CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 368Management and Organizational StudiesChaos, Complexity, and EducationManagement Theory and Practice

Don't Simplify, Complexify: From Disjunctive to Conjunctive Theorizing in Organization and Management Studies

Tsoukas, Haridimos·2017·Journal of Management Studies
DOI 10.1111/joms.12219
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this paper I argue that, rather than theory development aim at simplifying complex organizational phenomena, it should aim at complexifying theories – theoretical complexity is needed to account for organizational complexity. Defining the latter as the capacity for ‘nontrivial’ action, I explore a complex ‘system of picturing’ organizations as objects of study that provides an alternative to the hitherto dominant disjunctive style of thinking. A complex ‘system of picturing’ consists of an open‐world ontology, a performative epistemology, and a poetic praxeology. Complex theorizing is conjunctive: it seeks to make connections between diverse elements of human experience through making those analytical distinctions that will enable the joining up of concepts normally used in a compartmentalized manner. Insofar as conjunctive theorizing is driven by the need to preserve the ‘living‐forward – understanding backward’ dialectic, it is better suited to grasping the logic of practice and, thus, to doing justice to organizational complexity. We come close to grasping complexity when we restore the past to its own present and make distinctions that overcome dualisms, preserving as much as possible relationality, temporality, situatedness and, interpretive open‐endedness. I illustrate the argument with several examples from organizational and management research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/joms.12219

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Aristotle (2002). Nicomachean Ethics . Translated by Rowe, C. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
  3. Fredrickson, B.L. (2009). Positivity . New York: Three Rivers Press.
  4. Goold, M. (1992). 'Design, learning and planning: A further observation on the design school debate'. Strategic Management Journal , 13 , 169-170.
  5. Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action . Translated by Gaines, J. and Keast, P. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  6. MacIntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue . Duckworth: London, 2nd edition.
  7. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1993). Organizations . Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
  8. Montuori, A. (2008). 'Foreword: Edgar Morin's path of complexity'. In Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity . Cresskill, NJ.: Hampton Press, Translated by R. Postel, vii-xliv.
  9. Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity . Cresskill, NJ.: Hampton Press, Translated by R. Postel.
  10. Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice Theory, Work, & Organization . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Sayer A. (2011). Why Things Matter to People . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
  12. Sen, A. (1987). On Ethics & Economics . Blackwell: Oxford, UK
  13. Shotter, J. (2011). Getting It: Withness-Thinking and the Dialogical in Practice . New York: Hampton Press
  14. Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex Knowledge , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tsoukas, H.
Affiliations
University of Cyprus (CY)
Corresponding author
Tsoukas, Haridimos
Venue
Journal of Management Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-11
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
132-153
ISSN
  • 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6486
DOI
10.1111/joms.12219
OpenAlex
W2496552262
Cited by
368
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 1
FWCI
52.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Management Studies (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Chaos, Complexity, and Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
Keywords
organizational complexity, logic of practice, dualism, relationality, temporality, situatedness, interpretive openness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review