Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Power (Dunamis) Ontology of Causation is Relevant to Managers: Dialogue as an Illustration

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since management is about influencing - influencing people who work in the organization, the structure and practices of the organization, as well as its environment - how ‘influencing’ is understood evidently makes a huge difference. The still popular empiricist concept of cause-effect relations as presupposing regularities is mistaken, since it forms no sufficient basis for action in new and unique situations. As alternative notions of causation, the paper discusses the Critical Realist conception of causal powers and the counterfactual conditional view, arguing that the classical notion of power (dunamis in Greek; power, potentiality, possibility, ability, capacity, capability in English) offers the most fruitful analysis of causal relations for managerial purposes. The paper presents the four ontological features of power scrutinised already by Aristotle in his Metaphysics and Physics, and actively discussed in current philosophy of science. These are the potentiality-actuality distinction, full power as consisting of an active and a receptive component, the distinction of rational and non-rational powers, and the idea of hierarchy of powers. These ontological distinctions suit management contexts not only because they allow room for new unique decision-making situations, but primarily because they imply invaluable practical advice. The relevance of the power ontology for management is illustrated in the context of the Bohm and the new Timeout dialogue. The paper concludes with a summary of the practical implications of the classical power ontology to management and the adoption of dialogical practices to managerial expertise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the philosophy of causation in the managerial context, see Ackroyd and Fleetwood 2000; Fleetwood and Ackroyd 2004; Fairclough 2005; Kakkuri-Knuuttila and Vaara (2007); Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008); Durand and Vaara (2009); Kakkuri-Knuuttila (2011): Lukka (2014): Sheard (2013).

  2. Locke (1689/1979) speaks explicitly about causal powers. Hume’s main target of criticism, however, was the rationalist notion of powers of Malebranche. Hume’s position is inconsistent, however, as his reliance on dispositions to explain the human tendency to attach reality to causal relations presupposes power ontology (Kakkuri-Knuuttila 2003).

  3. For power ontology in the managerial context see Kakkuri-Knuuttila (2011) and Kakkuri-Knuuttila and Vaara (2007).

  4. The term ‘communication infrastructure’ for describing dialogue skills and dialogical organizational practices was suggested by Sari Vesikansa in private discussion February 2023.

  5. For debates about Hume’s position, see Read and Richman (Eds.) (2000).

  6. For Plato doxa consists of ordinary beliefs, not worth attention in the search for truth (The Republic 476–480).

  7. Aristotle (2006) includes a recent commentary and translation by Makin.

  8. Aristotle is not a pure empiricist, instead, the title saving the phenomena describes well his methodological aim to build a philosophical synthesis of available experience and theoretical knowledge by solving conflicts that are bound to arise, among others, by over-generalisation and terminological ambiguity (Nussbaum 1986; Kakkuri-Knuuttila and Vaara 2007).

  9. Similar reasoning is applied to argue that discourses and other social structures are conditions of possibility for sensemaking and for human action and social practices more widely (Fairclough 1989, 2010; Vaara and Whittle 2022).

  10. Sheard’s (2013) critical analysis of Bhaskar’s Critical Realism focuses on the categories transitive and intransitive.

  11. Contemporary philosophers often speak about the ‘manifestation’ of powers and dispositions rather than their ‘actualization’ (e.g. Heil 2020; Meincke 2020a).

  12. The title ‘passive’ here is actually an insufficient translation of the verb paskhein, which means among others to receive an impression from without (Liddel and Scott 1989).

  13. For a brief characterization of cause in terms of all Aristotle’s four causes, see, e.g., Gnassoudou and Kistler (2007).

  14. The conception of full power differs from the idea of an effect being brought about by several simultaneous causal factors, for example, a company going bankrupt as a result of poor management, failed recruitment, and better managed competition. Each of the several causal factors can be analysed into complementary components of an active and a receptive power.

  15. The focus in contemporary philosophy of science is on dispositions rather than powers, as indicated by the title dispositionalism for the realist ontology, see, e.g., papers in Kistlrer and Gnassoudou (Eds.)(2007.) and Meincke (Ed.)(2020). Since dispositions are one-way powers, the distinction between rational and non-rational powers is thus lost.

  16. The relevance of both the cognitive and the emotional element in human action, as distinct from stimulus-response reaction, is expressed in the so-called belief-desire model of action: A desires to achieve goal G. A believes that to achieve G, she/he has to do action Z. So, A begins to do Z (von Wright 1971; Stoutland 2001). Awareness of the knowledge and desires is not presupposed.

  17. Examples in the style of Plato’s Socratic dialogues and as codified by Aristotle’s Topics (Kakkuri-Knuuttila 2012) are offered by Griseri (2008), Notturno and Thomas (2013), and van Rossem (2018).

  18. To leave behind the social roles, the usual practice in Timeout dialogue is that only first names without titles are used (https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi/tools/).

  19. This dialogue model is originally developed by Nelson (1970) and Heckmann (1993).

  20. There is a plausible emphasis on accountability and ethics in the literature on the Neo-Kantian Socratic dialogue, but how to reach higher ethical levels, remains undeveloped.

  21. The Timeout dialogue draws from the American philosopher John Dewey’s conceptions of experience and public discussion (Dewey 1927/1988; Alhanen 2018b, 2019).

  22. Further rules for working dialogically can be found in Senge et al. (1994).

  23. Advice for planning dialogue sessions includes suggestions for choosing the agenda, participants, meeting place, inviting the participants, and serving refreshments (https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi/tools/).

  24. Advice for acting during the dialogue includes suggestions as to how to start the dialogue session, enhance listening, activate quiet participants, as well as what to do with dominant participants, how to cope with strong emotions and other critical situations, and how to move on from a deadlock situation, etc. (https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi/tools/).

  25. How the brain events relate to our felt experience is called the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ (Chalmers 1995).

  26. Dialogue skills can be formulated at different levels of abstractness. Alhanen (2019) discusses the following dialogue capabilities: attuning, imagining, deliberating, playing, and believing (comp. Isaacs 1999). For dialogue skills as virtues, see Kakkuri-Knuutttila (2015).

  27. Experience of the author when participating in the development process of the Timeout dialogue during autumn (2016).

  28. The receptive power does not remain passive but forms the starting point of an interpretative process as pointed out in the preceding subsection The Complexity of Sense-making Processes.

  29. Participating in group-therapy sessions organized by the psychiatrist Patrick de Maré was one inspiration for Bohm to develop the notion of dialogue (Pylkkänen 2008).

  30. For Aristotle, virtues are stable dispositions of character that evolve by repeatedly acting in a virtuous manner. Virtue thus means that one’s desires are in harmony with the assessment of what is the right thing to do (Nicomachean Ethics book II ch. 1, lines 1103a26-1104b3; book II ch. 6, lines 1107a1-3; book VI ch. 12, lines 1144a6-9; book VI ch. 13, lines 1144a16-32; Hursthouse 1999; Annas 2011). The virtue to act dialogically in relevant situations is called dialogue orientation (Kakkuri-Knuuttila 2015).

  31. Unfortunately, English does not have terms to distinguish power in general and political power, while Finnish, for instance, has ‘voima’ for causal power in general and ‘valta’ for political power.

  32. Timeout dialogue has been tested for multilingual situations and dialogues with participants with varying linguistic skills.

  33. This is what Aristotle calls phronêsis, often translated as practical wisdom (Nicomachean Ethics VI 12, 1144a6-9, VI 13, 1144a16-32).

  34. The counterfactual conditional conception of causation applies in quantitative reasoning as well, as exemplified by the interventionist approach (Woodward 2004). Analogous to empirical tests, varying the value of one exogenous variable x while keeping the values of other exogenous variables constant and calculating the values of an endogenous variable y on the basis of the structural equations, one may infer whether the equations involve a causal relation between x and y. For an illustration of the philosophers’ emphasis on matters of logic in connection with the counterfactual conditional conception of causation, see Barbero and Sandu (2021).

  35. The main purpose of this kind of simulations is to learn about one’s own or the team’s spontaneous ways of acting triggered by simulated (counterfactual) critical situations, while the aim of typical simulations for training, advising and forecasting purposes in management contexts is to learn about (presupposed) causal regularities of the external world triggered by one’s own action (factual in the simulation context, but counterfactual in relation to the ‘real’ world, see Eabrasu 2021).

References

  • Aarnio, H. 2008. DIALE. HAMK Professional Teacher Education Unit (Finland). http://www3.hamk.fi/dialogi/diale/index_eng.html.

  • Ackroyd, S., and S. Fleetwood eds. 2000. Realist perspectives on management and organizations. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alhanen, K. 2018a. Practices and thought in Michel Foucault’s philosophy Transl. T. Tiisala. Helsinki: BoD. (In Finnish (2007). Käytännöt ja ajattelu Michel Foucault’n filosofiassa).

  • Alhanen, K. 2018b. John Dewey’s ecology of experience. Transl. J. Kyöttinen. Helsinki: BoD. (In Finnish (2013). John Deweyn kokemusfilosofia.).

  • Alhanen, K. 2019. Dialogue in democracy. Transl. H. Lehti. Norderstedt, Germany: BoD. (In Finnish (2016). Dialogi demokratiassa.).

  • Alhanen, K., and E. Henttonen (2022). Demokratian puolustusdialogit - Kansanvallan vahvistaminen kuuluu kaikille (Dialogue in defence of democracy, in Finnish). Sitra Studies 222.

  • Anderson, J. 2015. Reflections on Socratic dialogue II: A personal-professional perspective. Philosophy of Management, 14, 171–178 (2015). https://doi-org.libproxy.aalto.fi/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-015-0016-4.

  • Annas, J. 2011. Intelligent virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1984a. Metaphysics Transl. D. W. Ross. ed. J. Barnes The complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford translation, vol. II (Bollingen Series LXXI 2) (1552–1728). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Aristotle. 1984b. Nicomachean ethics Transl. D. W. Ross and revised by J. O. Urmson. ed. J. Barnes The complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford translation, vol. II (Bollingen Series LXXI 2) (1729–1867). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1984c. Physics Transl. eds. R. P. Hardie, and R. K. Gaye. In J. Barnes, eds. The complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford translation, vol. I (Bollingen Series LXXI 1) (315–446). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1984d. Topics Transl. W.-A. Pickard-Cambridge. ed. J. Barnes The complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford translation, vol. I (Bollingen Series LXXI 1) (167–277). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 2006. Metaphysics Book Θ, St. Makin (trans., introd. And comm.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnkil, M. 2019. ”Mehän opimme enemmän kuin lapset”: Opettaja dialogisena auktoriteettina. (“We learn more than the children”: Teacher as a dialogical authority, in Finnish). Tampere University Dissertations 43. Tampere: Yliopistopaino.

  • Baker Miller, J. 1976/1986. Toward a new psychology of women. Great Britain: Pelican Books.

  • Ball, J. 2018. Dialogue through the offender resettlement journey. C. Penwell (Ed.) The world needs dialogue! One: Gathering the field (73–90). Dialogue Publications.

  • Barbero, F., and G. Sandu. 2021. Team semantics for interventionist counterfactuals: observations vs. interventions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 50: 471–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09573-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Jonathan. 1980. Aristotle and the methods of ethics. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 133–134: 490–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendl, R., I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen, and A. J. Mills eds. 2015. The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. A., J. Anderson, and P. Sice. 2015. Reflections on socratic dialogue I: the theoretical background in a modern context. Philosophy of Management, 14, 159–169. https://doi-org.libproxy.aalto.fi/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-015-0015-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthoin Antal, A., and V. J. Friedman. 2008. Learning to negotiate reality: A strategy for teaching intercultural competencies. Journal of Management Education, 32, 363–386. 10,1177/1052562907308794.

  • Bhaskar, R. 1975. A realist theory of science London: Verso. Orig. 1975.

  • Bhaskar, R. 1979. The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, V. 2014. Look who’s talking: responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. 1985. Unfolding meaning: a weekend of dialogue with David Bohm. ed. D. Factor. London and New York: Ark paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. 1989. Meaning and information. In The search for meaning: the new spirit in science and philosophy, ed. P. Pylkkänen, 43–85. Kent: Crucible. Mackays of Chathan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. 1996. On dialogue. Lee Hicol (Ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., and B. J. Hiley. 1987. An ontological basis for quantum theory: Part 1. Non-relativistic particle system. Physics Reports (Review Section of Physics Letters), 144, 323–375. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  • Bohm, D., and B. J. Hiley. 1993. The undivided universe: an ontological interpretation of quantum theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., D. Factor, and P. Garrett. 1991. Dialogue: A proposal. https://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/BohmDialogue.pdf.

  • Bolten, H. 2001. Managers develop moral accountability: the impact of socratic dialogue. Philosophy of Management, 1, 21–34. https://doi-org.libproxy.aalto.fi/https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2001134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. 1995. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 7: 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. J., R. Cottrell, B. C. Cushman, Huselton, and P. Yantzi. 1994. The cauldron: heat and light between labor and management at GS Technologies. In The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization, ed. P. Senge et al., 364–373. London: N. Breadley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, A. 1994. Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2: 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1927/1988. The public and its problems. Ohio and Chicago: Swallow Press: Athens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray, William H. 1957. Laws and explanation in history. Oxford University Press.

  • Durand, R., and E. Vaara. 2009. Causation, counterfactuals, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 30: 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eabrasu, M. 2021. What if? Fine-tuning the expectations of business simulation technology through the lens of philosophical counterfactual analysis. Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211015378.

  • Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. 2005. Peripheral vision: discourse analysis in organization studies: the case for critical realism. Organization studies 26: 915–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical discourse studies, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

  • Fewell, J. 2020. Untapped agility: seven leadership moves to take your transformation to the next level. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C. 2019. Emotions in organizations. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management Retrieved 31 May, 2023 frohttps://oxfordre.com/business/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-160

  • Fleetwood, S., and S. Ackroyd, eds. 2004. Critical realist applications in organisation and management studies. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1969. Archeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D., R. Pisani, and R. Purves. 2007. Statistics. 4th ed. New York & London: W. W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H.-G. 1960. Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garret, P. 2018. Engaging fragmentation, subcultures and organizational power. In The world needs dialogue! One: gathering the field, ed. C. Penwell, 3–30. Dialogue Publications.

  • Glynn, M. A., and L. Watkiss. 2020. Of organizing and sensemaking: from action to meaning and back again in a half-century of Weick’s theorizing. Journal of Management Studies 57: 1331–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnassoudou, Br, and M. Kistler. 2007. Introduction. In Dispositions and causal powers, eds. M. Kistler, and Br. Gnassoudou, 1–40. Chippenham, Wiltshire: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. 1955. Fact, fiction and forecast. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J., and R. Groff. (Eds.) 2013. Powers and capacities in philosophy: the New Aristotelianism. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griseri, P. 2008. What do we know about organisations? A Socratic dialogue. Philosophy of Management 6, 3–22 (2008). https://doi-org.libproxy.aalto.fi/https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20086317.

  • Groff, R. 2011. Getting past Hume in the philosophy of social science. In Ph. McKay Illari, F. Russo, J. Williamson (Eds.). Causality in the Sciences Ch. 14 (pp. 296–316). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.003.0014.

  • Groff, R. 2014. Ontology revisited: Metaphysics in social and political philosophy. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, M. 2022. Ethics, dialogue and English as a Lingua Franca for ESD in higher education. Language Learning in Higher Education 12: 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2022-2062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. 2007. An extended semantic field of dispositions and the grounding role of causal powers. In Dispositions and causal powers, eds. M. Kistler, and Br. Gnassoudou, 181–194. Chippenham, Wiltshire: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R., and E. H. Madden. 1975. Causal powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckmann, G. 1993. Das sokratische Gespräch. Erfahrungen in philosophischen.

  • Heil, J. 2020. Ontology of powers. In A-S. Meincke (Ed.) Dispositionalism: Perspectives from metaphysics and the philosophy of science (Synthese library: Studies in epistemology, logic, methodology, and philosophy of science vol. 417) (pp. 13–26). Springer.

  • Henttonen, E. 2022. Lockdown dialogues: Crisis experiences and model for national dialogue. Sitra Studies 213. https://www.sitra.fi/en/publications/lockdown-dialogues/.

  • Henttonen, E., K. Alhanen, and J. Kareinen. 2022. The great nature dialogue: We all live in multiple relations with nature Sitra Studies 211. https://www.sitra.fi/en/publications/the-great-nature-dialogue/.

  • Hochschulseminaren. Bonn: Philosophisch-Politische Akademie.

  • Huber, G. P., and K. Lewis. 2010. Cross-understanding: implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review 35: 6–26. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.1.zok6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1739-40/1975). A treatise of human nature. D.G.C. Macnabb (Ed. and introduction). Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co.

  • Hursthouse, R. 1999. On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, W. 1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together: a pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isotalus, E., and M.-L. Kakkuri-Knuuttila. 2018. Ethics and intercultural communication in diversity management. Equality Diversity and Inclusion 37: 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2017-0019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L. 2003. Voima ja mielenliikkeet. (Power and passions, in Finnish) Sara Heinämaa, Martina Reuter and Mikko Yrjönsuuri (Eds.). Spiritus Animalis: Kirjoituksia Filosofian historiasta (Writings in history of philosophy, in Finnish). Gaudeamus, Helsinki 109–137.

  • Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L. 2011. Philosophy unites. Philosophy of Management 10: 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L. 2012. The role of the respondent in Plato and Aristotle. In Dialectic and dialogue – the development of dialectic from Plato to Aristotle, ed. Jacob Fink, 62–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–90.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L. 2015. Kaksi dialogimuotoa ja niiden eettinen merkitys (Two dialogue forms and their ethical relevance, in Finnish). Ajatus, Suomen Filosofisen Yhdistyksen Vuosikirja 71: 203–260. http://docplayer.fi/14009775-Kaksi-dialogimuotoa-ja-niiden-eettinen-merkitys-1.html.

  • Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., and E. Vaara. 2007a. Back to the roots of the linguistic turn: arguments against causal social research reconsidered. In Thinking Organization. (Routledge Studies in Business Organizations and Networks, eds. S. and A. Linstead, 17–38. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., and E. Vaara. 2007b. Reconciling opposites in organization studies: the case of modernism and post-modernism. Philosophy of Management 6: 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakkuri-Knuuttila, K., Lukka, and J. Kuorikoski. 2008. Straddling between paradigms: a naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society 33: 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, J. 2001. Socrates comes to market. Reason in Practice 1: 49–71. https://doi-org.libproxy.aalto.fi/10.5840/pom20011128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kistler, M. and Br. Gnassoudou eds. 2007. Dispositions and causal powers Chippenham, Wiltshire: Ashgate.

  • Knuuttila, S. 1993. Modalities in medieval philosophy. New York and London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429055577

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurie, N. 2006. Socratic dialogue: what is a good business process? Blyth: At Draeger Safety.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddell and Scott. 1989. An intermediate greek-english lexicon founded upon the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1689/1979. An essay concerning human understanding. P. H. Nidditch (Ed.). Clarendon editions of the works of John Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Lukes, S. 2021. Power: a radical view. 3rd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukka, K. 2014. Exploring the possibilities for causal explanation in interpretive research. Accounting Organizations and Society 7: 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, J. L. 1980. The cement of the universe: a study of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198246420.001.0001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marmodoro, A. 2020. Powers, activity and interaction. In A-S. Meincke (Ed.) Dispositionalism: Perspectives from metaphysics and the philosophy of science (Synthese library: Studies in epistemology, logic, methodology, and philosophy of science vol. 417) (pp. 55–66). Springer.

  • Meincke, A.-S. 2020a. Dispositionalism: Between metaphysics and philosophy of science. In A-S.Meincke (Ed.) Dispositionalism: Perspectives from metaphysics and the philosophy of science (Synthese library: Studies in epistemology, logic, methodology, and philosophy of science vol. 417) (pp. 1–12). Springer.

  • Meincke, A.-S., ed. 2020b. Dispositionalism: Perspectives from metaphysics and the philosophy of science (Synthese library: Studies in epistemology, logic, methodology, and philosophy of science vol. 417) (pp. 1–12). Springer.

  • Menzies, P., and H. Beebee. 2020. Counterfactual theories of causation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/causation-counterfactual/.

  • Moore, G. E. 1919-1920. External and internal relations, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (pp. 40–62). Reprinted in G. E. Moore, Philosophical Studies (1922).

  • Nelson, L. 1970. Gesammelte Schriften. In Neun Bänden, Hrsg. von P. Bernays u.a., Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norros, L. 2004. Acting under uncertainty: The core-task analysis in ecological study of work VTT Publications 524. Espoo: VTT. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2004/P546.pdf.

  • Notturno, M. A., and R. A. Thomas. 2013. Dialogue on banking and the open society. Philosophy of Management 12, 65–87. https://doi-org.libproxy.aalto.fi/https://doi.org/10.5840/pom201312319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. 1986. The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Orvos, J. 2019. Achieving Business agility: strategies for becoming Pivot Ready in a Digital World. Springer.

  • Pettit, Philip. 1998. Defining and defending social holism. Philosophical Explorations 1: 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 2000. The Republic Ferrari, G.R.F. (Ed.), Griffith, Tom (Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Psillos, S. 2009. Regularity theories. In The Oxford handbook of causation, eds. H. Beebee, Ch. Hitchcock, and P. Menzies, 131–157. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279739.003.0008.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, P. 2008. Turhautunut fyysikko kohtaa maailmanopettajan (A frustrated physicist meets the worldteacher, in Finnish). In T. Tamminen (Ed.). Guruja, joogeja ja filosofeja (Gurus, yogis and philosophers, in Finnish) (pp. 243–266). Juva: WS Bookwell Oy.

  • Pylkkänen, P. 2017. The crisis of intelligibility in physics and the prospects of a new form of scientific rationality, in I. Niiniluoto and T. Wallgren (Ed.). On the human condition: Essays in honour of the centennial anniversary of Georg Henrik von Wright (Acta Philosophica Fennica, Vol. 93) (pp. 373–399), Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.

  • Read, R., and K. A. Richman eds. 2000. The new Hume debate. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarala, R. M., E. Vaara, and P. Junni. 2019. Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: New avenues for research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Journal of World Business 54: 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savioja, P., L. Norros, L. Salo, and I. Aaltonen. 2014. Identifying resilience in proceduralised accident management activity of NPP operating crews. Safety Science 68: 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.04.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. 1984. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. USA: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, G. A., ed. 2002. Does Socrates have a method? Rethinking the elenchus in Plato’s dialogues and beyond. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seikkula, J., and T. Arnkil. 2006. Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Karnac Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. 1990/2006. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Rev. ed. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, B. J. Smith, and A. Kleiner. 1994. The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheard, St. 2013. Realism’s castle of crossed destinies: evaluating Bhaskar’s Transcendental realism relative to its philosophical significance in contemporary organisational studies. Philosophy of Management 12: 17–41. https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20131213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoutland, F. 2001. Responsive action and the belief-desire model. Grazer Philosophischen Studien 61 (1): 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-061001007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timeout, dialogue. 2023. https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi/.

  • Tools for the Timeout dialogue. 2023. https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi/tools/.

  • Twemlow, S. W., P. Fonagy, and F. C. Sacco. 2003. Modifying social aggression in schools. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 5: 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaara, E., and A. Whittle. 2022. Common sense, new sense or non-sense? A critical discursive perspective on power in collective. Journal of Management Studies 59: 755–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaara, E., and Ph. Monin. 2010. A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. Organization Science 21: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rossem, K. 2018. How to lead a socratic dialogue. In Understanding the other and oneself, eds. R. Staude, and E. Ruschmann, 67–80. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. 1971. Explanation and understanding. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, D. 2007. Knowledge management: Historical and cross-disciplinary themes, 2. ed. edition. Libraries unlimited.

  • Waterlow, S. 1982. Nature, agency and change in Aristotle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. (Foundations for Organizational Science Vol. 3.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Weick, K. E., K. M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16: 409–421.

  • Williams, G. 2023. Kant’s account of reason. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Substantive revision Wed Jan 4, 2023). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/.

  • Winch, P. 1958/1992. The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • Winston, W. 2003. Operations research: Applications and algorithms: International edition, 4th revised edition. CA, United States: Cengage Learning, Inc.

  • Witt, C. 2003. Ways of being in Aristotle: potentiality and actuality in Aristotle’s “Metaphysics”. Ithaca & London: Cornell UP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, J. 2004. Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express warmest thanks for useful comments and encouragement to Kai Alhanen, Alexander and Andrew Fingelkurts, Elina Henttonen, Paula Jordan, Arto Mustajoki, Leena Norros, Tapio Saarinen, Gabriel Sandu, three anonymous referees, the editor of this special issue Marian Eabrasu, and Donna Roberts for text editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Emerita Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

    Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila

Authors
  1. Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kakkuri-Knuuttila, ML. Why Power (Dunamis) Ontology of Causation is Relevant to Managers: Dialogue as an Illustration. Philosophy of Management 22, 449–472 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00240-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00240-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation