Search Results

This essay describes different kinds of research questions, process perspectives, and types of explanations to argue pragmatically that the quality and coherence of process research will be enhanced when these ingredients of process research are aligned. A distinction is made between questions about process past (what has happened?), process present (what is going on?), process future (where are we going?), and process action (what should we do?); which are then associated respectively with the historical reconstruction, becoming/emergent, unfolding, and developing/control process perspectives. Each of these research questions requires a specific and distinct type of explanation, in terms of a unique sequence of events, a key event, a generalizable pattern of events, or a social mechanism. A hierarchy of logical relationships between questions and explanations is discussed, leading to implications for management research as well as management practice.

In the context of institutions, individual and collective action supposedly brought about intended or unintended change in institutions. Understanding such change then requires a thorough investigation of the relationship between social rules and social action, looking specifically into how human action becomes rule-making, rule-taking, and rule-breaking, or simply the implications of following a rule and how this affects the rule itself. However, the way that actors would respond to such social rules remain unpredictable, allowing for unanticipated consequences and other possible effects. This chapter attempts to explain the implications of social rules through the five sectors while showing how studying gradual change is essential in understanding the importance of time for social structures and how this may suggest a move from a system perspective to a process perspective.

This chapter aims to illustrate by example a perspective on similarity that has not received sufficient attention in the literature. For want of a better name, and one certainly exists somewhere, this is called the dynamic similarity perspective. Traditionally, the computation of similarity has been treated as a process acting over parts of static representations; this view is as fundamental to traditional models as it is to more recent alignment models of similarity. In contrast, the dynamic similarity view proposes that the whole processing context — whether that context is a past, present, or prospective one — can contribute to the conceived similarity of things. To put it another way, it stresses a class of ‘processing-oriented’ respects for similarity that have not been given due recognition in the literature.

Despite the increased use of process perspectives in management and organization studies, what “process” stands for remains highly ambiguous. This chapter develops a typology of the different meanings of the term process using the area of identity studies as the empirical context. In contrast to the “weak” and “strong” views of process within management and organization studies, the typology shows that there exists a continuum of process perspectives in between the “weak”/“strong” views, namely from process as (1) a transition state, (2) sliding, (3) narrative co-production, and (4) an ongoing accomplishment, to regarding process as (5) all-there-is. Several constitutive features of process that have not been previously illuminated are identified, including: ontology, time, space, and agency. Finally, the chapter discusses how the identified process views and their constitutive features can advance not only process research within the area of identity studies but also within management and organization studies more broadly.

Mainstream organization studies have long conceptualized organizations as structures imposing order on individual and collective practices. Many organization scholars see organizing as an ongoing process, given the ceaseless adaptative experience of organizations. After an account of the “process turn” in organization studies, this chapter identifies six key questions about the characteristics of organizing processes and analyzes the process orientation of pragmatism and the specific contribution of the main pragmatist thinkers to process thought. It clarifies the pragmatist responses to the six key issues: (1) Organizing is an intrinsic dimension of ordinary activity rather than a specific process reflexively examining activity; (2) organizing is a relational/trans-actional rather than (inter-)subjective process; (3) organizing is a teleological rather than self-contained and autopoietic process; (4) organizing operates segmentation and unification, spatializing and temporalizing at the same time; (5) organizing is both experience-based and creative, it entangles cognition and intuition; (6) organizing is ediated by signs.

Over the past fifteen years, organizational routines increasingly have been investigated from a process perspective to challenge the idea that routines are stable entities that are mindlessly enacted. This chapter summarizes what constitutes a process perspective on organizational routines, and document some of the major areas of recent inquiry, including change in routines, the role of artifacts in routine performances, and emergence of routines. Three other themes emerge from the various chapters that constitute this volume: (1) zooming out to understand routines in larger contexts; (2) zooming in to reveal actor dispositions and skill; and (3) innovation, creativity, and routines in ambiguous contexts. The chapters also inspire future research that can extend a process perspective on routines by further zooming out and in, and by potentially using this metaphor to connect distinct findings by scholars studying routines from different perspectives.

Clinical trial processes are what we repeatedly do in clinical research, but, unfortunately, the habit of excellence is not as prevalent as it might be. Processes are only as good as the ways in which they are carried out, so this aspect is worth looking at before examining the processes themselves. Excellence means the very best that is achievable in a given situation with the knowledge and resources available, and it is not to be confused with perfection, which is rarely attainable, and trying to achieve it is a waste of time. Although the rational implementation of the various approaches described later can help to make the clinical development process significantly more efficient, this will not in itself achieve excellence. Implementation needs to take place in a cultural, intellectual, and operational environment that lends the necessary support. There are many possible components of such an environment, but one can go far by • instituting some basic behavioral elements; • doing things as well as they can be done all the time; • simplifying processes; • not allowing regulations to develop into liabilities. I have included this section risking that it might be considered unnecessary and patronizing by some. After all, everybody believes that their behavior is impeccable, just as everybody is a perfect driver. It only takes a few people to behave badly to poison an organization (or to injure others). . . . Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. . . . . . .—Chinese proverb. . . . . .Good behavior is the last refuge of mediocrity.. . . . . . —Henry S. Haskins, stockbroker who was expelled for alleged misconduct and published his aphorisms anonymously. . . Can principles be applied that encourage positive, ethical, complex, and intelligent behavior without retreating into the lowest common denominator of mediocrity? One can argue the extent to which principles can help to achieve these objectives, but what is undeniable is that, in their absence, the results can be extremely damaging. This is exemplified not only by the poor performance metrics but also by the poor reputation of the pharmaceutical industry in the public’s view.