Advertisement

Toward a semiotic theory of cognitive dynamics in organisations

  • Barend van Heusden
  • René Jorna
Part of the Information and Organisation Design Series book series (INOD, volume 1)

Abstract

Although in general we have little or no difficulties in speaking and thinking about organisations, describing the empirical reality of organisations is far from easy. Where should we look for organisations? How should we study them? Organisations are markedly elusive. They cannot be treated as empirical entities. What you perceive, when ‘looking’ at organisations, are artifacts (buildings, machines) and behaviour (linguistic and other forms). But neither artifacts, nor behaviour are ‘organisation-like’ in themselves. What is needed, therefore, is something that relates artifacts and behaviour to create a more or less coherent whole. Such a relation is a representation, shared, at least in part, by a number of interacting actors. It is the representation that gives both artifacts and behaviour their meaning. A representation is a mental activity of an actor. It should be clear that we take representations not as referring to some mental activities act upon (‘symbols’), but as a specific type of mental activity, also referred to as ‘cognition’, possibly only found in humans. To define cognition only in terms of (the manipulation of) ‘symbols’ is begging the question (petitio principii), as the symbol implies precisely that mental activity that has to be explained if we want to understand what cognition is. If anywhere, therefore, an organisation resides in the mental activities of the actors. This does not necessarily imply, however, that all the actors involved must represent an organisation in the same way.

Keywords

Tacit Knowledge Mental Activity Abstract Knowledge Sensory Representation Perceptual Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boersma, S.K.Th., 1995. Kennismanagement: een creatieve onderneming. Groningen.Google Scholar
  2. Boisot, M., 1995. Information space. A framework of learning in organizations, institutions and culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bühler, K., 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart & New York: Fischer, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. Cassirer, E., 1923–1929. The philosophy of symbolic forms. Volume 1: Language; Volume 2: Mythical thought; Volume 3: The phenomenology of knowledge, translated by R. Mannheim. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. Cassirer, E., 1944. An essay on man. An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. New Haven & London: Yale UP.Google Scholar
  6. Choo, C.W., 1998. The knowing organization. How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1996. Creativity. Flow and the psychology of invention. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  8. Donald, M., 1991. Origins of the modern mind. Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  9. Douglas, M., 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP.Google Scholar
  10. Eco, U., 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP.Google Scholar
  11. Garvin, D.A., 1993. Building a learning organization. In: Harvard Business Review on knowledge management. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 47–80.Google Scholar
  12. Gazendam, H., 1993. Variety controls variety: on the use of organization theories in information management. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar
  13. Goodman, N., 1968. Languages of art. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  14. Heusden, B. van, 1999. The emergence of difference: some notes on the evolution of human semiosis. In: Semiotica 127 (1–4), 631–646.Google Scholar
  15. Heusden, B. van, and Jorna, R., 1998. Toward organizational semiotics. In: Semiotic Review of Books 10(1), 2–4.Google Scholar
  16. Hjelmslev, L., 1943. Prolegomena to a theory of language, translated by F.J. Whitfield. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  17. Husserl, E., 1922. Logische Untersuchungen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  18. Jorna, R.J. (1988). A comparison of presentation and representation: linguistic and pictorial. In G.C. v.d. Veer & G. Mulder (eds.). Human-Computer Interaction — Psychonomic Aspects. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Jorna, R.J. (1990). Knowledge Representation and Symbols in the Mind. Tübingen: Stauffenberg VerlagGoogle Scholar
  20. Jorna, R. and Heusden, B. van, 1998. Semiotics and information psychology. A case for semio-psychology. In: Theory and Psychology, 8 (6): 755–782.Google Scholar
  21. Langley, P. et al., 1987. Scientific discovery: computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Merleau-Ponty, M., 1960. Signes. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  23. Morgan, G., 1986. Images of organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Nonaka, T. and Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  25. Peirce, C.S., 1877. The fixation of belief. In: Fish, M. et al., eds. Writings of Charles Sanders Peirce: A chronological edition, 3: 1872–1878, ed. by C.J.W. Kloesel. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. Polanyi, M., 1966. The tacit dimension, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Nooteboom, B., 1996. Towards a cognitive theory of the firm: issues and a logic of change. Paper presented at the EIASM conference on organizational cognition. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K.R., 1972. Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Saussure, F. de, 1915. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Ch. Bally et A. Sechehaye. Édition préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot, 1985 (1972).Google Scholar
  30. Schon, D.A., 1990. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  31. Searle, J., 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sennett, R., 1998. The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Schaefer, W., 1991.  Kennis in uitvoering. Doctoral Thesis. Technical University of Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  34. Sparrow, J., 1998. Knowledge in organizations. Access to thinking at work. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Sperber, D., 1996. Explaining culture: a naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D., 1986. Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.Google Scholar
  37. Uexküll, J. von, 1920. Theoretische Biologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1973.Google Scholar
  38. Uexküll, J. von and Kriszat, G., 1940. Streifzüge durch die Umweite von menschen und Tieren. Bedeutungslehre. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1970.Google Scholar
  39. Walsh, J.P., 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane. In: Organization Science 6 (3): 280–321.Google Scholar
  40. Weggeman, M., 1997. Kennismanagement. Inrichting en besturing van kennisintensieve organisaties. Schiedam, Scriptum.Google Scholar
  41. West, M.A. and Farr, J.J., eds. 1990. Innovation and creativity at work. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barend van Heusden
  • René Jorna

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations