Haridimos Tsoukas

What is Organizational Knowledge

Organizational knowledge is much talked about but little understood. In this paper we set out to conceptualize organizational knowledge and explore its implications for knowledge management. We take on board Polanyi’s insight concerning the personal character of knowledge and fuse it with Wittgenstein’s insight that all knowledge is, in a fundamental way, collective. We do this in order to show, on the one hand, how individuals appropriate knowledge and expand their knowledge repertoires, and, on the other hand, how knowledge, in organized contexts, becomes organizational. Our claim is that knowledge is the individual capability to draw distinctions, within a domain of action, based on an appreciation of context or theory, or both. Organizational knowledge is the capability members of an organization have developed to draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their work, in particular concrete contexts, by enacting sets of generalizations whose application depends on historically evolved collective understandings. Following our theoretical exploration of organizational knowledge, we report the findings of a case study carried out at a call centre in Panafon, in Greece. Finally, we explore the implications of our argument by focusing on the links between knowledge and action on the one hand, and the management of organizational knowledge on the other. We argue that practical mastery needs to be supplemented by a quasi-theoretical understanding of what individuals are doing when they exercise that mastery, and this is what knowledge management should be aiming at. Knowledge management, we suggest, is the dynamic process of turning an unreflective practice into a reflective one by elucidating the rules guiding the activities of the practice, by helping give a particular shape to collective understandings, and by facilitating the emergence of heuristic knowledge.

Complex Thinking, Complex Practice: The Case for a Narrative Approach to Organizational Complexity

Complexity is not only a feature of the systems we study, it is also a matter of the way in which we organize our thinking about those systems. This second-order complexity invites consideration of the modes of thinking we use to theorize about complexity, and in this article we develop the idea of second-order complexity using Jerome Bruner’s contrast between logico-scientific and narrative modes of thinking. Using Bruner’s framework, we examine and critique dominant forms of thinking about organizational complexity that are rooted in the logico-scientific mode, and suggest alternatives based in the narrative mode. Our evidence for the value of doing this comes from the logic of complexity theory itself, which we claim indicates and supports the use of the narrative mode. The potential contribution of the narrative approach to developing second-order thinking about organizational complexity is demonstrated by taking a narrative approach to the matter of recursiveness. By extension, similar insights are indicated for other features that logico-scientific thinkers commonly attribute to complex systems, including, nonlinearity, indeterminacy, unpredictability and emergence.

A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations

Despite several insightful empirical studies on how new knowledge is created in organizations, there is still no satisfactory answer to the question, how is new knowledge created in organizations? The purpose of this paper is to address this question by focusing on direct social interaction, adopting a dialogical approach. The following argument is advanced. From a dialogical perspective, new knowledge in organizations originates in the individual ability to draw new distinctions concerning a task at hand. New distinctions may be developed because practitioners experience their situations in terms of already constituted distinctions, which lend themselves to further articulation. Further articulation develops when organizational members engage in dialogical exchanges. When productive, dialogue leads to self-distanciation, namely, to individuals taking distance from their customary and unreflective ways of acting as practitioners. Dialogue is productive depending on the extent to which participants engage relationally with one another. When this happens, participants are more likely to actively take responsibility for both the joint tasks in which they are involved and for the relationships they have with others. Self-distanciation leads to new distinctions through three processes of conceptual change (conceptual combination, conceptual expansion, and conceptual reframing), which, when intersubjectively accepted, constitute new knowledge. Several organizational examples, as well as findings from organizational knowledge research, are reinterpreted to illustrate the above points.

Grasping the Logic of Practice: Theorizing Through Practical Rationality

There is an increasing concern that management theories are not relevant to practice. In this article we contend that the overall problem is that most management theories are unable to capture the logic of practice because they are developed within the framework of scientific rationality. We elaborate practical rationality as an alternative framework and show how it enables development of theories that grasp the logic of practice and, thus, are more relevant to management practice.

The tyranny of light: The temptations and the paradoxes of the information society

Abstract A distinguishing feature of late modern societies is the significant extent to which they are dependent on knowledge for their functioning. Contrary to how knowledge was viewed in pre-modern societies, knowledge now tends to be understood as information, that is as consisting of objectified, commodified, abstract, decontextualized representations. The overabundance of information in late modernity makes the information society full of temptations. It tempts us into thinking that knowledge-as-information is objective and exists independently of human beings; that everything can be reduced into information; and that generating ever more amounts of information will increase the transparency of society and, thus, lead to the rational management of social problems. However, as argued in this paper, the information society is riddled with paradoxes that prevent it from satisfying the temptations it creates. More information may lead to less understanding; more information may undermine trust; and more information may make society less rationally governable. These claims are illustrated with examples from the UK and the USA.

What is Reflection-in-Action? A Phenomenological Account

Building on the work of Donald Schon and phenomenological treatments of practice, we propose a phenomenological theory of reflection-in-action that develops this concept further, thereby transcending a number of limitations we find in his theorizing. Our theory includes: an appreciation for the evaluative dimensions built into competent practice that encourage, if not require, reflecting; a further theorizing of the character of surprise; and a fuller delineation of the character of improvisation in relation to practice and its surprises. We begin with a phenomenological account of cognition in relation to work, especially in its form of professional practice. We reframe Schons arguments in phenomenological, especially Heideggerian, terms and take account of relatively recent theorizing about knowledge-based work, illustrating these discussions with a vignette drawn from field research in the world of practice. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these arguments for practitioners as well as for further theorizing.

Analogical Reasoning and Knowledge Generation in Organization Theory

This paper reviews and evaluates the cognitive status to which metaphors and analogies have been ascribed in the process of knowledge generation in organiza tion theory. Three perspectives are identified: metaphors as ways of thinking, metaphors as dispensable literary devices, and metaphors as potential ideological distortions. The main tenets of each one of them are reviewed and subsequently submitted to criticism. It is argued here that, despite their differing claims, the preceding perspectives converge on the assumption that there is a gap between metaphorical and scientific languages. The grounds for the existence of this gap are challenged in this paper, noting that the structure-mapping theory of analogy provides a methodology for developing metaphorical insights to yield scientific models and theories.

Afterword: why language matters in the analysis of organizational change

Purpose – This invited article aims to show how the papers in the special issue highlight the advantages of using discourse analysis in order to contribute to our understanding of organizational change.Design/methodology/approach – The article begins by exploring the traditional perspectives used to make sense of organizational change including the behaviorist and cognitivist views. It then discusses how the papers in the special issue highlight the advantages of using discourse analysis.Findings – Compared to either the behaviorist or cognitivist perspectives, a discourse analytic approach is shown to offer greater potential for understanding the nature and complexity of organizational change, especially issues pertaining to the construction of stability and change, and the role of agency.Originality/value – Provides some insights into the advantages of discourse analysis in organizational change.

Introduction: Chaos, Complexity and Organization Theory:

Chaos and complexity science are part of an emerging new imagery in the scientific and lay cultures, which helps us conceive of the social world as chaosmos-a combination of chaos and cosmos, disorder and order. Notions like nonlinearity, sensitivity to initial conditions, iteration, feedback loops, novelty, process, emergence and unpredictability, which for a long time were not part of mainstream science, have now come to the fore and furnish us with a new vocabulary in terms of which we may attempt to redescribe organizations, and the social world in general. The Newtonian style, whose most significant feature has been the pursuit of the decontextualized ideal, is gradually receding in favour of the chaotic style—the ability to notice instability, disorder, novelty, emergence and self-organization. For organization theory, it is argued that such developments are of great importance for they make central to our study of organizations) the notions of time, history, human finitude, freedom and circularity of behaviour. Moreover, the chaotic style, by privileging qualitative analysis, favours narrative descriptions of organizational phenomena.

David and Goliath in the Risk Society: Making Sense of the Conflict between Shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea

It is argued here that the victory of Greenpeace over Shell in the North Sea, in June 1995, exemplifies the empowerment of small organizations in the semiotic environment in which organizations in late modernity increasingly tend to operate. More specifically, it is argued that in late modern societies risk production tends to be at least as important as wealth production. In the risk society, symbolic power is of great importance, at times more important than economic power; social reflexivity, unfolding within a public discourse which favours post-materialist values, is an integral part of societal functioning; and the role of mediated communication occupies a central place. In a semiotic environment, business organizations do not only compete in the marketplace but, increasingly, in a discursive space in which winning the argument is just as important. These concepts are used to throw light on the conflict that broke out between Shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea, over the offshore dumping of a defunct oil platform.