Marginalization and Recovery: The Emergence of Aristotelian Themes in Organization Studies

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed a number of interesting shifts in the way people think about organizations. One of the most curious is the way in which much of the 'new thinking' is antithetical to mechanistic and rationalistic theories that have historically dominated organization and management studies. This paper investigates this shift, and argues that this new antithetical thinking can be interpreted as the re-surfacing, or recovery, of certain strands of Aristotelian philosophy, strands that were marginalized with the rise of scientific rationalism in the 17th century, before management and organization studies, as we tend to conceive of them, began. The discussion presented here demonstrates the traditional dominance of a disciplinary, mechanistic self-image in management studies, whereby the field drew its boundaries in such a way as to exclude anything 'other' than this. We argue that reconnecting organizational and management research with systems of thought other than those traditionally associated with the 'discipline', and adopting a 'kaleidoscopic' view of history, can enable researchers to think differently about key issues and inform future development. Key aspects of Aristotle's thinking are considered as a case in point.Descriptors: disciplinary management, postmodernism, practical knowledge, agency, Aristotle

Idiosyncratic musings on studying cases

“…Indeed, many have questioned the rationalist, positivist, and quantitative tradition and paradigm supporting project management research and practice (Bredillet 2010), and the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best practices, and the related development of project management "bodies of knowledge" (Winter et al 2006). This questioning mirrors a similar enquiry within social sciences (for example, Say 1964;Tsoukas & Cummings 1997;Flyvbjerg 2001;Boisot & McKelvey 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist "box," Toulmin (1990, p. 11) suggests a number of possible paths, summarising the thoughts of many authors:…”

“…Paradoxically, and interestingly, in their quest for so-called postmodernism, many authors build on "pre-modern" traditions such as the Aristotelian one (for example, MacIntyre 1985; Tsoukas & Cummings 1997;Flyvbjerg 2001;Blomquist et al 2010;Lalonde et al 2012). Authors such as Boisot & McKelvey (2010) suggest approaches to integrate the two traditions.…”

Virtue in Business: Alliance Boots and an Empirical Exploration of MacIntyre’s Conceptual Framework

“…The application of a specifically Aristotelian or neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics to business organizations has given rise to a steady flow of work (Koehn, 1995(Koehn, , 1998McCloskey, 1998McCloskey, , 2006Provis, 2010;Sison, 2003Sison, , 2008Sison, , 2011Solomon, 1992Solomon, , 1999Solomon, , 2004Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, for example). There is much to be gained from this approach.…”

The Handbook of Narrative Analysis

“…(Orr 1996: 2) Where the chief characters in Orr's study are very clearly the machines, a study undertaken by Patriotta (2003) at a Fiat plant in Italy draws attention to the political dimension of narrative knowledge, emphasizing how problem-solving narratives can be viewed as "detective stories" aimed at sharing social practices on how to deal with formal hierarchies and attributing or shifting blame. In this way, Patriotta's work is very helpful in broadening the scope of narrative knowledge beyond technical problem-solving into cultural knowledge or, more specifically, into phronesis, the practical wisdom necessary for handling political situations (Tsoukas and Cummings 1997).…”