Perplexities

Citation

Lundberg, C. (2008), "Perplexities", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa.2008.34516cab.002

Perplexities

Article Type: Perplexities From: International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Volume 16, Issue 3

As prior columns attest, there is much that perplexes me within the domain we term “organizational studies.” Of course, “perplex” is shorthand for being surprised, or noticing that which is unexpected, astonishing, puzzling, or difficult to understand. It also stands for that which bothers, causes worry or upset. While the ratio of being surprised/puzzled will vary, being bothered is a constant. To be perplexed is always in the eye and mind of the beholder because one’s experience, knowledge, and curiosity determines what one is prepared to notice. The field of organizational studies is primarily concerned, substantively, with knowledge creation and dissemination, scholarly inquiry and education. What we think we know, how we go about knowing it and about sharing it as well as how we think about such things, all are communicated similarly. In other words, we make and justify claims. Perplexities arise from the claims made implicitly and explicitly about the nature, accuracy and validity of phenomena and the extent and appropriateness of their justification. Thus, perplexities arise when claims and organizational justifications are simply speculative or casual, are not appropriately evidence-based, are unrelated to other empirically verifiable knowledge, or are founded on unreasonable ontological and epistemological assumptions. Sometimes, however, some things just seem foolish, silly, naïve, and always bothersome.

An editor’s letter informing me of his decision about an article I had recently reviewed prompted me to reflect on my experience as a reviewer and the quality of the papers I have commented on in recent years. I review a lot and consider myself an assiduous reviewer. His arduous and time-consuming work motivated primarily as an exchange for the many insightful reviews I have received as an author. So I looked over the rather large pile of my reviews to see what the patterns were. My first impression is how hard most authors work. This conclusion is based on the large number of references they include, the sizable samples they test, their time spent in the field, and the amount of sophisticated statistical analysis they conduct. Next I did a rough count of my review recommendations: 20 percent minor revisions; 40 percent major revisions; and 40 percent rejections. From a quality perspective, these rates are somewhat disheartening as prestigious journals are involved. Rereading my reviews, I compiled a list of common flaws. Many papers produced “strange knowledge.” In other words, the authors obviously poured over the literature rather than the phenomena, and the results were neither clear nor likely to be useful to organization members. Surprisingly, many papers are not theoretically anchored or not clearly so. Were they testing, extending or replacing extant theory? Many authors seem to believe that applied research is somehow “theory free.” A third, and common, flaw is the absence of an explicit research or inquiry strategy – as if methods are a design – or a selected research method was not defended. Methodologies for empirical papers were fraught with defects. Examples include the unexplained use of off-the-shelf measures to vagaries of data management, from mono-method bias to the social desirability and common methodological issues of many self-reports. Many papers simply avoided including a statement arguing why the focus of inquiry was significant. In other words, indicating why it was worth a reader’s time to read. Lastly, many empirical papers seemed to have truncated and theoretically narrow discussion sections. Why these flaws, and why so frequent? I can only guess the following reasons: pressure to publish may lead to small, quick work; scholars are perhaps too narrowly trained; and authors do not have their work critiqued by associates before submission. Regardless, it is my opinion as a reviewer that, in general, much of the scholarly work submitted to our journals is needlessly weak and this is very perplexing – especially since this work is so important to a knowledge society and costs so much time, effort. money and brain power to create.

Sometimes, when I am not making progress on some project, I let go of my focus and just “think around,” or speculate or fantasize about, or simply let my mind wander around, some topic of interest to me. Quite often that topic is my old friend, organizational change. For example, the other day I wanted to sketch out a comprehensive chart onto which I might map all known change interventions. So, I constructed a matrix. Along one axis I posited, from left to right, the major foci of organizational change: internal adjustment (e.g., managerial problem solving), external realignment (e.g., re-strategizing and crisis management), and anticipating the future (e.g. transformational and culture change). Along the other axis I listed, from top to bottom, the categories of major change strategies: engineering intentions (e.g., organizational development), emphasizing processes (e.g., action research, process consultation), learning (e.g., organization learning, learning organization, belief and assumption surfacing), and allowing natural change (e.g., self-transformation and self-organizing systems). I then began to fill in the 12 cells I had created with interventions. Those in the top row and the left hand side of the second row filled easily; after that the cells were sparse or empty. Of course, what I had shown was not surprising given that both the theorizing and action about organizational change is managerially centered. What is perplexing is the narrowness with which organizational change is conceived and practiced. It appears as if there is much room for scholarship as well as innovation. Why there is so little of this is perplexing. A second example of “thinking around” change began by characterizing change management via the many simplifying images and catchy slogans in the practitioner literature – managing as catching and riding the “wave of change” in “today’s turbulent environment” as “the pace of change quickens” in the “new realities of the age of unreason” while coping with conditions of “permanent white water” and “thriving on chaos” in a “postindustrial society.” As clever and seductive as such sayings are they do gloss and distort. My observation of contemporary organizations does suggest that stability is an anachronism, that everything is changing but not at the same rate and that many organizations are inertial with regard to change. That is to say, they seem to be stuck at some level or zone of changefulness. If so, it suggests that real change should be focused on moving or removing inertial zones. I don’t know of anyone studying this and that is perplexing!

I serve as a “shadow consultant” to a small handful of management and organizational consultants. They periodically talk with me about their work with clients and my task is to help them minimize overlooking things that are important in their consultancy work. This is useful to them and interesting to me. We of course are trusting friends. One person who calls me is particularly insightful and creative in his diagnoses – he is truly a “pro” and I learn much from him. In talking with him about his current consultancy I happened to mention my impression that every one of his client’s problems seemed unique. He agreed and went on to note that he lists symptoms primarily so he and his client will not focus their problem-solving efforts on them. (I tell my case study students the same thing.) What strikes me as odd about this is how different it is from medical practice. Doctors carefully attend to a patient’s symptoms because particular sets of symptoms (syndromes) point toward particular diseases or illnesses. In organizational studies we have no explicit syndrome knowledge even though there are wise and experienced scholars, consultants as well as managers who have developed their intuitive know-how about problem indicators to a fine art and a lot of scientific knowledge. It is truly perplexing that something as obviously useful and important as organizational syndromes do not exist!

While a conscientious educator, I have never been really comfortable with my classroom performance. Thus, I used to regularly attend teaching conferences and workshops and talk over my course and class experiences with those of my colleagues reputed to be excellent even master teachers. And for years I eagerly have read many books and articles about course design, classroom management styles, pedagogical innovations and effectiveness, and so on, chasing the knowledge and skills that would enable me to become a great teacher. While I have my good days and even a few sterling ones, most of the time I am merely a mediocre-plus teacher. I was sorely vexed that the “secret,” if there is one, has eluded me. Not long ago I was hit by a sudden SF0 (blinding flash of the obvious) that there is no secret. Why? There is precious little learning theory in the discourse or scholarship about management or business education! No wonder I have not become a better teacher – without the guidance of some learning theory I had to ad lib in the classroom. I do hope someone will see the opportunity in this vexing, perplexing situation and begin to tap learning theory as the crucial criterion for educational endeavors.

Craig LundbergCornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA