1 Introduction

Behind every theory is a philosophy that validates it. Theorists in economics and management sciences, for instance, are not exempt from the influence of the philosophy they have acquired in their sphere of life. The search for a methodology for human thinking implies that philosophy is the foundation of thinking and that the method of thinking drives the new theories that theorists create. Theorists unconsciously learn philosophy as they acquire social common sense, using it as the basis for their theories. It is well-known that theorists are subject to historical constraints, one of which is philosophy: Smith’s economics was influenced by Tocqueville, and Marx’s economics was influenced by Hegel. In addition, the philosophies that have influenced Western theorists are generally individualistic, and these philosophies have strongly influenced the economic and management theories built on them.

The emergence of AI has had a profound impact on the way humans think. If the inquiry into the methodology of human thought is called philosophy, then the emergence of AI is transforming philosophy. This transformation manifests as a radical leap from individualistic philosophy, prompting the birth of a new philosophy. This new philosophy will also serve as the foundation for new theories that theorists will create in the future. In this study, we call this new philosophy “organization philosophy.” This novel philosophy will change traditional individualistic philosophy, creating a new theory and type of organization that applies this new theory. In other words, organization philosophy will transform the way organizations are organized intellectually.

Here, AI refers to the use of computers in lieu of humans that perform more advanced information processing than human intellectual activities. The traditional individualistic philosophy in the West refers to an attitude that recognizes the individual human being as the subject of thought and action and thereby promotes the logical exploration of the individual. Scholars of organizational theory are also unwittingly tainted by the Western philosophical idea of personal rationalism and thus discuss rationality in a way that is bounded by this inheritance (Tsoukas 2019). This study fills the gap in understanding concerning the shift from an individualistic philosophy to an organization philosophy that must be recognized when AI participates in the thinking processes of individuals. If this argument is correct, this novel way of thinking will reshape any organization that uses AI.

Western individualistic philosophy has often pondered the good actions that individuals can perform. However, this question has an important limitation. If an individual self-identifies as good, he or she can then carry out any evil conduct unacceptable to others. For example, the theory of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) suggests that regardless of how good knowledge is created, when such knowledge is used to cause harm, such as to kill humans, it threatens the survival of humanity. Furthermore, organizational theory has seldom included any thought toward spiritual high-mindedness (Simon 1945). Any theory of organizational learning or organizational behavior emphasizes organizational efficiency; it does not indicate a higher ideal for human beings. The development of nuclear weapons, for instance, requires the support of science and technology and an organizational research and development system, which, when exploited in a malevolent spirit, can cause tremendous harm to humanity.

What are the implications of this new philosophy for future theory and research on organizations? Specifically, how will this new philosophy change what researchers are currently doing? How will it impact the future of organizational theory and research? Specifically, how will it reshape the current research landscape? Contemporary theorists may be so busy formulating their own theories that they may not have had sufficient time to determine the philosophy for which they stand. As recommended when writing theoretical research papers, theorists are busy questioning the gaps between existing theories of organizations and reality to propose new theories. In doing so, however, they do not necessarily articulate the philosophy on which they base their own new theories. Can it be said that the theorists who have developed new theories of organizations have examined the philosophies upon which they stand?

In this context, organization philosophy is normative, meaning that organizations proactively shape their philosophy with the aim of exploring what constitutes organizational goodness. Within the realm of research, questions regarding what actions should be taken and what should be done hold significant importance. For instance, the field of economics traditionally focuses on calculating utility maximization. At first glance, such analysis may appear to be purely descriptive and devoid of value judgments. However, even in the selection of research topics, a certain degree of hidden intention comes into play. Furthermore, the decision of whether to publish research results obtained from the chosen research topic ultimately rests on the researcher's value judgment. In contrast, organization philosophy explicitly lays bare the intentions that traditional descriptive research conceals. What may have appeared to be an invisible hand guiding human actions is, in reality, a division of roles established to facilitate the societal division of labor, a concept hidden by methodological individualism. Individualism and its associated philosophical underpinnings are responsible for convincing individuals engaged in low-paying and challenging occupations that these roles are indeed necessary (Hayek 1944).

The collaboration between humans and AI will also bring about major transformations in the philosophical forms of thought. The emergence of AI has profound implications for traditional philosophy. First, it has become necessary to use the term organization to refer to the relationship in which humans and AI collaborate. When humans use AI to think, the activity is not individual. Second, AI does not think independently. Specifically, it does not initiate thinking on its own until the purpose or object of its thinking is defined by the human using the AI. This simple fact leads one to question the nature of philosophy based on traditional Western individualism.

2 Definition of organization

Barnard’s (1938) definition of an organization contains at least two patterns. The first defines an organization as “the cooperation of two or more persons” (Barnard 1938, p. 65) or “a system of consciously coordinated personal activities or forces” (Barnard 1938, p. 72). The second defines it as “a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons” (Barnard 1938, p. 73). Barnard (1938) states,

“It is evident from the foregoing that if persons are to be included within the concept “organization,” its general significance will be quite limited. The bases or terms upon which persons are included will be highly variable—so much so that even within very restricted fields, such as a particular industry, “organizations” will mean a side variety of entities. Hence, here again as when we included a part of the physical environment within the definition, the inclusion of persons may be most useful in particular instances, but of limited value for general purposes.

It nevertheless remains to consider whether it would actually be useful to adopt a definition from which persons as well as physical and social environments are excluded as components.” (p. 72)

This quote is preceded by a list of connections with “an engineer” in relation to organizations: He is (1) a citizen of the United States, the State of New Jersey, the County of Essex, and the City of Newark; a member of (2) the Catholic Church, (3) the Knights of Columbus, (4) the American Legion, (5) the Outanaway Golf Club, (6) the Democratic Party, and (7) the Princeton Club of Newark; (8) a stockholder in three corporations; (9) the head of his own family; a member of (10) his father's family and (11) his wife's family; and (12) “he belongs to other less formal organizations” (Barnard 1938, p. 72).

From this passage, one may surmise that Barnard realized that an organization could be defined even if there was only one person constituting it. Even if the population of Newark or the membership of the Outanaway Golf Club consisted of only one person, both the City of Newark as an organization and the Outanaway Golf Club would still exist. Even if “he” were the only surviving “member of his father's family” shown in this example, the organization “member of his father's family” would still exist.

To continue this line of thinking, the organization need not have people belonging to it as individuals. For example, even if there were no members of the Outanaway Golf Club, or even if all of “his father's family” were to die out, the members of the Outanaway Golf Club, and the organization of “his father's family” could still be recognized. At that time, the activity of an individual's participation in the organization may have ceased. However, a third party observing from the outside could recognize the Idea of the organization. This is an important point of contention when including artificial intelligence (AI) as a subject of organization philosophy. An organization consisting of two or more humans is easy to understand as a definition, but when a single human and AI work together, the definition of an organization is fulfilled. Furthermore, an organization with zero humans but only AI would also be considered to meet the definition of an organization.

Recall that Western philosophy can be characterized as individualism (Hayek 1948), which explores the existence of human beings. When Descartes (1637/2006, p. 22) stated the proposition “I think, therefore I am,” where the subject (“I”) was an individual, he presented his humble personality by emphasizing the importance of “myself rather than someone else”:

As for the benefit that others would receive from my thoughts being communicated to them, it might not be very great, seeing that I have not yet taken them so far that there is not much that needs to be added to them before putting them into practice. And I believe that I can say without vanity that if there is anyone capable of undertaking this, it must be myself rather than someone else; not that there may not be incomparably better minds than mine in the world, but because we cannot so well grasp something and make it our own when we learn it from someone else as when we discover it ourselves Descartes (1637/2006, p. 56).

The intuitive reader will notice that what is referred to here as “someone else” can be replaced by AI.

Indeed, a conversation with Alexa, an AI product developed by Amazon, is an example of the “creative reflex” (Horaguchi 2014, p. 191). When one says, “Good morning, Alexa!” Alexa will utilize its data and respond by saying, e.g., “Good morning! Today is May Day.” Here, the conversation is coordinated, corresponding to how Barnard (1938) defined an organization. One can also order products, listen to music, and obtain information using Alexa, whose breadth of functions is increasing daily. These functions, however, cannot be ordered by Alexa unless expressed through language. In this context, Alexa and “I” are connected by a piece of linguistic information to form an organization. One can perceive that both Alexa and I are in the process of organizational learning. Do these two entities have a philosophy when they verbalize their needs and responses?

Horaguchi (2014, p. 191) first proposed the concept of the “creative reflex,” the creation of new knowledge amid the interaction of diverse individuals. Horaguchi (2014, pp. 191–192) thus provided an example of an organization that consists of two people. One is a youth, whereas the other is an older adult with dementia. Even if the older adult’s brain does not function optimally, this organization can function with only these two people. The youth can learn certain universal precepts through conversations with the older adult with dementia. The ideas that occur to the youth during these conversations are derived from the “creative reflex.” Hence, we can replace the youth in this example with AI, Pepper or ChatGPT in our thought experiment. The humanoid AI robot Pepper was developed by Softbank in Japan. Pepper’s functionality is limited to speaking; however, Pepper is used in nursing care facilities for older adults and is expected to effectively prevent and slow the progression of dementia (Sato et al. 2020).

Interestingly, Descartes (1637/2006) demonstrated a limitation of his time by stating the following:

[W]e can well conceive of a machine made in such a way that it emits words, and even utters them about bodily actions which bring about some corresponding change in its organs, [but] it is not conceivable that it should put these words in different orders to correspond to the meaning of things said in its presence, as even the most dull-witted of men can do. (p. 46)

Traditional Western philosophy has established the individual as the unit of cognition. Western philosophers have typically viewed and expressed individual thoughts through discourse using language. Even in philosophy, e.g., the Platonic dialogs (Plato c.380 BCE), the question of the individual and society was a central element. Philosophers have asked how humans, as individuals, should live and what they should contribute. The nature of this inquiry has been either materialistic or spiritualistic, and a conflict has always existed between the two (Feuerbach 1866/1955). That is, materialism centers on the physical constraints that surround human beings; spiritualism envisions actions centered on the state of the individual mind. In either case, the individual is at the center.

Some problems have arisen from the prevalence of individualistic philosophies. Western philosophy is based on individualism and links rationality with utility maximization. This recognition is important because corporate activity is based on maximizing individual utility and exploiting the market through the division of labor (Williamson 1977, 1985). However, there is a limit to the idea that individuals’ selfish behavior can be adjusted by the invisible hand of God toward rational allocation of resources in the market as a whole.

Barnard’s (1938, p. 65) definitions of formal organizations involve a common purpose, a desire to work together, and communication, citing the military as an example of a formal organization. Although both the military and corporations are considered organizations, organizational science and organizational theory have not deeply considered which ethical norms should specifically apply to the military versus corporations or the reasons for their differentiation. If a particular army has the common purpose of ethnic cleansing and the indiscriminate bombing of military and civilian populations, then genocide is regarded as rational organizational behavior for that army. When a particular army conducts indiscriminate bombing of military personnel and civilians, its actions may constitute operations research but are not affirmed as human behavior.

AI can therefore potentially be used in many unethical ways. For example, AI-equipped drones launching suicide attacks against enemies have already been reported in the news. As recently witnessed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, serious inhumane acts may continue in warfare. In this case, we witnessed repeated indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the military. Hence, God’s “invisible hand” seems to encompass the process of killing people through war.

3 Thinking organizations

3.1 Organizations can think

In this study, the author aims to envision a philosophy in which the organization is the subject.

Proposition 1

Organizations can think.

Proof of Proposition 1

Given that individuals can think and that these individuals constitute an organization, we can prove the proposition that organizations can think. With this outline of proof in mind, we prove Proposition 1 by considering the two words “organization” and “think.” Following Descartes (1637), the author accepts the premise that individuals can “think.” Regarding “organization,” I follow Bernard's (1938) definition. That is, in his book, an organization is defined as “a system of consciously coordinated individual activities or forces” (Barnard 1938, p. 72). Thus, if two or more people constitute an organization, one, some, or all of them can think. This proves Proposition 1: “An organization can think.” Q.E.D.

The proof of Proposition 1, "An organization can think," is restated as follows: "Given that an individual can think and that the individual constitutes the organization, an organization can think." First, an "organization" is defined as a social framework composed of two or more individuals who share a purpose or goal and collaborate to achieve a certain outcome or result. Next, "thinking" is defined as the ability to process information through mental processes, such as perception, thought, judgment, reasoning, or memory, to perform tasks such as problem-solving or decision-making. Based on these definitions, the above proposition can be proven as follows: an organization is a social framework composed of two or more individuals who share a purpose or goal and collaborate to achieve a certain outcome or result. An individual can think. Therefore, if individuals are part of an organization, they can think within the organization. Because an organization is composed of individuals, and individuals can think within the organization, the organization as a whole can also think. Therefore, Proposition 1, "An organization can think," has been proven to be true.

If the proposition “organizations can think” is true, then it should be possible for organizations to construct their own philosophy. This is different from an individual-driven philosophy or a group-driven crowd mentality. Assuming this difference, it is necessary to consider from what standpoint individualistic philosophy has been established. By establishing the position of the pole star of individualistic philosophy, it is possible to determine the position of organizations and groups. Among the various individualistic philosophies that are presumed to exist, we discuss “methodological individualism” as a concept related to the social sciences adjacent to economics and business administration.

An example from soccer demonstrates that an organization can think. In a soccer game, the ball entering a goal is one of the potential outcomes of collective behavior, a shot. If this occurs, it is understood that a goal has been scored. Afterward, each team moves to its respective half of the pitch, and the conceding team resumes the game from the center circle. The soccer team, as an organization, thus recognizes the meaning of this outcome and responds accordingly.

The act of thinking in an organization involves communication among some of its members (March and Olsen 1975). For example, individuals within an organization can create networks with other organization members (Horaguchi 2008). Moreover, in addition to team play, since Le Bon (1895) first pointed out the herding behavior of mobs, social psychologists have theorized on the act of group thinking (Weick 1979). At least two other research areas have explored the verb “to think” in depth: neuroscience and AI studies. Neuroscience has made it clear that the act of “thinking” is accomplished through activity across diverse parts of the human brain, such as hypothalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus, which coordinate with one another (Squire 1992; Doidge 2007).

3.2 Organizations create knowledge

AI has demonstrated that nonhuman machines can present computational results that surpass human thinking ability (Silver et al. 2016, 2017). Hence, here, I present Proposition 2.

Proposition 2

Organizations create knowledge.

Proof

An organization is a social framework that is composed of two or more individuals who come together with common purposes or goals and work together to achieve certain outcomes or results. Knowledge, on the other hand, is a symbol expressed through the ability to process information, solve a problem, or make a decision. Based on the premise that individuals can create knowledge, individuals within an organization can create knowledge. If there is communication among the members of an organization, a common purpose, and a willingness to cooperate, this collective of individuals can create knowledge within the organization. Hence, considering that collective intelligence is created by a "system of consciously coordinated individual activities or forces" (Barnard 1938, p. 72), an organization can learn (Hedberg 1981). Through processes, such as information sharing, exchanging opinions, and problem-solving within the organization, new knowledge can be created. In addition, an organization has the memory necessary for interpreting and creating knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). By combining the knowledge and information that an organization possesses, new discoveries and creations can be made. Therefore, an organization can create knowledge through collective intelligence, and Proposition 2 can be considered true. Q.E.D.

Based on the concept of tacit knowledge defined by Polanyi (1966), Nonaka (1991), and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge creation constitutes the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in a workplace. Tacit knowledge is possessed by an individual and cannot be expressed in words. It becomes connectable knowledge through socialization, which entails verbalization to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Hadjimichael and Tsoukas 2019). Based on the wisdom of crowds proposed by Surowiecki (2005), the creation of collective knowledge through collaboration by individuals or by interorganizational groups has already been explicitly discussed (Fiol and Lyles 1985; Horaguchi 2014, 2023).

4 Life of an organization

Because an organization is composed of several human beings, it can exceed the life span of a human being as a biological limit. Organizations, such as states, churches, and schools, often continue their organizational activities longer than humans. Considering the first proposition based on the above recognition, we can derive the hypothesis that organizations can be thought of as enduring. Barnard (1938) stated,

“The continuance of an organization depends upon its ability to carry out its purpose. This clarity depends jointly upon the appropriateness of its action and upon the conditions of its environment. In other words, effectiveness is primarily a matter of technological processes. This is quite obvious in ordinary cases of purpose to accomplish a physical objective, such as building a bridge. When the objective is non-physical, as is the case with religious and social organizations, it is not so obvious.

It should be noted that a paradox is involved in this matter. An organization must disintegrate if it cannot accomplish its purpose. It also destroys itself by accomplishing its purpose. A very large number of successful organizations come into being and then disappear for this reason. Hence most continuous organizations require repeated adoption of new purposes.” (p. 91).

Regarding the first proposition that organizations can think, one answer to the question of what to think about is organization philosophy. Organization philosophy is articulated when the members of an organization verbalize the reason for the organization's existence. As indicated in this paper, it is presumed that an enduring organization may generate a philosophy.

The difference between organization philosophy and individualistic philosophy, as discussed by the author, is the difference in the subject matter that produces philosophy. There is communication among the members of an organization, common goals, and a desire to collaborate. There is dialog. Individualist philosophy acknowledges the existence of dialog but sees the subject of philosophy in one person, the single speaker of that dialog. Individualist philosophy recognizes that subject as an individual and identifies the dialog as being built by the individual.

However, the multiple individuals in dialog, thinking as an organization, have in fact been described in diverse ways. The first is in Greek philosophy, represented by Socrates and Plato. Socrates emphasized and practiced dialog with the young philosopher. It is commonly understood that Plato documented the words and deeds of Socrates. According to Popper (1966), Socrates embodied democracy by preferring and practicing free dialog, but Plato, who wrote the record, was presumptuous and recorded Socrates' words and deeds, insisting that philosophers should occupy the position of kings. Popper's understanding of Plato (Popper, 1966) clearly explains the orientation toward military might that one senses when reading “The State.” Popper (1966) interprets Plato's understanding of Socrates as having the intention of advocating totalitarianism.

Descartes' (1637) identification “I think, therefore I am” is said to be the foundation of individualistic philosophy, and in Greek philosophy, which is referred to as the source of Western individualistic philosophy, Plato's discussion of “The State,” using Socrates as a subject, was born as an organization consisting of two philosophers. It was not generated by individuals.

5 Artificial intelligence as part of an organization

Since its advent, AI has defeated human world champions in various board games. Early wins by the AI Deep Blue in 1997 against the human grandmaster Garry Kasparov led to fears that human players would become obsolete (Hassabis 2017). The world Go champion was also defeated by a deep learning program called AlphaGo in 2016 (Silver et al. 2016, 2017). In Japan, the champion of a traditional board game, Shogi, was similarly defeated by AI in 2017 (Igami 2020). Since then, professional Shogi players have begun training using AI Shogi programs (Kohda 2020), resulting in a high win percentage. In these specific, rule-bound contexts, AI has been incorporated into human learning processes because it surpasses human ingenuity and provides learning opportunities for humans.

According to an August 2022 interview conducted by the author with the operator of a Shogi (Japanese style Chess) internet broadcast site, the site runs four AI programs on a single computer to broadcast Shogi matches. Three of the four AI programs make their own judgments as to which of the players has the upper hand and predict the proper moves to be made. Then, the fourth AI program makes a final decision based on these winning or losing judgment data and predicted moves. In other words, based on human conceptions, these four AI programs are organized to make judgments and predictions.

Proposition 3

AI can be part of an organization.

Proof of Proposition 3

The above proof of Proposition 1 has established that an organization, defined by Barnard, can be constituted by a single person, including any artificially intelligent force. Barnard (1938, p. 82) stated that official organizations involve mutual communication, the willingness to contribute to action, and the intent to achieve common goals. In Proposition 3, we therefore consider an organization consisting of both humans and AI. By recognizing AI as a participant in an organization, we acknowledge its potential to engage in mutual communication, contribute to actions, and work toward common goals, similar to human members. This demonstrates the ability of AI to be a functional part of an organization. Therefore, based on the above reasoning, we conclude that AI can indeed be part of an organization. Q.E.D.

In addition, Kohn (2013) asserted that even forests think, facilitating an anthropocentric approach. This process is rooted in the knowledge creation model of organizations. This assertion concerns a research target in anthropology beyond humans. In the current study, an organization is considered to display a thought process beyond this anthropocentric philosophy. Alternatively, a knowledge creation model must adopt broader perspectives on how organizations remember, calculate, notify, hypothesize, or represent themselves. Such an extrinsic perspective therefore demands a redefinition of the verb “to think” and a novel construction in philosophy.

In the realm of epistemology, inquiry into the intricate mapping of tacit knowledge via the theory of knowledge creation occupies a central position. Human cognition is fundamentally sign-mediated, regardless of whether signifiers manifest as oral language or written words. The cognitive process necessitates the acquisition of various forms of signifiers. Peirce (1868) first postulated the indispensable role of signs in human cognition and that sets of signs serve as vehicles for meaning comprehension among individuals. However, signs primarily convey information rather than inherent meaning. For instance, the sequence of DNA in isolation lacks any intrinsic significance. The information conveyed by signs does not innately embody meaning.

Knowledge therefore serves as the conduit through which one comprehends signs (Horaguchi 2014). For example, proficiency in binary code enables its translation into the decimal system, resulting in a specific numeral, which, in essence, constitutes new information. Notably, information can be disseminated without the knowledge of its recipients, rendering the quantification of information conveyed by mass media and billboards imprecise due to the indeterminacy of their audience. Conversely, the quantity of knowledge hinges on the recipient's comprehension of the information (Horaguchi 1996). Knowledge thereby attains its existence only when information is grasped and understood by human beings; otherwise, a given sequence of signs remains mere information.

This line of reasoning leads to a fundamental yet significant proposition: knowledge is inherently relational and cannot exist in isolation. The solitary act of reading a book and comprehending its contents seems to be an individual endeavor, but it presupposes the prior authorship of the book by someone else. Knowledge emerges because of the exchange of information, whereby information shared among individuals is construed as knowledge. Consequently, knowledge is inherently a product of collective human interaction. Thus, knowledge transmission must occur through various modalities: one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, and many-to-many relationships.

The concept of tacit knowledge was pivotally applied in the field of evolutionary managerial economics, notably by Nelson and Winter (1985). In their exploration of the evolution of management practices, they attributed a central role to tacit knowledge in driving routine operations within firms. In Chapter 4 of their work, they delved into the significance of skills that require tacit knowledge. Within this framework, the manager plays a critical role in amalgamating the tacit knowledge possessed by employees, fostering the emergence of innovation through insightful inquiries, which arise from anomalies within established routines (Nelson and Winter 1985, p. 128).

In addition, the theory of knowledge creation proposed by Nonaka (1991) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) posits that knowledge generation hinges on the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Case studies, including the development of automatic electric baking ovens and the design of automobiles, underscore the paramount importance of tacit knowledge in this framework. Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1995) theory of knowledge creation centralizing the concept of tacit knowledge therefore offers valuable insights into how organizations can navigate the complexities of a rapidly evolving business environment. By operating in alignment with this theory, organizations can foster innovation at their core.

6 Knowledge and paradigms

The term "paradigm" is a cornerstone in the realm of knowledge, representing a collective understanding shared by a multitude of individuals. In contrast, "tacit knowing" typically encapsulates the nuances of individual knowledge. These two concepts emerged as responses to Karl Popper's seminal work on logical positivism in 1957. Popper (1944a, 1944b, 1945) critiqued the theory of developmental stages known as historicism and underscored the significance of formulating and testing hypotheses as fundamental procedures in scientific research. According to Popper (1957), science thrives on propositions that are subject to falsification. In subsequent years, two scholarly rebuttals to Popper's assertions gained prominence. The first response was Thomas Kuhn's paradigm concept introduced in 1962; the second was Michael Polanyi's notion of tacit knowing put forth in 1966.

Kuhn (1962) posited that major breakthroughs in the historical progression of science are not primarily the result of the logical refutation of hypotheses through experimentation, as advocated by Popper. Instead, Kuhn contended that scientific revolutions transpire when conflicts and shifts in paradigms occur across generations of scientists. These paradigms, akin to worldviews, are collectively embraced by groups of scientists. Hence, research conducted within an established paradigm falls under the rubric of "normal science" and typically contributes incrementally to the accumulation of knowledge. In contrast to Popper's view of scientific work, an endless cycle of hypothesis formulation and testing, Kuhn emphasized the overarching role of paradigms in shaping scientific thought.

Polanyi's (1966) concept of tacit knowing has played a pivotal role in expanding the boundaries of knowledge. He elucidated that humans possess a form of knowledge that transcends verbal expression, constituting a distinct mode of intelligence. This form of indefinable knowledge fundamentally differs from the knowledge conveyed through written or spoken language. That is, Polanyi argued that the existence of indefinable knowledge facilitates the "emergence" of new knowledge.

The concept of tacit knowledge has garnered significant attention and holds promise for the field of knowledge management. Tacit knowledge, as defined by Polanyi, encompasses knowledge that can be known but defies explanation through words. In his seminal work, "The Tacit Dimension," Polanyi highlighted the inherent corporeal aspect of knowledge, emphasizing that certain types of knowledge arise from experiential learning and skill acquisition, rendering them inexpressible through conventional language. This definition of tacit knowledge encompasses recognition, memory rooted in acquired skills, technological expertise, physical capability, and sensory perception, encompassing taste, touch, smell, and hearing. This inherently personal dimension of knowledge underscores its unique character. Moreover, in the realm of knowledge, a fundamental dichotomy exists between tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge eludes concise verbalization; explicit knowledge encompasses knowledge that can be readily articulated through language. Regarding explicit knowledge, the analogy of computer programming shows that what can be expressed within a programming language falls under the domain of explicit knowledge; however, what defies expression or necessitates modification within the confines of a programming language represents tacit knowledge.

The individualistic tradition of Western philosophy may be in danger of paving the way for the worship of the individual in authoritarian political regimes. Behind the support of authoritarian regimes is the worship of the individual, and individualistic philosophies may lie behind the emergence of individual worship. A selfish individual in an organization tends to ignore the societal code of ethics. If an organization makes no effort to maintain a code of ethics, it will create individuals who will engage in unethical activities under the auspices of the organization. To prevent this, the organization itself must be subject to philosophy. However, necessary attention has not thus far been given to this aspect of organizations.

Accordingly, we must propose a management philosophy that not only guides the management of individual companies but can also “carry forward the human mind to some new and valuable truth” (Peirce 1898/1931, p. 3992). Management and organization philosophy overlap in terms of their target areas. However, they are fundamentally different. Management philosophy underlies corporate management and the primary business of companies. It is related to the profit-oriented logic of organizations and involves the willingness to perform routine work in the workplace for profit (Dionysiou and Tsoukas 2013). For instance, a production management routine is followed in the manufacturing industry, whereas interpersonal customer service is practiced in the service industry. The improvement of such routines is within the scope of management philosophy. The accuracy of routine work is an everyday management philosophy issue. Quality improvements, such as ensuring zero product defects, are advocated by some management philosophies. Time and schedule management to advance routines, weekly/monthly/quarterly/semiannual/yearly operations, and performance management are pursued using management philosophy. Thus, management philosophy strives to secure profits by ensuring that routines are successfully carried out.

Organization philosophy thus ranks higher than management philosophy, influencing how the latter is implemented. Management philosophy is related to the profit motive, while organization philosophy is distant from it. A business’s organization philosophy determines how much of its profit should be donated as a social contribution. While management principles are based on making profits, organizational principles are concerned with how to return profits to society.

Diversity in our society should bring us high-dimensional organizational management that facilitates international comparison (Hofstede 1980, 2001). The “capitalist spirit” discussed by Weber (1919/1955–62) noted the effects of religious abstinence but also indicated that religion was “organized” (Warner 2007). Moreover, according to Durkheim (1897/1985), “the religious system can only be found in the presence of collective organizations” (translated from p. 352). More than 20 years before Weber (1919/1955–62), Durkheim (1897/1985) underscored the sociality of religion and the role of “collective organization.” Nor are the social nature of religion and the role of “collective organization” limited to Christianity; much work has been done on the impact of non-Christian religions on organizations (Hofstede and Bond 1988; McSweeney 2002).

7 Organizational cognitions: organizations and the social sciences

Organization philosophy allows the construction of philosophy as a social science. While terms, such as philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of management, exist, the term organization philosophy only exists in this paper. Given the wide possibilities for its application, organization philosophy may create a situation in which philosophy is no longer classified in the humanities but rather in the social sciences. This approach is akin to that of Hirschman (1970); i.e., people have options to exit or use their voice when they are loyal to their organizations. Both Hirschman’s argument and organization philosophy represent guiding lines in the human mind that can change how organizations are organized, which, in turn, can change the components of society. This study therefore incorporates AI into the process of knowledge creation among organizations.

Moreover, political science assumes the existence of organizations (Baylis et al. 2020), and political organizations represent people’s collective demands. Nation–states and political parties function as pressure groups, and their power structures facilitate interstate cooperation in international politics. Keohane (1984) analyzed interstate cooperation based on the concept of the regime, tracing organizational failure in the field of political science and researching the failure of military organizations during the Second World War.

The philosophy of economics is based on metaphysical concepts, such as value and utility (Robinson 1962). It thus mathematically describes the characteristics of an organization and links them with analyses according to game theory to create axiomatic propositions (Fudenberg and Tirole 1991). The economic analysis of organizations therefore partly overlaps with organizational psychology in the design of incentive systems (Milgrom and Roberts 1992). Specifically, the research theme of corporate governance concerns the stipulations provided in the Companies Act, which aims to regulate the behavior of corporate organizations; in contrast, the Antimonopoly Act regulates interorganizational behavior (Kahn 1988). Additionally, research on organizations addresses business law, which regulates corporate behavior in every industry. Nonprofit corporations also fall into the field of business administration, and Simon’s (1945) work effectively addresses the management of nonprofit organizations. Indeed, as this early research by Simon (1945) involved structured organizational theory for public institutions, political science and business administration were likely foundational elements of his research.

Information engineering, which involves human‒machine interfaces, is also related to organization philosophy. The focal issue in this research field comprises the functions that AI should perform (Silver et al. 2016, 2017). Two major categories of functions are typically implemented: those that meet the needs of individuals and those that meet the needs of organizations. What ethical standards should AI adhere to when meeting the needs of an organization? This must be discussed from the perspectives of both engineering and human‒machine interfaces (Duan et al. 2019). To that end, we require an academic discipline within social engineering that combines objective data with direction. Ethical standards cannot be derived from programming AI for knowledge management methodologies and therefore require a higher-level philosophy.

Accordingly, organization philosophy is a guideline for how an organization should execute its philosophy. Sociology is also linked to organization philosophy in the context of corporate management and in research on trade unions, which constitutes a tradition in industrial sociology. The field has also expanded from traditional research to other areas. Industrial sociology addresses the operations of nongovernmental organizations; the activity reports of nonprofit organizations; legal protections that safeguard workers’ rights; and issues faced by racial minorities, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT community.

8 AI and moral discipline

This study introduces the concept of organization philosophy because we live in an age of collaboration with AI in organizations. The departure from the extant usage of philosophy is thus necessary to incorporate AI into the field of philosophy. Organization philosophy therefore proposes that one should focus on the philosophy held by an organization. Moreover, whereas traditional philosophy largely focuses on individual inquiry, organization philosophy is based on collective knowledge (Horaguchi 2014) in organizations incorporating AI. Hence, organization philosophy is integrated into organizations’ strategy. That is, it constitutes the “implicit strategy” (Horaguchi 2014, p. 135), the strategy of organizations that exists within them implicitly and shapes the norms that various organizations construct for their survival. Following the metaphor of Schelling (1978), one could state that whereas personal philosophy concerns micromotives, organization philosophy is concerned with macro-behavior.

Knowledge can be acquired by both humans and AI, as both possess cognitive functions that involve sight, hearing, taste, touch, memory, and an understanding of the meaning of letters and symbols. However, AI cannot learn the difference between what it should and should not do through its activities. In this context, the author offers the fourth proposition:

Proposition 4

Human beings in AI organizations control moral discipline.

Proof of Proposition 4

As mentioned above, Wittgenstein (1922, p. 38) stated in his Proposition 4 that “the thought is the significant proposition”. We can thus assume that the definition of thought includes a value judgment on thoughts considered valuable or significant. As discussed above, philosophy generates “some new and valuable truth” (Peirce 1898/1931, p. 3992). Here, philosophy is defined as the search for normative guidelines based on cognition. Both Wittgenstein (1922) and Peirce (1898/1931, p. 3992) stated that humans, as moral agents, have a responsibility to exercise moral discipline. In AI organizations, human beings thus play a crucial role in ensuring that AI systems comply with ethical standards and norms and in preventing any potential harm from AI. Q.E.D.

In addition, the contracts that underpin our economic activities must be in line with the moral discipline of society, while societal contracts form the philosophy of an organization. One such contract exists between a company and an individual; however, the relationship between a nation and its citizens implies another. The latter involves a subjective redefinition of human rights in each country. The questions and propositions presented by philosophers have also resulted in ethical standards that humankind is expected to collectively meet (Nonaka and Takeuchi 2019). Thus, in our contemporary world, people are disgusted by cannibalism and incest, consider slavery unethical, restrict child labor, caution against the killing of civilians in war, and recognize women’s suffrage and basic labor rights. Moreover, as Veblen (1899) illustrated, conspicuous consumption in human civilization has fostered addiction to gambling and leisure.

Attention should also be given to the difference between philosophy and literature, particularly in the distinction between their ethical standards for the presentation of normative guidelines. For example, a brutal murder can be the center of a literary narrative. In a work of art, expression can deride ethical regulation by the government. Nor do any normative guidelines common to the past and present exist. Nevertheless, the Confucian thinker Mencius (c.340 BCE) and Smith (1790) both pointed to the existence of compassion or human sympathy for the troubles of others. Compassion is an important example of a normative guideline in the ethics of philosophy, which, in a broad sense, also includes the philosophy of doing good (Nishida 1990) and has taught individuals ethical norms (Taddeo and Floridi 2018).

An example of the moral discipline that underlies social contracts includes the establishment of standards for the promotion of women. An organization is formed through the cooperation of individuals, and organizations develop their philosophies through contractual relationships with other organizations and individuals. Sen (1992), for example, therefore focused on society’s potential to eliminate social inequality. The background of this proposition is that contractual relationships in the economy occasionally impose disadvantageous conditions on a given contractor (Rousseau,  1755). Many examples of employees being unfavorably treated due to their gender, race, or educational background exist. Humans are thus expected to exercise the moral discipline of deciding that an organization will not treat its employees unfavorably.

When AI is embedded in corporate management and treated as a component of an organization, it is necessary to verbalize the organization’s targets, directions, and risk management (Knight 1921). These aspects must be built into AI. Some organizations may express their philosophies through texts, such as company mottos, beliefs, or mission statements. In some cases, publications by well-known managers and politicians have outlined their management philosophy. However, organizational contexts are not universally similar; thus, such management philosophies must be relatively vague.

By 2021, AI information processing through deep learning had begun to become mainstream. We are thus in an era where implicit knowledge (Polanyi 1966) needs to be translated into natural or computer language. By examining and discussing organization philosophy based on its moral aspects, it is possible to increase the vocabulary of verbalization to teach moral content to AI. In the future, deduction, induction, and abduction, which Peirce (1864/1931) classified, should also be programmed into AI. With the increasing availability of big data, applying inductive ideas is becoming the norm. Nevertheless, hypothesis formation remains in human hands.

9 Conclusion and limitations

9.1 Limitations: dimensions of organization philosophy

This study has important limitations that are beyond the scope of the discussion. There are differences between individuals and organizations. Unlike an individual, organizations can be enduring, decentralized, proliferative, and connected. Organizations have their organizational life span that exceeds that of individuals and have the potential to be more enduring than individuals. This point should be discussed further in future research.

Human beings are facing a new era of living with AI. Human beings must therefore formulate a philosophy of how to collaborate with AI. The theme of this study is not how an individual’s philosophy transforms an organization. Rather, this study posits that organizations can think as autonomously as individuals and that this represents a way to overcome the defects of individual philosophy. Whereas traditional personal philosophy is based on individualism, organization philosophy leads to the development of norms that can govern our understanding of organizations and, ultimately, our individual acts therein. Thus, organization philosophy presents a perspective that differs critically from that of the individual philosophical tradition. Organization philosophy offers a novel perspective: connecting the knowledge generated by the organization to good human behavior. When novel knowledge is created in an organization, it may be misused by some individuals therein. Misusing novel knowledge can destroy what is good. The resultant negative effects may therefore be attributed to the organization, which is a collection of such individuals. These issues have not been explicitly discussed in studies of organizations or individualistic philosophy. Instead, the literature on organizations remains overly optimistic or disregards malicious conduct.

9.2 Synthesis: meaning of propositions in organization philosophy

By synthesizing the four propositions, we thus obtain guidelines for an era of symbiosis with AI. Propositions 1 and 2 state that an organization can take the initiative in thinking and creating knowledge. Proposition 3 states that this activity of thinking can be jointly carried out by humans and AI. As AI can be part of an organization, AI within an organization can be responsible for its intelligent day-to-day operations. Hence, Proposition 4 states that human beings in AI organizations manage moral discipline, partly because humans also bear the legal responsibilities in AI organizations.

Given these propositions, the existing field of philosophy must change its perspective to enhance its applicability in the emerging reality of the AI era. Individualism, the basis of Western philosophy, is inadequate in the present age, as multiple types of new acting agents have manifested. The synthesis of the four propositions therefore implies that traditional organizational research must also change. According to logical positivism, traditional organizational studies assume that the main constituents of an organization can only be human beings. However, I suggest that the research methodology for constructing a new organizational theory should also include AI. As a result, organization philosophy provides the basis for advancing organizational research suited to the symbiosis of the new era, which is composed of concordance between humans and AI.

Organization philosophy provides a basis for the meta-organizational perspective and enables interorganizational comparisons. Interorganizational comparisons are grasped by the members of an organization when they compare organizational principles. Barnard (1938, p. 71) indicated that being a citizen of the United States, for example, is akin to possessing “organization connections”. His definition of an official organization cites mutual communication, the willingness to serve, and the intent to accomplish common goals as integral (Barnard 1938). While Barnard does not explain what a nation–state means as an organization, it can be described as follows: The nation-state establishes a territory and communicates in a common language with the individuals in that territory. These people are obliged to pay taxes and contribute to the national treasury to achieve their common goal of living a secure life. The national system oversees public administration, education, police, health care, and military services.

Both the nation and the enterprise operate as organizations. However, comparing their organizational principles reveals their primary differences. When democratic voting occurs within a nation, each person is allotted one vote. In contrast, when voting occurs in a general meeting of a joint-stock company, voting rights are given to shareholders based on the number of shares they hold. That is, decision-making rights are unevenly distributed among joint-stock companies because the total number of shares held is a proxy variable for the potential risk of corporate bankruptcy. Shareholders thus have a greater risk of bankruptcy when they have a greater stake in a company.