Paradox,Identity and Change in Management

Abstract

A few philosophical notions are explored that may be of some use to improve our understanding of the nature of identity and change of organizations in their environment. This may improve our grasp of some of the paradoxes that emerge from the present management literature. The philosophical notions are drawn from ancient (pre-socratic) philosophy, from post-modern philosophy (in particular the underlying philosophy of language of Ferdinand de Saussure) and from the “genetic (developmental) epistemology” of Jean Piaget. What these notions have in common is an attempt to understand the relation between order and chaos in change. How do qualitative, structural change and learning come about, and can one identify stages of transition? Understanding is seen as internalized action, whereby interaction with the environment is essential. Interaction is not a process arising from prior, fixed, independent identities, but identity is formed by interaction. Differentiation in actions of participants (people in organizations, firms in the market), and hence a looseness of control, is necessary to achieve novelty in the form of new combinations; a new synthesis. But when such novelty is achieved it is indeterminate, at first, and a tighter control is required to make the synthesis more determinate and to press for its utilisation. These differences between stages of renewal are related to different strengths and weaknesses of small and large firms. They also imply that there is not one single organizational form of control that is fit for all circumstances: different stages require different forms of control. This may explain some of the paradoxes in advice from the management literature.