From theory to organizational practices--论文代写范文精选

组织系统也有显著的非线性理解，可以进行广泛的研究。考夫曼(1993)表明,两个主要参数影响复杂非线性系统。在一个复杂的交互系统中，当人类和他们的思想是长期和稳定的模式，潜在的复杂系统的行为就有研究的可能。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Abstract
In order to understand (some of) the rules that govern complex systems, and thus make theories amenable to real-life situations, whether in terms of empirical research or of specific applications to the real world of organizations, the number of factors that are considered typically has to be reduced. While this exposes the researcher to the risk of falling into reductionism, the amount of information in complex systems like organizations makes the explicit adoption of certain viewpoints necessary. The difficulty in doing so is the need to deal with a defined number of variables as elements belonging to a complex system which is characterized by dynamic feedback, circularity and autopoiesis. Being aware that the scope of the research is limited and that a set of interpretive lenses is unavoidably adopted prevents the absolutization of the results and makes interdisciplinarity possible (Morval, 1993). In the field of organizational learning, different points of view may be adopted which emphasize the variables and the relations between them that make the analysis suitable to each social, economic, psychological, etc. domain. The choice of what to focus the analysis upon is the starting point that guides the analysis of the systems involved.

Systems characterized by significant non linearity can carry out a wide array of behaviours to keep their fitness (Bak 1996, Cohen and Stewart 1994, Lorenz 2001, Prigogine and Stengers 1985). Kauffman (1993) showed that two main parameters influence the dynamics of complex non-linear system: the number of agents and the density of their connectivity. The nonlinear nature of the interactions in a complex system is the reason why complex systems have a history and cannot be conceived without taking their context into account (Cillier 1998, 2000). When human beings and their minds are involved, identity is the long-term and more stable pattern underlying the behaviour of complex systems – specifically, of companies and other organizations. Identity is what defines an organization (Espejo, Schumann, Schwaninger and Bilello 1996). It shapes and influences the organization's structure, its specific spatio-temporal manifestations, and the processes, routines and procedures through which identity itself is embedded in specific contexts and situations (Zeleny 2005). 

The notion of identity can be understood in terms of subjective positions like ‘who I am’, ‘what my situation is’, ‘what I want to achieve’, ‘what I am going to do’ and so on. This is the foundation on which an agent – whether ‘economic’ or otherwise – frames its environment and situation, its actual and potential actions in that situation, and its interpretation of feedback received. An organization's (or an individual's) identity is not a static image, like a still life, but a complex process in which drives toward differentiation and integration are dynamically balanced. In the case of companies, and generally of organizations, several layers of identity need be identified: the organization itself, its subsystems, and the individuals. It is the relations between the participants on and across these various levels that creates the network's, the group's or the organization's distinct identities. 

The relation between the three layers mentioned is neither hierarchical nor one of reduction; the overall identity and strategy result instead from the complex interplay of semiautonomous systems (the term here is meant to include individuals) that affect each other while following each its own trajectory. Such trajectories include centrifugal and centripetal processes: a dynamic balance between the various types of trajectory is needed to maintain the fitness of the organization as a whole.

Organizations as actors: more than a metaphor 
By means of constant and distinctive patterns of choices that are relatively time – and situation – Independent, identity drives attention to certain issues and provides the language with which decision makers frame an issue (Dutton and Dukerich 1991). This paves the way to the possibility of considering organizations as particular kinds of social actors. This means that they can and should be considered capable of behaving in a purposeful and intentional manner, influencing individuals, shaping communities and their practices and transforming their environments (King and Whetten 2010). 

Therefore, organizations – and specifically companies –, like individuals, actually make choices, using their available degrees of freedom to enact strategies and complex actions that depend in turn on a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of the context and of the viable spaces it affords for interaction (Mate et al. 2010). King, Felin and Whetten (2010) claimed that organization theories are theories without a protagonist: ‘We rarely take the time to reflect on what makes an organization unique from other social entities. We in effect talk ‘around’ the organization rather than about it. We examine, make predictions about, assess the consequences of, and theorize the internal operations of and external influences on organizations; but our theories do not lend themselves to disciplinary introspection on the subject of the organization itself, specifically with regard to the subject of the organization as an actor.’ […] ‘Describing a human as an actor involves (1) an attribution of the ability to take action and (2) an attribution of intentionality based in a motivating self-view that guides or justifies action. In contemporary society, organizational action and human action are similar in this respect (Czarniawska 1997). Although organizations do not share the same structural attributes as human actors (e.g., nervous systems), they have similar functionality’ (King, Felin and Whetten 2010, 290 and 292).

Indeed it is common to consider organizations as actors and to ascribe them intentional states as a mere metaphor. To study individuals and organizations as well as the interactions that they enact, it is necessary to adopt a subjective perspective (e.g., Merleau-Ponty 1945, Nagel 1986, Varela 1996): interpretations and actions can only be understood from the viewpoint of the individual or assembly of individuals who entertains or carries out them. Subjective does not mean arbitrary, since feedback from the external world, albeit interpreted (vs. merely observed) by the agent, provides a counterpoint to its interpretations and actions and invites it to operate relevant changes whenever deemed appropriate. 

Identity thus is both an important source both of heterogeneity (e.g. King and Whetten 2010, Espejo, Schumann, Schwaninger and Bilello 1996, Zeleny 2005) and coherence (e.g. Baumeister 1998, Mischel and Morf 2003). The notion of identity is broadly used to describe organizations' self-definitions (Albert and Whetten 1985) as well as their peculiar categories, reference groups, and taken-for-granted labels (e.g., Zuckerman 1999, Rao, Monin and Durand 2003, Whetten 2006, Hannan et al. 2007). Identitarian issues are involved in institutional change (e.g., Washington and Ventresca 2004) and strategic group formation (Peteraf and Shanley, 1997) and as a reference for the formation of organizational culture (e.g., Barney and Stewart 2000). Identity is also one of the key tenets of autopoiesis theory applied to the study of organizations (Magalhães and Sanchez 2009).

An empirical test
Knowledge management and innovation in a sample of Italian companies The paucity of empirical researches has characterized, historically, the study of organizational learning (Bapuiji and Crossan 2004) and has deeply contributed to its lack of clarity. Jackson (2000) generalizes this issue, arguing that the social sciences are strong on theory, but relatively weak on practice; organizational learning appears to be no exception. In Jackson's view, social sciences seldom develop methodologies which Volume I, Issue 1, 2012 16 are oriented to giving specific guidance to policy makers and problem solvers facing real-world difficulties. Furthermore, most of the empirical studies use archival data. 

This results in serious limitations to their theoretical and practical impact. In a preliminary study conducted by our research group (Mate et al. 2010), which we will only outline here, we explored the interplay that appears to exist in companies between Human Resource Management and innovation. This complex, multicomponent, non-linear and dynamic interplay is often viewed as a ‘black box’. Organizations that survive and grow on the market are those that are able to express innovativeness. Innovation is an organization-level property, favoured by the organization's self-perception as a knowledge engine. We consider innovation an emergent property of the entire company, rather than its specific subsystem; this property is closely linked to the ability to construct knowledge and manage the dynamics of learning and change. If the organization is viewed as a generator and organizer of knowledge, human resources management (HRM) plays a central role in regulating, promoting and directing the learning process. 

Currently, however, the literature is not clear about what relations hold between HRM and the company's performance in the marketplace or its innovation profile (Wright et al. 2005). Even more obscure is the direction of this relation, the ‘what leads to what’ (Alcazar et al. 2005, Gerhart 2005). We devised a protocol to study the companies' strategies for training and development and their innovation profile. The protocol consisted in a questionnaire, suitable for companies which rely mostly on an inner training and development service. The questionnaire was administered to a sample of Italian firms from the food and beverages and the fashion markets. The questionnaire (about 100 closed questions) consisted of two sections: the first was aimed at evaluating the training system of the company, the second at assessing its level of innovation. The training system was decomposed into its Processes (setting up, designing, delivering and monitoring training interventions), Relations (the articulated network of actors involved in each phase) and Identity (the sense which is made of training and of the system who runs it within the company). Innovation was evaluated in its components of Product Innovation, Process, Organizational and Market. 

The two sub questionnaires were presented separately to the head of the HR or training function and, respectively, to the head of the production line. The questionnaire was submitted to a sample of 50 major Italian companies (over 150 employees) in the fashion and food and beverage (universe: 300 companies), in reference to the years 2006 – 2008. Some interesting correlations emerged between the processes and characteristics of internal training activities and of the subsystem that deals with them, and some facets of the company's innovation profile. Taken as a whole, innovation correlated significantly with (a) training planning and monitoring, (b) the capacity of the training function to build and maintain fruitful relations with the other actors within the company, and (c) the ability to make sense of training and to negotiate such sense with the other actors within the company. The latter point in particular points to the crucial role that HRM's attempt to pursue goals aimed at company development, in interaction with the knowledge it entertains about the company's history, identity, and activities, and so forth, plays in the internal generation of innovative processes.essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)