Abstract
This chapter deals with questions of the history of ideas and conceptual issues concerning theoretical contexts of reference and epistemic foundations of organization theory. The developments of ideas and conceptual shifts of the various turns in the social and cultural sciences have also influenced organization research and, to varying degrees, shaped its basic epistemological mood. Today, for example, it is particularly developments within the framework of a broader cultural turn that emphasize the perspective of the communicative production and institutional stabilization of social forms. Against this background, this chapter traces meaning-theoretical argumentations within recent organizational studies along the concepts of operation, form, and type. These reconstructions and discussions reveal points of convergence between different theories and approaches, which have differing understandings of operativity, forms and meaning-typicality (German: Sinntypik). This does not mean a comparison of theories, but a basic search for traces of meaning-operational motives and communication-theoretical connectivities in social constructivist-oriented organization research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
If we take up the music-theoretical concept offered here, polyphony is based on consonance and harmony, since polyphony is based on a harmonic frame (uniform key, scales, harmonies). Incommensurability, on the other hand, describes – translated into music-theoretical language – dissonant and disharmonic relations. The recourse to terms and concepts from music, vibration and wave theory (cf. Pretor-Pinney 2011, p. 75 ff. and p. 207 ff.) in relation to human communication and social coordination phenomena has increased in recent years. The focus here is on fundamental questions about pre-linguistic communicative mediality and the coordinative functioning of sounds and musical forms. This perspective has been strongly stimulated in recent years by neuroscientific and anthropological research on the connection between musicality, cognition, emotion and sociality (cf. Levitin 2006, 2008; Sacks 2008; Spitzer 2002) and has also been widely received in popular science (Ball 2011; Drösser 2009). This raises and poses questions that have been and are still being discussed in sociology (Casimir 1991; Drepper 1992; Fuchs 1987, 1992b; Großmann 1991; Rotter 1985) as well as cultural history (Blanning 2008; Richter 1997) and philosophy of music (Adorno 1986, 1989, 1991; Becker and Vogel 2007).
- 2.
In this context, Ortmann (2004, p. 57) has pointed out that reflection theories (cf. Luhmann 1993) are by no means merely neutral observers, describers, understanders and explainers, but influence their subject matter by incorporating their ideas and knowledge into the communication of the subject matter (e.g. organizational self-descriptions) (cf. Ortmann 2004, p. 66).
- 3.
Current examples of this can be found in the managerialism debate, which we will discuss later.
- 4.
The relationship between theories and approaches requires explanation in terms of the theory of science and should not be ignored here. In recent years in particular, there has been a strong trend towards approaches and their multiplication in the social and cultural sciences. In terms of their cognitive consistency, approaches seem to be more low-threshold than theories, so that one can be more tentative and modest “on the road” with them than with “big” theories, which are sometimes perceived as “burdensome”. Methodologically, then, it often sounds as if approaches are closer to empirical phenomena than theories, which require more elaborate respecifications. Furthermore, approaches also seem easier combineable and quicker switcheable. This possibly minimizes the risk of being locked into one theory as a research individual. Following approaches is different from holding theories. Pathetically speaking, it almost seems as if the “time of theories” has expired and the different approaches within the framework of the different turns determine the scientific field. But this may be subject to a wave and sometimes fashion logic. We will revisit and discuss the notion of fashion later for the circulation of management ideas.
- 5.
What is remarkable about this in terms of the sociology of knowledge is that culture and institution are identity-creating semantics from the self-descriptive repertoire of modern society, whereby culture gains its social-structural plausibility as a comparative concept and institution as a concept of order and constitution. This will be topic again in the following discussions.
- 6.
- 7.
Bachmann-Medick speaks of research shifts instead of paradigm shifts. In my opinion, this takes the exaggerations out of what is happening and does not hang the supposed innovations and new developments so high:
A common view of the social and cultural world can therefore not be expected from the competing theoretical positions or even generations of theories in the cultural and social sciences. Corresponding to the turning away from ‘grand narratives’ and ‘master paradigms’, the turns in cultural studies are not ‘Copernican’. Much more cautious and experimental, indeed much more gradual, they help new perspectives and approaches to break through step by step. (...) It is never a matter of complete and comprehensive about-turns of a subject, but rather of the formation and profiling of individual turns and refocusings, with which a subject or a research approach can make itself interdisciplinary compatible. This results in methodological pluralism, border crossings, and eclectic methodological adoptions – but not in the formation of a paradigm that completely replaces another, previous one. (Bachmann-Medick 2007, p. 17 f.)
- 8.
Reckwitz (2000) elaborates his convergence thesis to the effect that the two main branches of the field of cultural studies, the structuralist-semiotic and the phenomenological-hermeneutic traditions, merge into theories of practice. I will not pursue this question further here.
- 9.
Or, as Bardmann puts it: “Work organizations cannot be depicted through concepts that symbolize unity. They can no longer be understood as structures of rationality or as contexts of domination without immediately having to consider either the irrationality or the resistance of the ruled or the powerlessness of the rulers” (Bardmann 1994, p. 35).
- 10.
Niklas Luhmann expressed the meaning-logical differentiality of a unit most clearly in the distinction between “means-end rationality and system rationality” (Luhmann 1968, p. 55 ff.), which expresses the simultaneous operation of different types of rationality as meaning logics in a unit. The late Luhmannian concept of paradoxical constitution and the thereby triggered intrinsic mobility of meaning units (cf. Luhmann 1997, 2000a) consistently thinks this idea further (cf. in detail Drepper 2018, p. 67 ff.). Within the framework of more recent approaches to organization theory, Nils Brunsson’s distinction between “rationality and irrationality” is certainly even more widespread (cf. Brunsson 1985). This conception also goes beyond the idea of structural multidimensionality and takes a meaning-logical constitutional difference into account, since rationality and irrationality mean different meaning-logics and not only structural aspects. Brunsson’s further conceptualization of talk, decision, and action deepens this direction by naming the operational level or modes of bringing about these logics of meaning. We will take this up again later in the text.
- 11.
The non-justification of the introduction of the three meaning dimensions and the rejection of space as a fourth dimension can be found in Luhmann (2002, p. 238 f.). One can follow this dogmatically committed. Or one can deal with it as experimentally as Luhmann himself. This is the option I choose in this text.
- 12.
Or as Günter (1994, p. 326) puts it for the peak phase of industrialization in Germany: “The modernizations happen in a mixture of experience and calculation. In the modernization push around 1900, a combination of production and science develops. Iron and steel stimulate the expansion of technical universities (...). The universities train qualified engineers and conduct research in association with industry.”
- 13.
Pfeffer (1997, p. 2) uses the methodological distinction individuals vs. situations to make clear what difference it makes in terms of organization theory whether one determines organizational elements via units of substance or temporalized units (events). Pfeffer (1997, p. 4) draws attention to the long tradition and dominance of the concept of behavior within organizational theory and attributes the attractiveness of the topos Organizational Behavior to its high connectivity in the field of intersection between sociology and social psychology (cf. Buchanan/Huczynski 2004). At the same time, according to Pfeffer, the theory and research field of Organizational Behavior has become very broad and unmanageable due to the high connectivity and interdisciplinary appeal, but also the simultaneous vagueness, diffuseness and permeability of the collective and bundling term “behavior” (cf. Starbuck 2003, p. 144). Pfeffer (1997, p. 42 ff.) also points out that behavior and action are often not kept apart in terms of basic concepts. Baecker (1999, p. 137) already tries to demonstrate the early subcutaneous conversions of basic concepts: “The decision theories of Simon and March and Simon are in a strict sense already communication theories of organization, even if they are still formulated as theories of action or behavior” (Baecker 1999, p. 137).
- 14.
Cf. Tacke and Drepper (2018, p. 42 ff.) on the conceptual-historical relevance and development of the system concept from a “conceptual scheme” to an object concept in the history of organization research. As a precursor concept, the concept of organism must be mentioned in the context of an “organology of organization” (cf. Türk et al. 2002, p. 93 ff.).
- 15.
In evolutionary theory and population ecology of organization, the connection of time and social perspective is also found in the concept of organization. Here, the question of social typification is understood via the population concept and the time perspective via life cycle models (cf. Kieser and Woywode 2006).
- 16.
The concept of communication has not been considered as an operative guiding concept within organizational theory for a long time, although communication theories of the organization were available early on with Chester Barnard and later with Lee Thayer. Interestingly, March’s seminal Handbook of Organizations (1965) contains an article on communication (cf. Guetzkow 1965), but not on action. In this article, communication is understood as a mode of activity in organizations, but is not yet discussed as a unit-constituting operation.
- 17.
Hannan et al. (2007, p. 12) also point out the breadth and need for specification, but at the same time the relevance of the notion of operation as a “fuzzy category” in the organizational context. Overall, the paper by Hannan et al. is an important contribution to the connection between linguistic operativity and the production of type, here autologically related to the production of different types of organization theory. They propose the development of a general theory of organization through translation from natural to formalized language, through “translation from natural to formal language” (9). Through formal translation, communicative everyday observations and descriptions of organizations can, in their view, be generalized into theoretical propositions. I am not pursuing this here, I just find the connection between language, translation and the production of typicality noteworthy. We will encounter this connection again in the text. All in all, the population ecology of organization in the context of a general evolutionary theory of the social (cf. Wortmann 2010, p. 111 ff.) represents a very important approach to the connection between form and typicality.
- 18.
- 19.
The distinction between the information paradigm and the materiality paradigm can be more precisely determined by adding further terms from the respective semantic field. The semantic field of the information paradigm includes terms such as meaning, event, information, knowledge, reception, construction, processing, communication, and selectivity; the semantic field of the materiality paradigm includes terms such as materiality, substance, resources, labor, production, allocation, distribution. The epistemological conception of the first case is an event-like relational construction of reality, that of the second perspective an ontology of particles and objects that can be produced, accumulated, developed and transferred.
- 20.
Disciplinary strategies of dealing with the concept of communication can be observed, cognitive differentiations, so to speak, which react to the concept and reach different degrees of theorization and systematization: Communication as a topic, object and circumstance, occasion for subdisciplining (institutionalization of subdisciplines in professional societies) and theorization (basic concept).
- 21.
The Grimm Dictionary of the German Language gives the following meanings for “uncanny”, among others: uncomfortable, restless, disturbing, unfamiliar, unusual, alarming and dangerous (cf. German Dictionary by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, vol. 24, sp. 1056–1058). But the uncanny also always has something attractive, appealing and exciting about it. For sociology, such a tension between rejection and attraction sometimes seems to emanate from the concept of communication.
- 22.
However, the concept of “mutualistic constitution” is not clearly handled in Luhmann’s theory. In the chapter “Double Contingency” (Luhmann 1984, p. 157 ff.) Luhmann refers to a definition on the front pages of “Social Systems” (Luhmann 1984, p. 65). On the other hand, the term “multiple constitution” is found in a designated place. Which term now precedes, or whether both are to be put into one, cannot be clarified here. That Luhmann means by mutualistic constitution something like what Schütz calls “mutual knowledge” suggests itself. Although Luhmann attempts in the chapter on double contingency to proceduralize the social situation of double contingency through the entities involved in it and to no longer assume any antecedent structure, value or symbol systems as a condition of possibility – here against the Parsonian thesis of “shared symbolic systems” – this does not quite succeed, as the following quotation from Luhmann (1984, pp. 154 f.) shows: “Situations with double contingency certainly require, in order to get communication going at all, a minimum of mutual observation and a minimum of expectations based on knowledge” Cf. Ortmann (1995, p. 78) on the connection between mutualistic constitution and double contingency.
- 23.
For Parsons (1968, p. 43 ff.), the question of the multi-component unity of the act of action also stood in the foreground. And the concept that was available to indicate the component nature was the concept of system as a “conceptual scheme” (cf. Tacke and Drepper 2018, pp. 42 ff.). This is also how Parson’s dictum is to be understood: “Action is system”! The analytical decomposition of the “unit act” into its constituent components then revealed purposes, conditions, norms and actors. In this context, Parsons also justifies the subordination of the spatial category for action theory
While the phenomena of action are inherently temporal, that is, involve processes in time, they are not in the same sense spatial. That is to say, relations in space are not as such relevant to systems of action analytically considered. For the analytical purposes of this theory, acts are not primarily but only secondarily located in space. Or to put it somewhat differently, spatial relations constitute only conditions, and so far as they are controllable, means of action. (...) For it is safe to say there is no empirical phenomenon, no thing or event, known to human experience, which is not in one aspect physical in the sense of being capable of location in space. There is certainly no empirical ‘self’ known which is not an ‘aspect of’ or ‘associated with’ a living biological organism. (cf. Parsons 1968, p. 45, fn. 1)
It is possible that Luhmann was guided by this in determining the three dimensions of meaning and left it at the classification of space in the factual dimension (“means of action”) (cf. fn. 11 in this text).
- 24.
“Keywords” are socially structurally significant and referential words that address historically relevant issues and problems (cf. Williams 1976, p. 17).
References
Achterbergh, Jan/Riesewijk, Bernard (1999): Polished by Use. Four Windows on Organizations. Delft: Eburon.
Achterbergh, Jan/Vriens, Dirk (2009): Organizations. Social Systems Conducting Experiments. Heidelberg: Springer.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1986): Die musikalischen Monographien. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1989): Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie. Zwölf theoretische Vorlesungen. 7. Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1991): Dissonanzen. Musik in der verwalteten Welt. 7. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Austin, John L. (1975): How to do things with words. 2nd Edition, hrsg. von J.O. Urmson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2007): Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
Baecker, Dirk (1999): Organisation als System. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Baecker, Dirk (2003): Organisation und Management. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Baecker, Dirk (2005a): Kommunikation. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Baecker, Dirk (2007): Form und Formen der Kommunikation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Baecker, Dirk (2011): Organisation und Störung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Ball, Philip (2011): The Music Instinct. How music works and why we can’t do without it. London: Vintage.
Bardmann, Theodor M. (1994): Wenn aus Arbeit Abfall wird. Aufbau und Abbau organisatorischer Realitäten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Barnard, Chester (1938): The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Becker, Alexander/Vogel, Matthias (Hrsg.) (2007): Musikalischer Sinn. Beiträge zu einer Philosophie der Musik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Blanning, Tim (2008): The Triumph of Music. London: Penguin.
Bonazzi, Giuseppe (2008): Geschichte des organisatorischen Denkens. Wiesbaden: VS.
Boje, David M. (2008): Storytelling Organizations. London/Tsousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Boje, David M. (2011): Storytelling and the Future of Organizations. An narrative Handbook. New York: Routledge.
Brunsson, Nils (1985): The Irrational Organization: Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational Action and Change. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Bühler (1934): Sprachtheorie. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.
Buchanan, David/Huczynski, Andrej (2004): Organizational Behaviour. An Introductary Text. Fifth Edition. Harlow et al.: Prentice Hall.
Burell, Gibson/Morgan, Gareth (1979): Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.
Burke, Kenneth (1969): A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Blumer, Herbert (1969): Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Casimir, Torsten (1991): Musikkommunikation und ihre Wirkungen – Eine systemtheoretische Kritik. Wiesbaden: DUV.
Chia, Robert/King, Ian (2001): The Language of Organization Theory. In: Westwood, Robert/Linstead, Stephen (Hrsg.): The Language of Organization. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications, S. 310–328.
Chomsky, Noam (1968): Language and Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cooley, Charles Horton (1909): Social Organization. New York: C. Scribners.
Czarniawska, Barbara (1997): Narrating the Organization. Dramas of Institutional Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Czarniawska, Barbara (1998): A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks et al.: Sage Publications.
Czarniawska, Barbara (2004): Narratives in Social Science Research. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Deutsch, Karl W. (1963) The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Dobbin, Frank R. (1994): Cultural Models of Organization: The Social Construction of Rational Organizing Principles. In: Crane, Diane (Hrsg.): The Sociology of Culture. Cambridge M.A.: Blackwell, S. 117–141.
Donellon, Anne (1986): Language and Communication in Organizations: Bridging Cognition and Behavior. In: Sims, Henry P. Jr./Gioia, Dennis A. et al. (Hrsg.): The Thinking Organiza-tion. San Francisco/London: Jossey-Bass Publishers, S. 136-164.
Drepper, Thomas (1992): Überlegungen zu einer systemtheoretischen Modellierung von Kunst und Musik. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript: Essen.
Drepper, Thomas (2003a): Organisationen der Gesellschaft. Gesellschaft und Organisation in der Systemtheorie Niklas Luhmanns. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Drepper, Thomas (2005b): Organization and Society – on the desideratum of a society theory of organizations in the work of Niklas Luhmann. In: Becker, Kai-Helge/Seidl, David (Hrsg.): Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies. Copenhagen: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press, S. 171–190.
Drepper, Thomas (2006a): Vertrauen, organisationale Steuerung und Reflexionsangebote. In: Götz, Klaus (Hrsg.): Vertrauen in Organisationen. München/Mering: Hampp, S. 185-204.
Drepper, Thomas (2008b): Organisationssoziologie im Kontext sozialwissenschaftlicher Organisationsforschung. In: Soziologische Revue. 31. Jg., Heft 2 2008, S. 147–159.
Drepper, Thomas/Tacke, Veronika (2010): Zur gesellschaftlichen Bestimmung und Fragen der Organisation „personenbezogener sozialer Dienstleistungen“. Eine systemtheoretische Sicht. In: Klatetzki, Thomas (Hrsg.): Soziale personenbezogene Dienstleistungsorganisationen. Soziologische Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, S. 241-283.
Drepper, Thomas (2018): Organisationen der Gesellschaft. Gesellschaft und Organisation in der Systemtheorie Niklas Luhmanns. 2., überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Drösser, Christoph (2009): Hast Du Töne? Warum wir alle musikalisch sind. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Eberle, Thomas S./Hoidn, Sabine/Sikavica, Katarina (Hrsg.) (2007): Fokus Organisation: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven und Analysen. Konstanz: UVK.
Fuchs, P. (1987): Vom Zeitzauber der Musik, in: Baecker, D./Markowitz, J./Stichweh, R./Tyrell, H./Willke, H. (Hrsg.), Theorie als Passion, Festschrift Niklas Luhmann, Frankfurt am Main 1987, 214–237.
Fuchs, P. (1992b): Die soziale Funktion der Musik, Ms. 1992.
Gergen, Kenneth J. (1999): An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage Publications.
German Dictionary by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, vol. 24, sp. 1056–1058. 16 Bde. in 32 Teilbänden. Leipzig 1854-1961. Quellenverzeichnis Leipzig 1971.
Giddens, Anthony (1992): Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.
Goffman, Erving (1980): Rahmenanalyse. Ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Goffman, Erving (1998): Wir alle spielen Theater. 7. Auflage. München/Zürich: Piper.
Grant, David/Oswick, Cliff (Hrsg.) (1996): Metaphor and Organizations. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Grant, David et al. (Hrsg.) (1998): Discourse and Organization. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Großmann, R. (1991): Musik als Kommunikation. Zur Theorie musikalischer Kommunikationshandlungen, Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Guetzkow, Harold (1965): Communications in Organization. In: March, James G. (Hrsg.): Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, S. 534-573.
Günter, Roland (1994): Im Tal der Könige. Ein Reisebuch zu Emscher, Rhein und Ruhr. Essen: Klartext.
Hancock, Philip/Tyler, Melissa (2001): Work, Postmodernism and Organization. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hannan, Micheal T./Pólos, László/Carroll, Glenn R. (2007): Logics of Organization Theory. Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hassard, John (1993): Sociology and organization theory. Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hassard, John/Parker, Martin (Hrsg.) (1993). Postmodernism and Organization. London/Newbury Park/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Hasse, Raimund (2003): Die Innovationsfähigkeit der Organisationsgesellschaft. Organisation, Wettbewerb und sozialer Wandel aus institutionentheoretischer Sicht. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hatch, Mary Jo/Yanow, Dvora (2003): Organization Theory as an Interpretative Science. In: Tsoukas, Haridimos/Knudsen, Christian (Hrsg.): The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, S. 63–86.
Hauser, Linus (2005): Kritik der Neomythischen Vernunft. Band 1: Menschen als Götter der Erde 1800–1945. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Hauser, Linus (2009): Kritik der Neomythischen Vernunft. Band 2: Neomythen der beruhigten Endlichkeit. Die Zeit ab 1945. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Hauser, Linus (2016): Kritik der Neomythischen Vernunft. Band 3: Die Fiktionen der Science auf dem Wege in das 21. Jahrhundert. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Kärreman, Dan (2001): The Scripted Organization: Dramaturgie from Burke to Baudrillard. In: Westwood, Robert/Linstead, Stephen (Hrsg.): The Language of Organization. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications, S. 89–111.
Kieser, Alfred (2002): Wissenschaft und Beratung, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Kieser, Alfred (2006a): Max Webers Analyse der Bürokratie. In: Kieser, Alfred/Ebers, Mark (Hrsg.): Organisationstheorien. 6. Auflage. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, S. 63–92.
Kieser, Alfred (2006b): Managementlehre und Taylorismus. In: Kieser, Alfred/Ebers, Mark (Hrsg.): Organisationstheorien. 6. Auflage. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, S. 93–133.
Kieser, Alfred (2006c): Human Relations-Bewegung und Organisationspsychologie, in: Kieser/Ebers (Hrsg.) (2006), Organisationstheorien, 6. Auflage, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, S. 133–168.
Kieser, Alfred/Woywode, Michael (2006): Evolutionstheoretische Ansätze, in: Kieser/Ebers (Hrsg.) (2006), Organisationstheorien, 6. Auflage, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, S. 309–352.
Kiss, Gábor (1989): Evolution soziologischer Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.
Kühl, Stefan (2004): Arbeits- und Industriesoziologie. Bielefeld: transcript.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1927): Propaganda Techniques in the World War. New York: P. Smith
Lazarsfeld, Paul/Berelson, Bernard/Gaudet, Hazel (1944): The People’s Choice. How the Voter Makes Up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Levitin, Daniel J. (2006): This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession: New York: Penguin.
Levitin, Daniel J. (2008): The World in Six Songs. How the musical brain created human nature. New York: Penguin.
Linstead, Stephen/Höpfl, Heather Joy (Hrsg.) (2000): The Aesthetics of Organization. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Luhmann, Niklas (1964): Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Luhmann, Niklas (1968): Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität. Über die Funktion von Zwecken in sozialen Systemen. Tübingen: Mohr (zitiert nach dem Neudruck 1973, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp).
Luhmann, Niklas (1971a): Sinn als Grundbegriff der Soziologie. In: Habermas, Jürgen/Luhmann, Niklas: Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, S. 25–100.
Luhmann, Niklas (1980a): Gesellschaftliche Struktur und semantische Tradition. In: Luhmann, Niklas: Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft. Band 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: S. 9–71.
Luhmann, Niklas (1981): Die Unwahrscheinlichkeit der Kommunikation. In: Luhmann, Niklas: Soziologische Aufklärung 3. Soziales System, Gesellschaft, Organisation. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, S. 25–34.
Luhmann, Niklas (1982): Autopoiesis, Handlung und kommunikative Verständigung, in: ZFS, Jg. 11/4, S. 366–379.
Luhmann, Niklas (1984): Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, Niklas (1993): Ethik als Reflexionstheorie der Moral. In: Luhmann, Niklas: Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft. Band 3. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, S. 358–447.
Luhmann, Niklas (1997): Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. 2 Bände. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, Niklas (2000a): Organisation und Entscheidung, Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Luhmann, Niklas (2002): Einführung in die Systemtheorie. Hrsg. von Dirk Baecker. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer.
March, James G. (Hrsg.) (1965): Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Martens, Wil (1989): Entwurf einer Kommunikationstheorie der Unternehmung. Akzeptanz, Geld und Macht in Wirtschaftsorganisationen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Mead, George Herbert (1934): Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Edited by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Mead, George Herbert (1938): Philosophy of the Act. Edited by Charles W. Morris et al. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Morgan, Gareth (2002): Bilder der Organisation. 3. Auflage. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Nassehi, Armin (2009): Der soziologische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Ortmann, Günther (1995): Formen der Produktion. Organisation und Rekursivität. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Ortmann, Günter (2003), Regel und Ausnahme. Paradoxien sozialer Ordnung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Ortmann, Günther (2004): Als Ob. Fiktionen und Organisationen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Ortmann, Günther (2011): Die Kommunikations- und die Exkommunikationsmacht in und von Organisationen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Macht zur Produktion von Identität. In: Die Betriebswirtschaft Jg. 71, H. 4, S. 355–378.
Parsons, Talcott (1968): The Structure of Social Action. Volume 1. New York.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1997): New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Pretor-Pinney, Gavin (2011): Kleine Wellenkunde für Dilettanten. Berlin: Rogner & Bernhard.
Putnam, Linda L. (1983): The Interpretive Perspective: An Alternative to Functionalism. In: Putnam, Linda L./Pacanowsky, Michael E. (Hrsg.): Communication and Organizations. An Interpretive Approach. Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications, S. 31–54.
Putnam, Linda L./Phillips, Nelson/Chapman, Pamela (1999): Metaphors of Communication and Organization. In: Clegg, Stewart R./Hardy, Cynthia (Hrsg.): Studying Organization. Theory and Method. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications, S. 125–158.
Putnam, Linda L./Nicotera, Anne Maydan (Hrsg.) (2009): Building Theories of Organization. The Constitutive Role of Communication. New York/London: Routledge.
Preisendörfer, Peter (2005): Organisationssoziologie. Grundlagen, Theorien und Problemstellungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Reckwitz, Andreas (2000): Die Transformation der Kulturtheorien. Zur Entwicklung eines Theorienprogrammes. Weilerswist: Velbrück.
Richards, David S. (2001): Talking Sense: Ethnomethodology, Postmodernism and Practical Action. In: Westwood, Robert/Linstead, Stephen (Hrsg.): The Language of Organization. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications, S. 20–46.
Richter, Klaus Peter (1997): Soviel Musik war nie. Eine musikalische Kulturgeschichte. München: Luchterhand.
Rotter, F. (1985): Musik als Kommunikationsmedium. Soziologische Medientheorien und Musiksoziologie, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Ruesch, Jürgen/Bateson, Gregory (1951): Communication. The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Sacks, Harvey (1992): Lectures on Conversation. 2 Bde. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, Oliver (2008): Der einarmige Pianist. Über Musik und das Gehirn. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Saner, Hans (1976): „Kommunikation I“. In: Ritter, Joachim/Gründer, Karlfried/Gabriel, Gottfried (Hrsg.): Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie Bd. 4. Basel: Schwabe Verlag, S. 853–855.
Schäfers, Bernhard (Hrsg.) (1995): Grundbegriffe der Soziologie. 4. Auflage. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Scherer, Andreas Georg (2006): Kritik der Organisation oder Organisation der Kritik? – Wissenschaftstheoretische Bemerkungen zum kritischen Umgang mit Organisationstheorien. In: Kieser, Alfred/Ebers, Mark (Hrsg.): Organisationstheorien. 6. Auflage. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Schimank, Uwe (2005): Die Entscheidungsgesellschaft. Komplexität und Rationalität der Moderne. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Schützeichel, Rainer (2004): Soziologische Kommunikationstheorien. Konstanz.
Scott, W. Richard (1986): Grundlagen der Organisationstheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Searle, John R. (1971): Sprechakte. Ein sprachphilosophischer Essay. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Shannon, Claude E./Weaver, Warren (1949): The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
Silverman, Hugh J. (1994): Textualities: Between Hermeneutics and Deconstruction. New York: Routledge.
Simon, Herbert A. (1947): Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York/London; Basic Books.
Spitzer, Manfred (2002): Musik im Kopf. Hören, Musizieren, Verstehen und Erleben im neuronalen Netzwerk. Stuttgart/New York: Schattauer.
Starbuck, William H. (2003): The Origins of Organization Theory. In: Tsoukas, Haridimos/Knudsen, Christian (Hrsg.): The Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, S. 143–182.
Stichweh, Rudolf (2000b): Systems Theory as an Alternative to Action Theory? The Rise of ‚Communication‘ as a Theoretical Option, in: Acta Sociologica Vol. 43, S. 5–13.
Strati, Antonio (1999): Organization and Aesthetics. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tacke, Veronika/Drepper, Thomas (2018): Soziologie der Organisation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Thatchenkery, Tojo Joseph (2001): Mining for Meaning. Reading Organizations using Hermeneutik Philosophy. In: Westwood, Robert/Linstead, Stephen (Hrsg.): The Language of Organization. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications, S. 113–131.
Thayer, Lee (1967): Communication and organization theory, in: Dance, Frank E. X. (Hrsg.): Human communication theory: Comparative Essays, New York: Holt, S. 70–115.
Thayer, Lee (1968): Communication and communication systems in organizations, management and interpersonal relations, Homewood/Illinois: Irwin.
Thompson, James D. (1967): Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw Hill.
Thorpe, Richard/Holt, Robin (Hrsg.) (2008): The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tietze, Susanne/Cohen, Laurie/Musson, Gill (2003): Understanding Organizations through language. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Tsoukas, Haridimos/Knudsen, Christian (Hrsg.) (2003): The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Türk, Klaus/Lemke, Thomas/Bruch, Michael (2002): Organisation in der modernen Gesellschaft. Eine historische Einführung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Watzlawick, Paul/Beavin, Janet H./Jackson, Donald D. (1967): Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: Norton.
Wehrsig, Christof (1986): Komplexe Organisation, Information und Entscheidung. In: Seltz, Rüdiger (Hrsg.): Organisation als soziales System: Kontrolle und Kommunikationstechnologie in Arbeitsorganisationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma, S. 93–102.
Westwood, Robert/Linstead, Stephen (2001): The Language of Organization. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Wiener, Norbert (1948): Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.
Williams, Raymond (1976): Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Flamingo.
Wortmann, Hendrik (2010): Zum Desiderat einer Evolutionstheorie des Sozialen: Darwinistische Konzepte in den Sozialwissenschaften. Konstanz: UVK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Drepper, T. (2023). Introduction: Basic Questions of a Meaning-Theoretical Organization Research. In: Operativity And Typicality. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42011-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42011-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-42010-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-42011-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)