[Xmca-l] Re: An article on the evolution of organizational paradigms you might find interesting

Wed Aug 23 04:00:03 PDT 2017

Thanks Andy!

Indeed! The great contribution of Neo-Schumpeterians such as Carlota 
Perez is that they systematize the history of changing technologies (of 
communication etc).
(Nikolai Kondratiev,  the pioneer of the Neo-Schumpeterian tradition, 
was a contemporary of Vygotsky; they share the focus on historical 
processes, possibly also the focus on complexity-capturing units of 
analysis. In a sense, Neo-Schumpeterian economic theory is to 
traditional neoliberal economic theory, what CHAT is to traditional 
psychology).
For all who are interested, I attach an article of Perez and a link to 
her current work:
http://beyondthetechrevolution.com/research-project/

As you say Andy, in our paper, we address organisations - half way 
between Psychology and Social Theory. And I agree, there is a connection 
to social and political organisation: New public management is, in my 
opinion, connected to what we call the Business process model 
(inaugurated by Business Process Reengineering). Finnish initiatives to 
move from “teaching by subject” to “teaching by topic” are possibly 
connected to efforts to overcome boundaries and create communities of 
practice (what we subsume under the new "Knowledge Management" model).
Kind regards,
Zlatko
> These are fascinating questions, Zlatko. There are lot of theories, 
> too, about how the changing technology of communication affects 
> psychology, from speech-only, to laborious writing techniques like 
> clay tablets and vellum, to pen-and-paper, to the printing press, the 
> telephone, the email, etc. The impact at the mezo-level, i.e., 
> organisations - half way between Psychology and Social Theory, is also 
> evident. Artefacts are the material bearers of culture after all. 
> Also, I have noticed that the evolution of management forms mirrors or 
> more likely, is mirrored by, forms of social and political 
> organisation. This is a very rich field for cultural psychological 
> research!
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
> On 20/08/2017 8:07 PM, Zlatko Bodrozic wrote:
>> Many thanks for your comments, Mike.
>>
>> Since I was a PhD student I was fascinated by Scribner's (1985) 
>> analysis of "Vygotsky's Uses of History,".
>> One could say that our paper (and my PhD) was inspired by her 
>> article. We study the connection between
>> (1) the long-term evolution of technologies
>> (2) the long-term evolution of organizational paradigms
>> (3) the long-term evolution of  management models
>> (4) micro processes of organizational and managerial innovation
>> (see the attached figure for a visualization)
>>
>> For the long-term technological processes, relying on a 
>> neo-Schumpeterian framework (Carlota Perez), we study subsequent 
>> technological revolutions (railway, steel &electricity, automobile, 
>> ICT). We argue that the emergence of a technological revolution in 
>> leading industries generates radically new organizational and 
>> management problems. The solution to these problems takes the form of 
>> a new organizational paradigm (professionally-managed firm, factory, 
>> corporation, network). This new paradigm emerges in two cycles. In a 
>> first cycle, we see the emergence of a new management model that 
>> represents a revolutionary break with the prevailing organizational 
>> paradigm (Line-and-staff, Scientific management, 
>> Strategy-and-structure, Business process). The appearance of this 
>> model typically generates unintended consequences (often related to 
>> human problems), which in turn prompt a second cycle that generates 
>> another management model that rectifies those dysfunctions and 
>> thereby rebalances and stabilizes the new organizational paradigm 
>> (Industrial betterment, Human relations, Quality 
>> management/organizational culture and learning, Knowledge management).
>>
>> (The connection to individual human development would be: An 
>> organizational expert working in the early 19th century, 
>> time-traveling into the present, would first need to master many of 
>> the lessons accumulated by the successive paradigms and models of the 
>> last century and a half. Each of the models that has left its mark on 
>> the overall evolution of management and organization offers a lesson 
>> for the individual.)
>>
>> We clearly see connections between this four processes, and—coming 
>> now to your question—we would also argue that there should be 
>> connections to the the longer-term evolution of social institutions. 
>> Actually, Paul Adler and I currently study the evolution of workplace 
>> communities—the fabric of workplace social relations—, and we are 
>> confident that we can make a connection to the 4 processes mentioned 
>> above.
>>
>> Regarding the question of an "orthogenetic principle": I need to 
>> think about this more. What we say in our paper is that the we see 
>> indicators of growing complexity of the division of labor, growing 
>> interdependence among actors, and increasing scope of the 
>> corresponding integration and control efforts. These indicators might 
>> be read as related to what Paul Adler (2012) calls the “socialization 
>> of production”, but we have to explore this more.
>>
>> Kind regards, Zlatko
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for this paper, Zlato. We have not heard from Paul on this 
>>> list
>>> for years, but
>>> his work has remained on the horizon. Now you have brought it back 
>>> to us in
>>> an interesting formulation.
>>>
>>> I was struck by the parallels between the way you framed your 
>>> question and
>>> the question that developmental psychologists (perhaps pedologists,
>>> David?):
>>>
>>>   we argue that technology is a powerful factor shaping the 
>>> evolution of
>>> management models’ contents
>>>
>>> a couple of months ago Roy Pea gave a talk at the Piaget society 
>>> meetings
>>> in which we made a very similar point with respect to the role of 
>>> culture
>>> in human development. Simplifying brutally, we argued that new 
>>> technologies
>>> entail changes in social relations that subsequently change the 
>>> environment
>>> of development for the en-culturating organism. This formulation, we
>>> suggested provided piagetians  to reconcile contradictions between the
>>> biological and the social sides of Piaget.
>>>
>>> The similarity of the arguments raises a question for me about 
>>> principles
>>> of development that appear non-accidently related at different 
>>> levels of
>>> analysis:
>>> 'individual organism, individual organism as constituitive of a social
>>> group, the institutional structure of the organism's environment, the
>>> structure of that proximal society and its relation to the 
>>> organization of
>>> the species of which it is a part. Does some sort of "orthogenetic
>>> principle" apply across different scales of social processes?
>>>
>>> Short of that, what are we to make of the "limited" differences we 
>>> see in
>>> the dynamics of different levels of the system in relative sychrony,
>>> perhaps a crisis, perhaps an opportunity?
>>>
>>> David has been point toward a sociology and linguistics to bring 
>>> together
>>> various apparently combinable mode of theorizing a CHAT account of
>>> development that generalizes across scales (themselves differentially
>>> mutable from the perspective of a single human organism). This work, 
>>> and
>>> that part of Yrjo's work focused on organisms seems to be pointing in
>>> similarly directions. If that it correct, it extends the links to 
>>> the study
>>> of social institutions, a topic currently of general interest in the 
>>> CHAT
>>> community.
>>>
>>> In any events, thanks.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Zlatko Bodrozic <bodrozic@web.de> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> some of you might find our paper (co-authored with Paul Adler) on the
>>>> historical evolution of management models and organizational paradigms
>>>> interesting. We published it this year in Administrative Science 
>>>> Quarterly.
>>>> While it is based on a Neo-Schumpeterian framework (Schumpeter, 
>>>> Freeman,
>>>> Perez),  it was equally informed by cultural-historical activity 
>>>> theory.
>>>> You can download a copy by using the link below, and we would be 
>>>> delighted
>>>> to get any reactions to it that you might share with us.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Zlatko Bodrožić and Paul Adler
>>>>
>>>> Bodrozic, Z., and P.S. Adler (forthcoming) The Evolution of Management
>>>> Models: A Neo-Schumpeterian Theory. /Administrative Science Quarterly/
>>>> Download <http://www-bcf.usc.edu/%7Epadler/research/models.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Zlatko Bodrožić

Email: bodrozic@web.de
Tel.:  +381-62-1769594
Tel.:  +49-172-4712341

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Camb. J. Econ.-2010-Perez-185-202.pdf
Type: application/download
Size: 131914 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20170823/7497dd1a/attachment-0001.bin 