Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T15:30:45.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systemic Barriers to Managing Change: Is Autopoiesis an Appropriate Metaphor?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Alma M. Whiteley
Alma M. Whiteley*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology, PERTH WA 6000, Tel: +61 8 9266 7714, Fax: +61 8 9266 3368, Email: A.Whiteley@info.curtin.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper reports on a study into the usefulness of autopoiesis as a metaphor for reflective thinking about organisations contemplating change. Autopoietic systems display qualities of evolutionary invariance, self organisation to perpetuate the system's status quo, self referential activities and attempts to organise aspects of the environment to suit the system's needs. Systemic characteristics include a desire to return to equilibrium and to be resistant to evolutionary change. Autopoiesis can be used as a metaphor for gaining insights and seeing with fresh eyes some of the perhaps hidden, institutionalised concepts that inform contemporary management strategies. The need for a metaphorical image emerges from the difficulty in reflecting on organisational activities while using historically derived language and symbols. The autopoiesis metaphor was integrated into an exploratory research project with human resource managers as respondents. Tentative findings were that this is a useful metaphor for use in organisational diagnosis. Given this, a more comprehensive study would seem to be worthwhile.

Keywords

• Evolutionary Change• Laneuage and Metaphor• Autopoiesis• Institutionalisation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , March 1999 , pp. 38 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barley, S and Kunda, G (1992) ‘Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse’ Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 37 pp 363–399Google Scholar
Black, M (1962) Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Boxall, P (1996) ‘The strategic HRM debate and the Resource-Based view of the firm’ Human Resource Management Journal Vol 6 No 3 pp 59–74Google Scholar
Briggs, J and Peat, F (1989) Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness New York: Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
Burrell, G and Morgan, G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis London: HeinemannGoogle Scholar
Chia, R (1997) ‘Essay: Thirty Years On: From organisational structures to the organisation of thought’ Organisation Studies Vol 18 No 4 pp 685–707Google Scholar
Dunphy, D and Griffiths, A (1998) The Sustainable Corporation St Leonards, Australia: Allen and UnwinGoogle Scholar
Dunphy, D and Stace, D (1992) Under New Management: Australian Organisations in Transition Sydney: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L and Reeves, T (1995) ‘Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and where do we need to go?’ International Journal of Human Resource Management Vol 6 No 3 pp 656–670Google Scholar
Ehrlich, C (1997) ‘Human Resource Management: A Changing Script for a Changing World’ Human Resource Management Vol 36 No 1 pp 85–89Google Scholar
Glaser, B and Strauss, A (1978) ‘Grounded Theory’ In Denzin., K (ed.) Sociological Methods New York: McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
Gleick, J (1997) Chaos: The amazing science of the unpredictable (Second ed.). London: MinervaGoogle Scholar
Griffin, DShaw, P and Stacey, R (1998) ‘Speaking of Complexity in Management Theory and Practice’ Organisation Vol 5 No 3 pp 315–339Google Scholar
Guba, E and Lincoln, Y (eds.) (1994) Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research California: SageGoogle Scholar
Hayles, N (1994) Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science Ithaca/London: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M (1972) ‘The Explanatory Function of Metaphor’ In Bar-Hillel, Y (ed.) Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M (1974) The Structure of Scientific Inference London: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M (1988) ‘The Cognitive Claims of Metaphor’ The Journal of Speculative Philosophy Vol 2 pp 34–44Google Scholar
Johnson, M (1981) Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
Kanter, R (1984) The Change Masters: Innovations for Productivity in the American Corporation London: Allen and UnwinGoogle Scholar
Kearns, D and Nadler, D (1992) Prophets in the Dark: How Xerox reinvented itself and beat back the Japanese New York: Harper Business PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Kurian, G and Molitor, G (1996) Encyclopaedia of the Future New York: Simon Schuster MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (1981) ‘Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language’ In Johnson, M (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis PressGoogle Scholar
Levin, S (1988) Metaphoric Worlds New Haven/London: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Levin, W (1988) Sociological Ideas: Concepts and Applications Belmount, CA: WadsworthGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, E (1963) ‘Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow’ Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Vol 20 pp 130–141Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B (1977) The Fractal Geometry of Nature San Francisco: FreemanGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H (1981) ‘Autopoiesis' In Zeleny, M (ed.) Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organisations New York: New HollandGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H and Varela, F (1972) Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realisation of the Living Dordrecht: RiedelGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G (1980) ‘Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organisation theory’ Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 25 pp 605–621Google Scholar
Morgan, G (1986) Images of Organisations Newbury Park: SageGoogle Scholar
Prigogine, I (1996) The End of Uncertainty: Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature New York: The Free PressGoogle Scholar
Ramsden, P (1979) ‘Student Learning and Perceptions of the Academic Environment’ Higher Education Vol 8 pp 411–428Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P (1977) The Rule of Metaphor (a Trans.) Toronto: University of Toronto PressGoogle Scholar
Schwandt, T (1994) ‘Constructivist Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry’ In Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research California: SageGoogle Scholar
Scott, W (1987) ‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory’ Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 32 No 4 pp 493–511Google Scholar
Senge, P (1992) ‘Mental Models’ Planning Review Vol 20 No 2 pp 4-10, 44Google Scholar
Stacey, R (1996) Complexity and Creativity in Organisations San Francisco: Berrett KoehlerGoogle Scholar
Stacey, R (1998) ‘Emerging Strategies for a Chaotic Environment’ Long Range Planning Vol 29 No 2 pp 182–189Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H (1998) ‘The world and the World: A Critique of Representationalism in Management Research’ International Journal of Public Administration Vol 21 No 5 pp 781–817Google Scholar
Ulrich, D, Losey, M, and Lake, G (eds) (1997) Tomorrow's HR Management: 48 Thought Leaders call for Change Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons, IncGoogle Scholar
Uribe, R (1981) ‘Modeling Autopoiesis’ In Zeleny, M (ed.) Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organization New York: New HollandGoogle Scholar
Varela, F (1981) ‘Describing the Logic of Living’ In Zeleny, M (ed.) Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organisation New York: New HollandGoogle Scholar
Veld, R, Schaap, L, Termeer, C, and Twist, M (1991) Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
Wallace, W (1998) Postmodern management: the emerging partnership between employees and stockholders Westport: Quorum BooksGoogle Scholar
Weick, K (1987) ‘Organizational culture as a source of high reliability’ California Management Review Vol XXIX No 2 pp 112–126Google Scholar
Weingart, P and Maasen, S (1997) ‘The Order of Meaning: The Career of Chaos as a Metaphor’ Configurations Vol 5 No 3 pp 463–520Google Scholar
Weisbord, M (1987) Productive Workplaces: Organising and Managing for Dignity, Meaning and Community San Francisco: Jossey BassGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, M (1994) Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organisation from an Orderly Universe San Francisco, C.A.: SageGoogle Scholar
Zeleny, M (1977) ‘Self-Organization of Living Systems: A Formal Model of Autopoiesis’ International Journal General Systems Vol 4 pp 13–28Google Scholar
Zohar, D and Marshall, I (1994) The Quantum Society: Mind physics and a new social vision London: HammersmithGoogle Scholar
Zucker, L (1987) ‘Institutional Theories of Organization’ Annual Review of Sociology Vol 13 pp 443–464.Google Scholar