Fiddling While the Planet Burns: The Scientific Validity of Chaordic Systems Thinking

Abstract

In response to my refutation of their 2008 paper, Kira and van Eijnatten defend their refusal to retract their paper with a claim to scientific validity. This note examines the scientific validity of their approach, chaordic systems thinking (CST), using only the most basic criteria: respect for evidence, observing and reporting accurately and precisely, having an approach that is coherent, internally consistent, capable of generating propositions testable in real organizations and generating useful results. CST fails on every criterion. Instead of working on the best available evidence to advance research on the cooperative sustainable organizations that are required to deal with the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced, CST is attempting to solve a problem long since solved. It illustrates a serious malaise in social science. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Socially Sustainable Work Organizations: Conceptual Contributions and Worldviews

“…We share this view; we think it is necessary to theorize about sustainability in work organizations. Therefore, we disagree with Emery () in her argument that there are no remaining theoretical or practical challenges left in producing sustainable organizations. Creating further perspectives and approaches to work organizational sustainability will benefit from research venturing into new conceptual areas that may shed light, in an unconventional manner, on emerging present‐day organizational practices.…”

“…Her Research Note triggered us to consider our approach to socially sustainable work organizations further and to provide some additional views (Kira and van Eijnatten, ). Emery () has now authored a second Research Note. We thank her for drawing attention again to this important research area.…”

“…The journal has invited us to submit a Note in response. We have accepted the invitation but decided not to debate the various points mentioned in the work of Emery () in detail. We do not concur with her critique to our work, and it seems to us that fundamentally different ways of looking at reality play a role in the present exchange of Research Notes.…”

Socially Sustainable Work Organisations: A Debate

“…In a Research Note from 2011, Merrely Emery called our clarification of what we meant by OpST as ‘disingenuous’ and pursued to question the scientific validity of ChST. She also emphasised that there are no remaining theoretical or practical challenges in producing socially and ecologically sustainable organisations; OST(E) provides everything that is needed for the development of sustainable work systems (Emery, : 408). We responded (Kira and van Eijnatten, ) pointing out that our original paper (Kira and van Eijnatten, ) had offered a new conceptual contribution (and should be judged as such).…”

“…In response, we wrote a Research Note clarifying the sections of our paper that were subjected to critique (Kira and van Eijnatten, ). Since then, Systems Research and Behavioral Science (SRBS) has published two more Research Notes from Merrelyn Emery (, ) and one Research Note from us (2011) belonging to the same debate. After the most recent Research Note from Merrelyn Emery, the editor of the SRBS asked us to engage in the debate one more time.…”