The paper "Sociology Paradigms and Organizational Analysis" is a perfect example of a business article. Theories and theorizing are important features that every individual utilize every day. Some theories or ideas seem true or wise sometimes like the old adage ‘ You can lead a horse to water, but you can’ t make it drink’ are filled with common sense and are applicable to daily life. Theorizing and theories are based on concepts and abstraction. Concepts provide means and mental categories for organizing, sorting and storing experiences in memory while ideas are formed through a process known as abstraction.
Thus, the abstractions and concepts lead psychologists, scholars, researchers and scientist into the development of different perspectives (multiple perspectives) of organizational theories. This is true for multiple perspectives: symbolic-interpretive, modern and postmodern (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The theories and concepts of specific perspective offer specific tools that help in creating ideas about organizing and organizations. From a personal view, some perspectives provide greater appeal for certain purpose compared to others. Therefore, understanding and having more knowledge of multiple perspectives, theories and concepts improve the position that an individual and managers will choose a useful approach to accomplish complexities that they face in their organizations.
Some of the people who championed the idea of multi perspectives were British theorist Gareth Morgan and sociologist Gibson Burrell in the idea 1979 book Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Burrell and Morgan argued that knowledge is based on different paradigms with which each comes with different assumptions about the world; thus from them, paradigms helps researchers to expound phenomena in different ways. Assumptions, beliefs and knowledge determine the way researchers will research, how leaders will manage their organizations and the relationship between different entities within the world (Miller, 1956).
Moreover, many organizations operate in uncertain, complex and contradictory situations, and this calls upon managers, employees to devise ways to utilize less to expect more, maximize short and long term investment and be more efficient in ensuring and championing an ethical and humane environment.
Burrell, G. (1994). Modernism, Postmodernism and organizational Analysis 4: The Contribution of Jurgen Habermas. Organization Studies, (15)1, 1-45. DOI: 10.1177/017084069401500101
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociology Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann Publishers.
Cassell, C., Buehring, A., Symon, G. and Johnson, P. (2005). Qualitative Methods in Management Research: An Introduction to Themed Issue. Management Decision, 44(2), 161 – 165. DOI: 10.1108/00251740610650166.
Cooper, R. (1989). Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 3: The Contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organizational Studies, 10(4), 479-502. DOI: 10.1177/017084068901000402.
Goulding, C. (2003). Issues in Representing the Postmodern Consumer. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(3), 152 – 159. doi: 10.1108/13522750310478985
Hassard, J. (1988). Overcoming Hermeticism in Organization Theory: An Alternative to Paradigm Incommensurability. Human Relations, 41(3), 247-159.
Hackman, J. and Lawler III, E. (1971). Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55(3), 259-286.
Hage, J. (1965). An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(3), 289-320
Miller, G. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Mumby, D. (1997). Modernism, Postmodernism, and Communication Studies: A Rereading of an Ongoing Debate. Communication Theory, 7(1), 1-28.
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M. (1996). Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies, Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529-557. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258671