Sloman, 1995). For authors like Argyris(1996c) and Meehan (1982), propositions are the basic cognitive code andusefulness is equated with linguistic precision and explicitness, with littleattention paid to the uses of alternative representational modes. The focuson precision and explicitness makes it difficult to observe and represent ambi-guity as an empirical phenomenon (D.N. Levine, 1985) and this perspectivedoes not in itself provide a viable foundation for developing pragmaticallyvalid theory. At the other extreme we find postmodern authors such asMorgan (1980, 1986), who considers metaphor the basic cognitive code andthe generative mechanism for both scientific and pragmatic inquiry. Astleyand Zammuto (1992) described how linguistic ambiguity may prove advan-tageous in developing vision statements, but failed to mention other aspectsof organizational life where linguistic ambiguity is dysfunctional (see Don-aldson, 1992). The ambiguous type of theory that Astley and Zammuotoadvocate, such as metaphors and stories, has little relevance for managers





seeking specific advice for, say, how to control costs, reduce inventories, testcustomer preferences or implement a new compensation system.

Managers need different types of knowledge that fit the demands ofdifferent activities, and academic approaches that consider one representa-tional mode in isolation will always end up with an incomplete picture ofhow managers actually apply knowledge. The usefulness of knowledge willdepend on the degree of fit with such characteristics as the type of problemor decision being considered, the phase in the process and organizational con-textual factors. It is likely that ambiguous knowledge is particularly effectivein shaping the tacit and interpretive frameworks that practitioners apply insolving problems. Ambiguous knowledge such as metaphors, stories anddiagrams guides the process of ‘paradigm negotiation’ or framing that occursin the early stages of problem solving and decision making (Boje et al., 1992).More explicit types of knowledge come into play once the participants havereached a consensus on how the problem should be viewed and thereby movefrom the strategic to the tactical domain (Rosenhead, 1989).5 There are alsocontextual factors that depend on, for example, the level of the organizationin which the knowledge is applied. Senior level management typically employrelatively ambiguous frameworks in developing visions and strategies,whereas lower level employees typically apply more specific techniques andmethods to operationalize and implement these visions and strategies.

Despite the differences between representational modes, we consider itlikely that the use of cognitive tools has certain identifiable effects and thatsome of these effects generalize across representational modes. Most of thecurrent methodological literature is oriented toward ensuring scientific, notpragmatic, validity. We need a user-oriented approach that will help us judgethe appropriateness of alternative representations of knowledge in differentfields of practice. Earlier, we likened this approach to a ‘cognitive ergonomics’of management theory, but we also pointed out that it needs to incorporate thebroader social and organizational effects of employing conceptual tools.

We envisage three approaches to assessing pragmatic validity. The firstis simply to use the level of adoption as an indicator.6 It is likely that themodels that are adopted widely and used extensively have some adaptivevalue for those using them. However, although an important indicator,looking at the degree of diffusion runs the risk of confounding the pragmaticvalidity of the tools themselves with the power of the channels of distributionand marketing used to disseminate the tools (consulting firms, business bookpublishers, gurus, etc.). The second approach, is therefore, to assess prag-matic validity more directly, using an experimental methodology. Forexample, one can imagine a business simulation involving two groups ofMBA students solving a case, each supplied with a different conceptual





model, which could differ in design (e.g. visuospatial layout) but not in sub-stantive content. Differences in performance may thus be attributable to thedegree of pragmatic validity of the model employed. An example of thisresearch paradigm is the study reported in Smith and Taffler (1996) referredto earlier on the use of cartoon graphics to improve the communication ofaccounting data. Armstrong and Brodie (1994) conducted an experiment todetermine whether use of Boston Consulting Group’s growth/market sharematrix (Henderson, 1984) had an effect on investment decisions made bymanagement students presented with a hypothetical case.

The third approach is to ask the users of the tools about their opinions.One can, for example, have users rate different versions of the same concep-tual model. In fields such as software interface design, a high degree of end-user involvement and feedback is considered a key factor in securinguser-friendly designs. Pragmatic validity is fundamentally about whether theuse of certain tools helps guide action to attain goals (cf. Hoshmand & Polk-inghorne, 1992), and the users themselves might be the ones who are bestqualified to judge whether this is happening. However, it is important toconsider the potential biases inherent in direct user feedback and self-assessments of pragmatic validity. The very purpose of cognitive tools is tocreate a frame of reality, and it might be difficult for users to think outsidethe frame once it has been established. Psychological research has docu-mented a number of pervasive cognitive illusions, such as illusory correla-tions and the hindsight bias (Glass & Holyoak, 1986), which may causesubjects to attribute success to the use of tools, whereas in fact the outcomeswould have been as good or better without the use of the same tools. Theideal approach might be therefore to combine self-reports of usefulness withmore objective indicators in order to assess pragmatic validity.

In sum, we believe the pragmatic perspective bears a number of impli-cations for theory building and research in management. The most obviousimplication is the need to acknowledge the importance of the concept itself.Traditional criteria for evaluating organizational theories (e.g. Bacharach,1989) rely on the notions of explanatory power and falsifiability seen fromthe researcher’s perspective and do not address the issues of practical useful-ness and relevance. By incorporating pragmatic validity as a criterion wewould significantly improve our field’s ability to impact managerial practice.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the NorwegianResearch Council. We would like to thank Peter Collett, Chris Argyris, Richard





Whittington and the anonymous reviewers of Human Relations for helpfulcomments during the development of this article.

Notes

1 Dewey did not claim, however, that one should not construct systematic theory thatabstracts features from individual phenomena or experiences, or that theory shouldalways serve practical ends (see Bernstein, 1971: 216–17). On the contrary, his mainobject was ‘to bring the problems and procedures of our moral and social life intocloser harmony with the dramatic advances made in experimental scientific inquiry’(Bernstein, 1971: 218).

2 As pointed out by Meehan (1982), theoretical adequacy is more important thanaccuracy. Even ‘weak’ theories can be the basis for action, in that they serve as launchpoints for action and the observed outcomes as feedback that can be used for furtherinquiry.

3 Prescriptive theory according to this view assumes causal relations, but unlikedescriptive theory, which may connect variables that are not under managerialcontrol, we see that the connection made in prescriptive theory is between specificactions and outcomes.

4 Notable exceptions include studies on the role of signs in advertising and marketing(e.g. Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993), visual media to communicate accounting infor-mation (Smith & Taffler, 1996), and visual interactive modelling in operationsmanagement (New et al., 1992). Meyer (1991) discusses a number of other examplesof the use of visual data.

5 The research in cognitive psychology summarized by Kaufmann (1988) shows thatthe more ill-structured a task is, the more imagery gains in importance in determin-ing problem-solving performance. With high novelty, complexity or ambiguity,people switch from a verbal mode to visual representation.

6 This is the most common method used in the literature on the diffusion of manage-ment knowledge (e.g. Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1993).

References

Abrahamsom, E. & Rosenkopf, L. Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using math-ematical modelling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of ManagementReview, 1993, 18, 487–518.

Alvarez, J.L. & Merchan, C. The role of narrative fiction in the development of imaginationfor action. International Studies of Management & Organization, 1992, 22(3), 27–45.

Argyris, C. Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory.Journal of Behavioral Science, 1996a, 32, 390–406.

Argyris, C. Unrecognized defenses of scholars: Impact on theory and research. Organiz-ation Science, 1996b, 7, 79–87.

Argyris, C. Prologue: Toward a comprehensive theory of management. In B. Moingeon &A. Edmondson (Eds), Organizational learning and competitive advantage. London:Sage, 1996c.

Armstrong, J.S. & Brodie, R.J. Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making:Experimental results. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1994, 11, 73–84.

Astley, W.G. & Zammuto, R.F. Organization science, managers, and language games.Organization Science, 1992, 3(4), 443–60.





Bacharach, S.B. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 1989, 14, 496–515.

Barry, D. & Elmes, M. Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse.Academy of Management Review, 1997, 22, 403–28.

Bernstein, R.J. Praxis and action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.Beyer, J.M. Metaphors, misunderstandings and mischief: A commentary. Organization

Science, 1992, 3, 467–74.Boje, D.M., White, J. & Wolfe, T. The consultant’s dilemma: A multiple frame analysis of

a public housing community. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds), Research inorganizational change and development, Vol. 8, pp. 181–242. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,1992.

Bonora, E.A. & Revang, Ø. A framework for analysing the storage and protection of know-ledge in organisations: Strategic implications and structural arrangements. In P. Lorangeet al. (Eds), Implementing strategic processes. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Brown, S.L. & Eisenhardt, K.M. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theoryand time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 1997, 42(1), 1–34.

Bruner, J. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.Card, S.T., Mackinlay, J.D. & Shneiderman, B. Information visualization: Using vision to

think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.Claxton, G. Hare brain, tortoise mind: Why intelligence increases when you think less.

London: Fourth Estate, 1997.Donaldson, L. In defence of organization theory: A reply to the critics. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1985.Donaldson, L. The Weick stuff: Managing beyond games. Organization Science, 1992, 4,

461–6.Evered, R. & Louis, M.R. Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: ‘Inquiry

from the inside’ and ‘inquiry from the outside’. Academy of Management Review, 1981,6, 385–95.

Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N.N. & Chandrasekaran, B. (Eds) Diagrammatic reasoning: Cog-nitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

Glass, A.L. & Holyoak, K.J. Cognition. New York: Random House, 1986.Habermas, J. Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Beacon, 1973.Heller, F.A. (Ed.) The use and abuse of social science. London: Sage, 1986.Henderson, B.D. The logic of business strategy. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984.Hermans, H.J.M., Kempen, J.G. & van Loon, R.J.P. The dialogical self: Beyond indi-

vidualism and rationalism. American Psychologist, 1992, 47, 23–33.Holbrook, M.B. & Hirschman, E. The semiotics of consumption: Interpreting symbolic

behaviour in popular culture and works of art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993.Hoshmand, L.T. & Polkinghorne, D.E. Redefining the science-practitioner relationship and

professional training. American Psychologist, 1992, 47, 55–66.Hurrion, R.D. Visual interactive (computer) solution for the travelling salesman problem.

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1980, 31, 537–9.Kaufmann, G. Problem solving and creativity. In K. Grønhaug & G. Kaufmann (Eds),

Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1988.

Kay, J. Foundations of corporate success. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Kennedy, J.M. How the blind draw. Scientific American, 1997, 1, 76–82.Kilduff, M. & Mehra, A. Postmodernism and organizational research. Academy of

Management Review, 1997, 2, 453–81.Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge, 1996.Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, A.M., Ledford, G.E. & Cummings, T.G. (Eds) Doing research that

is useful for theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.





Levine, D.N. The flight from ambiguity: Essays in social and cultural theory. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1985.

Levine, J.M., Resnick, L.B. & Higgins, E.T. Social foundations of cognition. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 1993, 44, 585–612.

Levinthal, D.A. & March, J.G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993, 14, 95–112.

Lewin, A.Y. & Stephens, C.U. Designing postindustrial organisations: combining theoryand practice. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds), Organizational change and redesign.New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Lutz, F.W. Tightening up loose coupling in organizations of higher education. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 1982, 27, 653–69.

Magnussen, S., Grenness, C.E. & Worren, N. Hvor mange ord er et bilde verdt? [How manywords are a picture worth?]. Nytt norsk Tidsskrift, 1995, 4, 338–47. [In Norwegian.]

Mahoney, J.T. & Sanchez, R. Competence theory building: Reconnecting managementresearch and management practice. In A. Heene & R. Sanchez (Eds), Competence-basedstrategic management. Chichester: Wiley, 1997.

Mandler, G. & Johnson, N.S. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall.Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 111–51.

March, J. Disposable organizations and the rigidities of imagination. Organization, 1995,2(3/4), 427–40.

Masters, R.S.W. Knowledge, nerves, and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicitknowledge in the breakdown of a complex skill under pressure. British Journal of Psy-chology, 1992, 83, 172–9.

Meehan, E.J. Reasoned argument in social science: Linking research to policy. Westport,CT: Greenwood Press, 1981.

Meehan, E.J. Economics and policy-making: The tragic illusion. Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress, 1982.

Meindl, J.R., Stubbart, C. & Porac, J.F. Cognition within and between organizations.Organization Science, 1994, 5(3): 289–93.

Meyer, A.D. Visual data in organizational research. Organization Science, 1991, 2, 218–36.Miner, A.S. & Moorman, C. Organizational improvisation and long-term learning: The

case of how firms make it up as they go along. Working paper, School of Management,University of Wisconsin, 1995.

Mintzberg, H. An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly,1979, 24, 582–9.

Mohrman, S.A. Seize the day: Organizational studies can and should make a difference.Human Relations, 2001, 54, 57–65.

Moorman, C. & Miner, A.S. Organizational improvisation and organizational memory.Working paper, Marketing Science Institute, 1996.

Moran, P. & Ghoshal, S. Theories of economic organization: The case for realism andbalance. Academy of Management Review, 1996, 21, 58–73.

Morgan, G. Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, 605–22.

Morgan, G. Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1986.New, S.J., Lockett, A.G. & Boaden, R.J. Untangling visual interactive modelling: Pictures

of models of pictures with models. Paper presented to the 34th Annual Conference ofthe Operational Research Society, Birmingham, 8–10 September 1992.

Norman, D.A. The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday, 1990.Orr, J.E. Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity. In D.S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds),

Collective remembering. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.Perkins, D.A. Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986.Pettigrew, A.M. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization

Science, 1990, 3, 267–92.





Pidd, M. Tools for thinking: Modelling in management science. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.Porter, M. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press, 1985.Rescher, N. Methodological pragmatism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977.Rosenhead, J. Introduction: Old and new paradigms of analysis. In J. Rosenhead (Ed.),

Rational analysis for a problematic world. Chichester: Wiley, 1989.Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. & Daft, R.L. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and

transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 2001,44(2), 340–55.

Sackett, P.R. The content and process of the research enterprise within industrial andorganizational psychology. Presidential address, Society for Industrial and Organiz-ational Psychology conference, Nashville, TN, 9 April 1994.

Sandberg, Å. Enriching production: Perspectives on Volvo’s Uddevalla plant as an alterna-tive to lean production. Aldershot: Avebury, 1995.

Scholes, R. Language, narrative, and anti-narrative. In W. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrativity.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Schon, D.A. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Simon, H. Forword. In B. Chandrasekaran, J. Glasgow & N.H. Narayanan (Eds), Dia-

grammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Menlo Park, CA: MITPress, 1995.

Sloman, A. Musings on the roles of logical and non-logical representations in intelligence.In B. Chandrasekaran, J. Glasgow & N.H. Narayanan (Eds), Diagrammatic reasoning:Cognitive and computational perspectives. Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press, 1995.

Smith, M. & Taffler, R. Improving the communication of accounting information throughcartoon graphics. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 1996, 9(2), 68–85.

Stafford, B.M. Good looking: Essays on the virtue of images. Boston, MA: MIT Press,1996.

Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D. Assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 582–603.

Thomas, K.W. & Tymon, W.G. Necessary properties of relevant research: Lessons fromrecent criticisms of the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 1982,7, 345–52.

Weick, K.E. Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds),Organizational change and redesign. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Werr, A., Stjernberg, T. & Docherty, P. The functions of methods of change in managementconsulting. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1997, 10, 288–307.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. The machine that changed the world. New York:Harper, 1991.






Nicolay Worren is an internal consultant with Kvaerner, a global engi-neering and construction company with headquarters in Oslo andHouston. He recently completed his doctoral thesis in managementstudies at Oxford University. His research interests include pragmaticvalidity, strategic flexibility and modularity in product and process design.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Karl Moore is a professor at McGill University and a fellow at Temple-ton College, Oxford University. His research interests include the role ofsubunits in competency creation within global multinationals and inter-national business in the ancient world.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Richard Elliott is Professor of Marketing and Consumer Research atthe University of Exeter and Editor of the British Journal of Management,and European Editor of the Journal of Product and Brand Management.[E-mail: [email protected]]




Human Relations - Semantic Scholar€¦ · ologies employed by leading management consulting...

Documents

Transcript of Human Relations - Semantic Scholar€¦ · ologies employed by leading management consulting...