Conceptualizing change in organizational cognition

Q2 Social Sciences
Rasmus Gahrn-Andersen
{"title":"Conceptualizing change in organizational cognition","authors":"Rasmus Gahrn-Andersen","doi":"10.1108/IJOTB-07-2020-0122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeSecchi and Cowley (2016, 2018) propose a Radical approach to Organizational Cognition (ROC) as a way of studying cognitive processes in organizations. What distinguishes ROC from the established research on Organizational Cognition is that it remains faithful to radical, anti-representationalist principles of contemporary cognitive science. However, it is imperative for proponents of ROC to legitimize their approach by considering how it differs from the established research approach of Distributed Cognition (DCog). DCog is a potential contender to ROC in that it not only counters classical approaches to cognition but also provides valuable insights into cognition in organizational settings.Design/methodology/approachThe paper adopts a conceptual/theoretical approach that expands Secchi and Cowley's introduction of ROC.FindingsThe paper shows that DCog research presupposes a task-specification requirement, which entails that cognitive tasks are well-defined. Consequently, DCog research neglects cases of organizational becoming where tasks cannot be clearly demarcated for the or are well-known to the organization. This is the case with the introduction of novel tasks or technical devices. Moreover, the paper elaborates on ROC's 3M model by linking it with insights from the literature on organizational change. Thus, it explores how organizing can be explored as an emergent phenomenon that involves micro, meso and macro domain dynamics, which are shaped by synoptic and performative changes.Originality/valueThe present paper explores new grounds for ROC by not only expanding on its core model but also showing its potential for informing organizational theory and radical cognitive science research.","PeriodicalId":35239,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-07-2020-0122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

PurposeSecchi and Cowley (2016, 2018) propose a Radical approach to Organizational Cognition (ROC) as a way of studying cognitive processes in organizations. What distinguishes ROC from the established research on Organizational Cognition is that it remains faithful to radical, anti-representationalist principles of contemporary cognitive science. However, it is imperative for proponents of ROC to legitimize their approach by considering how it differs from the established research approach of Distributed Cognition (DCog). DCog is a potential contender to ROC in that it not only counters classical approaches to cognition but also provides valuable insights into cognition in organizational settings.Design/methodology/approachThe paper adopts a conceptual/theoretical approach that expands Secchi and Cowley's introduction of ROC.FindingsThe paper shows that DCog research presupposes a task-specification requirement, which entails that cognitive tasks are well-defined. Consequently, DCog research neglects cases of organizational becoming where tasks cannot be clearly demarcated for the or are well-known to the organization. This is the case with the introduction of novel tasks or technical devices. Moreover, the paper elaborates on ROC's 3M model by linking it with insights from the literature on organizational change. Thus, it explores how organizing can be explored as an emergent phenomenon that involves micro, meso and macro domain dynamics, which are shaped by synoptic and performative changes.Originality/valueThe present paper explores new grounds for ROC by not only expanding on its core model but also showing its potential for informing organizational theory and radical cognitive science research.
将组织认知的变化概念化
esecchi和Cowley(2016, 2018)提出了一种激进的组织认知(ROC)方法,作为研究组织认知过程的一种方法。ROC与现有组织认知研究的区别在于,它仍然忠实于当代认知科学的激进、反表征主义原则。然而,ROC的支持者必须通过考虑它与分布式认知(DCog)的既定研究方法有何不同来使他们的方法合法化。DCog是ROC的潜在竞争者,因为它不仅反对传统的认知方法,而且还提供了对组织环境中的认知的有价值的见解。设计/方法/方法本文采用概念/理论方法,扩展了Secchi和Cowley对ROC的介绍。研究结果表明,DCog研究预设了一个任务规范要求,这意味着认知任务是明确定义的。因此,DCog的研究忽略了组织转变的案例,在这些案例中,组织的任务不能被清楚地划分,或者是组织所熟知的。引入新任务或技术设备就是这种情况。此外,本文通过将ROC的3M模型与组织变革文献的见解联系起来,详细阐述了ROC的3M模型。因此,它探讨了如何将组织作为一种涉及微观、中观和宏观领域动态的新兴现象来探索,这些动态是由天气和行为变化形成的。原创性/价值本论文探索了ROC的新基础,不仅扩展了其核心模型,而且展示了其为组织理论和激进认知科学研究提供信息的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior brings together researchers and practitioners, both within and outside the United States, who are in the areas of organization theory, management, development, and behavior. This journal covers all private, public and not-for-profit organizations’ theories and behavior.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信