Advertisement

Complex Thinking and Computing Organization Facing Contingent Problems

  • Laura CarmouzeEmail author
  • Alan Sandry
Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Facing the reflexive modernity, social wealth production is systematically correlated with the production of social and technical problems. Due to the complexity paradigm and contingent approach, public organizations are conflicting with a “one best way” slant. Indeed, they are understood as computing ones and so they can adapt to a changing environment. The purpose of this paper is to understand how public managers deal with contingent problem solving and so to characterize computing organization. Through a qualitative methodology, this paper sheds light on an integrative model of computing organization able to solve contingent problems, with five dimensions.

Keywords

Complexity Computing organization Problem solving Organizational conflicts 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the sixth Conference “Philosophy(s) of Management”, organized in June, the 4th and 5th 2018 at the Institute of Public Management and Territorial Governance. We thank our colleagues from the Society of Philosophy and Management Sciences, who provides insight that assisted this research paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Laura CARMOUZE (author A) declares she has no conflict of interest and Alan SANDRY (author B) declares he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants (i.e. semi-structured interviews) were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attewell, P., & Rule, J. (1984). Computing and organizations: What we know and what we don't know. Communications of the ACM, 27(12), 1184–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 547–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barthes, R., & Howard, R. (1991). The responsibility of forms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carmouze, L., Hernandez, S., & Serval, S. (2019). Through the looking glass: What does strategic planning reveal in French local governments? In C. Hintea (Ed.), Strategic planning in local communities. A cross-national study in 8 countries (pp. 9–45). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2014). Evaluating qualitative research. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 677–696). Oxford: Oxford library of psychology.Google Scholar
  12. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration - theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cloutier, C., Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Lamothe, L. (2015). Agency at the managerial interface: Public sector reform as institutional work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead-long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elías, M. V., & Alkadry, M. G. (2011). Constructive conflict, participation, and shared governance. Administration & Society, 43(8), 869–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fung, A. (2007). Democratic theory ad political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fylan, F. (2005). Semi structured interviewing. In J. Miles & P. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 65–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1989). The transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haughton, M. (2014). Tackling complexities of cyclic inventory routing under conditions of limited modelling and computing capacity. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 17(3), 216–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hernandez, S. (2018). Paradoxical territorial management: The case of peri-urban agricultural areas. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(3), 539–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hințea, C. E. (2019). Strategic planning in local communities. In A cross-national study in 8 countries. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (1986). Computing and public organizations. Public Administration Review, Special Issue, 488–496.Google Scholar
  26. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. California: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Mintzberg, H. (1981). Research notes and communications what is planning anyway? Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Morin, E. (1986). La méthode: La connaissance de la connaisance. Anthropologie de la connaissance. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  33. Morin, E. (1992). From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 15(4), 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  35. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1959). Report on a general problem solving program. IFIP congress, 256, 64–91.Google Scholar
  36. Norman, D. A. (1986). New views of information processing: Implications for intelligent decision support systems. In D. D. Woods, E. Hollnagel, G. Mancini, & D. D. Woods (Eds.), Intelligent decision support in process environments (pp. 123–136). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(1), 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pollitt, C., Van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (2007). New public management in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poulis, K., & Poulis, E. (2016). Problematizing fit and survival: Transforming the law of requisite variety through complexity misalignment. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rasmussen, J. (1979). On the structure of knowledge-a morphology of metal models in a man-machine system context. Roskilde: Risø National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  42. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. Global modernities, 2(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seale, C. (2002). Qualitative issues in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 1(1), 97–110.Google Scholar
  44. Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. Handbook of learning and cognitive processes, 5, 271–295.Google Scholar
  45. Snow, C. C., & Thomas, J. B. (1994). Field research methods in strategic management: Contributions to theory building and testing. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4), 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spradley, J. (2016). Participant observation. Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management. A new normative for networked governance. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Teisman, G., & Van Buuren, A. (2007). Implementing NPM: A complexity perspective on public management reform trajectories. In C. Pollitt, S. Van Thiel, & V. Homburg (Eds.), New public management in Europe (pp. 182–196). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziler Inc.Google Scholar
  52. Wallensteen, P. (2019). Understanding conflict resolution. London: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Weiss, J., & Hughes, J. (2018). Want collaboration? Accept and actively manage conflict. Harvard Business Review, 83(3), 92–101.Google Scholar
  54. Woods, D. D. (1988). Coping with complexity: The psychology of human behaviour in complex systems. In L. P. Goodstein (Ed.), Tasks, errors, and mental models (pp. 128–148). Bristol: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  55. Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organizations, theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Public Management and Territorial GovernanceAix-Marseille UniversityAix-en-ProvenceFrance
  2. 2.Morgan AcademySwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
  3. 3.AbertaweUK

Personalised recommendations