Search Results

The received view of organizations is that they are tools used to achieve collective goals. This chapter presents the possibility that, like all tools that become cumbersome, obsolete, or simply inadequate, organizations can hinder organizing. Like tools, they do have a solid existence that cannot be ignored. And just like tools, they can be put to unexpected uses: they can become an obstacle to the achievement of collective goals. A return to the generic meaning of the term “organization” as a synonym of constructed order may reveal intricacies of organizing that have been obscured by the presently ruling conceptualization.

What happens when a new philosophy emerges from a supposedly non‐philosophical field? Must it follow the norm whereby a form of philosophy is recognized to be at work in this area (by a recognized philosopher, but one operating as an outsider), or by some kind of philosopher manqué (a native within the field) being discovered at work there (by this same outsider)? In other words, can something only be deemed “philosophical” in view of an implied subject who thinks in a particular way, discovering thoughts similar to those found in established positions of philosophy? What, alternatively, would it mean to think of a supposedly non‐philosophy realm, such as process organization theory, as immanently philosophical? This chapter explores the conditions by which, far from merely illustrating or applying extant philosophy (“Theory”), Process Organization Theory might actually be seen to create its own novel philosophical thoughts, immanently. By examining the non‐philosophy forwarded by François Laruelle, and the manner in which time and process resist any attempts to theorize them (to make sense out of them), we will outline a way of seeing process as a kind of resistant thinking (an idea first put forward by Henri Bergson) and, therewith, Process Organization Theory as a new form of philosophy. Interdisciplinary thought, on this view, is not about applying philosophy, but consists in philosophy renewing itself (making itself unrecognizable) by acknowledging how non‐philosophical realms (art, technology, science) might be capable of creating new philosophical thoughts. With that, however, must also come a transformation of what we mean by philosophy and even thought itself.

Process is an ambivalent term. Its use in organizational research and theorizing is widespread. Yet, there are important subtle differences in how the term is understood. Process may be construed either as an epiphenomenon of substantial organizational entities or as a primary condition of reality from which the phenomenon of organization spontaneously emerges. Each perspective gives rise to a different theoretical focus and agenda for the field of organization studies. In this chapter, I explore new avenues for understanding process and organization. I show that the idea of ultimate reality as formless, undifferentiated, and ceaselessly changing has been a basic intuition of the ancient Oriental world since time immemorial; one that remains widespread and influential in shaping contemporary Eastern mentalities and dispositions. I further show how this Oriental metaphysical attitude towards process, flux, and self‐transformation enables us to better appreciate the phenomenon of social organization as essentially the cumulative effect of a stabilizing, simple‐locating, and identity‐creating human impulse. From a process organization perspective then, organization studies ought to be more concerned with analyzing the dominant organizational mentalities involved in structuring social reality than with the analysis of “organizations.”

The introductory chapter elaborates on the relevance of a process perspective to studies of identity, and presents the eleven individual chapters included in this volume, which focuses specifically on the concept of “identity” in and around organizations. The constructing of identities—those processes through which actors in and around organizations claim, accept, negotiate, affirm, stabilize, maintain, reproduce, challenge, disrupt, destabilize, repair, or otherwise relate to their sense of selves and others—has become a critically important topic in the study of organizations. Part I of the volume presents seven chapters dealing explicitly with this theme, while Part II offers four complementary contributions that address broader issues in process organization studies.

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) was used to implement transformatory change in the Leicester Royal Infirmary, a large National Health Service (NHS) teaching hospital in the UK. This NHS Trust was under pressure to improve performance but at the same time it needed to retain the support of doctors and other health care professionals in achieving these improvements. This programme received support from stable top-level leadership and ‘hybrid’ help from both doctors and managers. This change, however, produced uneven outcomes and required managers to form partnerships with clinicians. This chapter introduces how BPR works and relates this with the limits of organizational transformation. Also, BPR here is presented as an example of process organization and not merely a managerial fad. This chapter generally looks at health care and hospitals from a management perspective.

The paper inquires into federal dynamics from a procedural perspective of constitutional reform processes. Distinguishing between formal procedures and actual process organisation the analysis covers selected cases of recent reforms aimed at changing the allocation of power among different levels of government. Theoretical reflections on constitutional reforms highlight two factors influencing constitutional reform processes: the type of conflict being either group or efficiency related and the territorial allocation of power of a political system. The analysis demonstrates first, that the type of conflict does not influence reform processes the way expected, whereas the allocation of power plays a more important role. Second, formal procedures of constitutional reform are rarely altered while process organisations display a greater variety but within established pathways. Finally, changes in the type of constitutional problems or shifts in the territorial allocation of power do not generate changes in the organisation of constitutional reform processes. Tensions between structure and process are highest within newly regionalised or federalised systems accelerating centrifugal pressures especially in case of group related constitutional conflicts.