The metaphor of organizing as explaining embodies a sense of continuity and process that is absent from much organization theory. With this as a guide, attention is focused on managing rather than management and highlights a temporal dimension that is often overlooked. In addition, explaining requires us to develop a different understanding of what more traditional theorists call paradox, which here is called explaining simultaneity. Through the voices of senior executives from large United Kingdom organizations, these concepts are brought to life, and questions are raised of more established approaches to organization theorizing. In this way, the metaphor of explaining takes us towards gestalt approach (in the simple dictionary sense of "organized whole") to understanding processes of organizing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agor, W. H.
(1989). Intuition in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Barnard, C.
(1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
Bartunek, J.
(1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355-372.
4.
Donnellon, A.
, Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Communication, meaning and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 43-55.
5.
Frame, R. M.
, Nielsen, W. R., & Pate, L. E. (1989). Creating excellence out of crisis: Organization transformation at the Chicago Tribune. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25(2), 109-122.
6.
Gagliardi, P.
(1990). Symbols and artifacts. Berlin: De Gruyter.
7.
Geertz, C.
(1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Gergen, K. J.
(1986). Correspondence versus autonomy in the language of understanding human action. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Schweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science (pp. 136-162). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Giddens, A.
(1976). New rules for sociological method. London: Hutchinson.
10.
Giddens, A.
(1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.
11.
Hayakawa, S. I.
(1990). Language in thought and action. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12.
Isabella, L. A.
(1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 741.
13.
James, W.
(1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
14.
Mangham, I. L.
, & Pye, A. (1991). The doing of managing. Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
McGrath, J. E.
, & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Time and behaviour in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 5, 57-101.
16.
Mead, G. H.
(1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Morgan, G.
(1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzlesolving in administrative theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 605-622.
18.
Morgan, G.
(1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Peckham, M.
(1979). Explanation and power: The control of human behavior. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20.
Peters, T. J.
, & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
21.
Pettigrew, A.
(1985). The awakening giant. Oxford: Blackwell.
22.
Pfeffer, J.
(1981). Management as symbolise action. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
23.
Polanyi, M.
(1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor.
24.
Pondy, L. R.
, Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., & Dandridge, T. C. (Eds.). (1983). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
25.
Pondy, L. R.
, & Mitroff, I. I. (1979). Beyond open system models of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 3-39.
26.
Poole, M.
, & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.
27.
Putnam, L. L.
(1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization-communication: Emerging perspectives (pp. 151-167). New York: Ablex.
28.
Quinn, R. E.
, & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.). (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
29.
Sederberg, P.
(1984). The politics of meaning. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
30.
Smircdch, L.
(1983). Organizations as shared meanings. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 55-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
31.
Smith, K. K.
, & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Van de Ven, A. H.
(1983). Review of In Search of Excellence: TJ Peters and RH Waterman. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 621-624.
33.
Van de Ven, A. H.
, & Poole, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation (pp. 19-63). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
34.
Wardell, M.
(1989). Comments on the preceding article-"Tayloristic Paternalism": A critique of the OD management style. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25(2), 123-125.
35.
Weick, K. E.
(1977). Repunctuating the problem. In P. S. Goodman, J. M. Pennings, & Associates (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness (pp. 193-225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
Weick, K. E.
(1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
37.
Weick, K. E.
, & Browning, L. D. (1986). Argument and narration in organizational communication. Journal of Management, 12(2), 243-259.
38.
Whitehead, A. N.
(1936). Process and reality: An essay on cosmology. New York: Macmillan.
39.
Wolf, W. B.
(1973). Conversations with Chester I. Barnard. Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press.
40.
Zimbardo, P.
(1973, April 8). A Pirandellian prison. New York Times Magazine, p. 60.
