CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 489Chaos, Complexity, and EducationComplex Systems and Decision MakingManagement and Organizational Studies

Complex Thinking, Complex Practice: The Case for a Narrative Approach to Organizational Complexity

Tsoukas, Haridimos, Hatch, Mary Jo·2001·Human Relations
DOI 10.1177/0018726701548001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Complexity is not only a feature of the systems we study, it is also a matter of the way in which we organize our thinking about those systems. This second-order complexity invites consideration of the modes of thinking we use to theorize about complexity, and in this article we develop the idea of second-order complexity using Jerome Bruner’s contrast between logico-scientific and narrative modes of thinking. Using Bruner’s framework, we examine and critique dominant forms of thinking about organizational complexity that are rooted in the logico-scientific mode, and suggest alternatives based in the narrative mode. Our evidence for the value of doing this comes from the logic of complexity theory itself, which we claim indicates and supports the use of the narrative mode. The potential contribution of the narrative approach to developing second-order thinking about organizational complexity is demonstrated by taking a narrative approach to the matter of recursiveness. By extension, similar insights are indicated for other features that logico-scientific thinkers commonly attribute to complex systems, including, nonlinearity, indeterminacy, unpredictability and emergence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018726701548001

Cites

166 of 166 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Much of the complexity literature on organizational communication is conceptual or theoretical in nature.

    “Much of the literature is conceptual or theoretical in nature, introducing the complexity approach to a specific area of study (e.g.Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011), providing alternative views or methods to the analysis (e.g.Corman et al., 2002), or reflecting the use of complexity science in the communication research in general (e.g.Tsoukas & Hatch, 2001).”

    From Complexity and Organizational Communication: A Quest for Common Ground (2016) · cites this paper as Tsoukas & Hatch, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 167 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Barrow, J., 1995, Nature’s imagination
  2. Capra, F., 1988, Uncommon wisdom
  3. Capra, F., 1996, The web of life
  4. Clemson, B., 1984, Cybernetics
  5. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., 1994, Communication Yearbook, 17, 193
  6. Davis, P., 1990, New Scientist, 1737, 48
  7. Dyke, C., 1990, The Philosophical Forum, 369
  8. Genette, G., 1992, The architext
  9. Kamminga, H., 1990, New Left Review, 181, 49
  10. MacIntyre, A., 1985, After virtue
  11. Meyerson, D., 1991, Reframing organizational culture
  12. Miller, J.G., 1978, Living systems
  13. Mulkay, M., 1988, On humor
  14. Pepper, S., 1942, World hypotheses
  15. Polanyi, M., 1975, Meaning
  16. Quinn, R., 1988, Paradox and transformation
  17. Salomon, G., 1993, Distributed cognitions
  18. Schauer, F., 1991, Playing by the rules
  19. 10.7208/chicago/9780226750224.001.0001 · DOI
  20. Shotter, J., 1993, Conversational realities
  21. Stewart, I., 1993, Predicting the future
  22. Tsoukas, H., 1994, New thinking in organizational behavior
  23. von Foerster, H., 1984, The invented reality
  24. von Glaserfeld, E., 1984, The invented reality
  25. Waddington, C., 1977, Tools for thought
  26. Waldrop, M.M., 1992, Complexity
  27. White, H., 1987, The content of the form
  28. Wilkins, A., 1983, Reframing organizational culture

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Strathclyde (GB)
  • University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Tsoukas, Haridimos
ORCID
Hatch, Mary Jo
Venue
Human Relations
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2001-08
Volume
54
Issue
8
Pages
979-1013
ISSN
  • 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-282X
DOI
10.1177/0018726701548001
OpenAlex
W2137373608
Semantic Scholar
11ac8f21ef439d6b4f53d6b2a123cd618bbe8d42
Cited by
489
References
167
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 33
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Human Relations (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Chaos, Complexity, and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
organizational complexity, narrative thinking, Bruner, complexity theory, recursiveness, nonlinearity, indeterminacy, unpredictability, emergence, complex systems

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