Paradigmatic metamorphosis and organizational development

SystemsResearchandBehavioralScienceSyst. Res.20,177 199 (2003)Publishedonline inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI:10.1002/sres.533

& ResearchPaper

Paradigmatic Metamorphosis andOrganizational Development

Maurice Yolles* and Kaijun Guo

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Paradigms metamorphose when they develop a new frame of reference. Two examples ofparadigmatic metamorphosis are examined that together can be argued to formulate anevolutionary approach to managerial cybernetics. Organization Development (OD) is awell-established soft methodology used extensively to engineer cultural change inorganizations. OD can be set within Viable Systems Theory (VST), itself a conceptualdevelopment of the managerial cybernetic theory that underlies the Viable Systems Model(VSM). To illustrate this, a frame of reference is created that looks at systemictransformational processes. VST can operate as a general framework for this withinwhich OD, VSM, and indeed the principles of Habermas’s theory of communicative actioncan be embedded. A result of this exploration is to show how a managerial cybernetic formof OD can be developed to improve the way organizations can be diagnosed in complexchange situations that must be managed. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords paradigmatic metamorphosis; evolving Organizational Development; managerialcybernetics

PARADIGMATIC METAMORPHOSIS

It has only been within the last 30 years or so,largely since the work of Kuhn (1970), that wehave considered how paradigms change theirform. Incremental change involves the develop-ment of concepts and their structural relation-ships, creating new knowledge. Paradigms alsochange dramatically as new fundamental con-cepts arise that alter their frames of reference, i.e.,as new conceptual extensions enter their framesof reference (Yolles, 1998). In so doing, paradigm

holders expand their capacity to explain andtherefore diagnose the phenomena that theyperceive. Such dramatic change has also beenreferred to as paradigmatic revolution1 or meta-morphosis. It occurs because of a perceivedneed by paradigm holders to respond to

Received 22 October 2001Revised 31 August 2002

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 18 December 2002

*Correspondence to: Maurice Yolles, Liverpool John MooresUniversity, 98 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool L3 5UZ, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

1‘ . . . scientists, just like the rest of humanity, carry out their day-to-dayaffairs within a framework of presuppositions about what constitutes aproblem, a solution, and a method. Such a background of shared assu-mptions makes up a paradigm, and at any given time a particular scie-ntific communitywill havea prevailing paradigmthatshapes and directswork in the field. Since people become so attached to their paradigms,Kuhn claims that scientific revolutions involve bloodshed on the sameorder of magnitude as that commonly seen in political revolutions, onlythe difference being that the blood is now intellectual rather thanliquid . . . the issues are not rational but emotional, and are settled not bylogic, syllogism, and appeals to reason, but by irrational factors likegroup affiliation and majority or ‘‘mob’’ rule’ (Casti, 1989, p. 40).

inherent inadequacies, anomalies or paradoxes(e.g., Zeno’s paradox2). Such metamorphosis canbe part of an evolutionary process within which anew species of paradigm arises that has its basisin an existing paradigm.3 Metamorphosis is notspontaneous, and paradigms first pass though a‘virtual’ stage (Yolles, 1996; Midgley, 2000).Viable Systems Theory (VST) is an example ofthis; its original development occurring becauseof a perceived need to respond to the problem ofparadigm incommensurability (Burrell andMorgan, 1979; Yolles, 1996), and at that timeother approaches seemed unable to adequatelyrespond to it.4 VST can be historically related toboth Organizational Development (OD) andmanagerial cybernetics as encapsulated by theViable Systems Model (VSM) (Beer, 1979).

In socially complex situations it is useful tohave a theory of the organization that can helpstructure problems and manage change. Positivistperspectives have been found to be inadequate indealing with this complexity, and alternativeperspectives like critical theory and constructi-vism have developed (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).Effectively, the distinction between the twoperspectives centres on a dichotomy betweenobjective and subjective epistemology that aroseat the turn of the nineteenth century, engagedbecause of a perceived inadequacy of classicalphysics to explain the phenomena it saw. It didnot start to take hold in the management sciencesuntil the mid twentieth century. In the area ofmanagement systems, Lewin (1947) proposed hismore constructivist approach, and others like

Churchman (1970) and Checkland (1981)embraced related perspectives. Lewin’s construc-tions became manifested into the OD methodol-ogy (Yolles, 1999). It operates through an opensystem model, where inputs occur from itsenvironment and are then transformed as outputsto that environment. Requirements for change inthe open system result in candidate interventions.However, there are three traditional barriers tosystemic change: (a) resistance to change bymembers of the organization, (b) control forchange, and (c) power.

The managerial cybernetics paradigm thatunderpins VSM can be argued to be a metamor-phosis of that underpinning OD. It maintained theOD paradigmatic extensions of the open system,but then included the concept of a metasystem.Decisions that arose in the metasystem weretransformed in some way to become manifestedin the system. VST makes explicit this implicittransformation, and indeed introduced its ownmetamorphosis by identifying it as a domain in itsown right. Linking and developing VST with theideas of Habermas (1987) and Schwarz (1997) hasenhanced its paradigm significantly, and pro-vided a broad potential for inquiry into complexsituations. Unlike OD and VSM, VST does notattempt to offer a particular intervention, butrather provides a conceptual framework ofanalysis, for considering appropriate existingmodels, and for creating new ones. Hence, bothOD and VSM can sit comfortably within VST. Oneproblem is that OD is not part of the managerialcybernetic paradigm, and so to better relate it toVST it requires a linguistic shift. This can occurwithout altering its underlying paradigm, and canresult in an enhanced and more effective way ofdealing with complex change situations. How thiscan occur will be illustrated in this paper.

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

OD developed from the work of Lewin (1947),and integrates Nadler’s idea that an open systemis a transformer of inputs to outputs. Suchsystems need to have ‘favourable transactionsof input and output with the environment inorder to survive over time’ (Nadler, 1993, p. 86).OD offers an approach to organizational inquiry

2Zeno’s paradox is concerned with the impossibility of movingbetween two points A and B in space. To reach B from A one musttravel half the distance to it to a point say a1, and to get from a1 to Byou must reach a point half way to it at a2. This argument is recursiveas you move to a3, a4, a5, . . . . To count the full distance that you havetravelled you must add all of the half distances that form an infiniteseries, suggesting mathematically that you can never reach B. Thesolution to the paradox is to introduce time as a new analytically andempirically independent conceptual extension that operates as alimiting factor on the summation. The introduction of this newconceptualization has meant that a new paradigm has been createdwith new propositions and beliefs, and it is thus incommensurablewith the previous paradigm since it creates a new conceptualextension through which new ways of seeing can be created (Yolles,1998).3This happens in all paradigmatic environments, whether they relateto the cultural basis of an organization (for instance, in theprivatization of public companies, Yolles, 1999), or of a discipline ofscience such as that being considered here.4For example, see Yolles (1999), referring to the work of Flood andJackson (1994).

RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Copyright � 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 20, 177 199 (2003)

178 MauriceYolles and Kaijun Guo

that seeks to find a balance of forces with itsenvironment (Pugh, 1993) by instituting appro-priate change in an organization’s system. It wasoriginally conceived as a strategy for large-scalecultural and/or systemic change that depends onmany people accepting the need for change, anduntil recently was based on diagnosing gapsbetween what is and what ought to be (Weisbordand Janoff, 1996).

OD maintains a paradigm that is consultantorientated and people centred. It is a soft systemmethodology (Yolles, 1999), engaging elemen-tary systems concepts, and developed prior tothe work of Checkland (1981). It is concernedwith intervention into problem situations toachieve change management through indivi-duals and their relationships. OD’s intendeduse was ‘to articulate a mode of organizationalconsultancy that paralleled the client-centredapproach in counselling and contrasted withconsultancy models that were centred on exper-tise’ (Coghlan, 1993, p. 117). However, at itsbroadest, OD is concerned with ‘boundaries andrelationships at a number of different levelsbetween enterprises, their stakeholders andsociety, and the way in which these relationshipscould change over time’ (Pritchard, 1993, p. 132).

Harrison explains that consultants who usetraditional OD tend to assume that organizationsare most effective when they ‘reduce powerdifferences, foster open communication, encou-rage cooperation and solidarity, and adopt policiesthat enhance the potential of employees’ (Harri-son, 1994, p. 8). To help assist organizational formsand cultures towards this ideal, consultants usesmall group training, feedback on interpersonalprocesses and participative decision making, andbuild strong cohesive organizational cultures.

Traditional OD has been described as beingbased on a narrow view of organizational effec-tiveness. It ‘does not seem to work well inorganizations that emphasize status and authoritydifferences or in nations that do not share thevalues underlying development. Even where theyare appropriate, traditional organizational devel-opment interventions usually yield minor,incremental improvements in organizational fun-ctioning, as opposed to the radical transforma-tions needed for recovery from crises and decline’

(Harrison, 1994, pp. 8–9). The needs of fast changein complex situations should be added in here.

To make OD more flexible and broaden itsability to deal with complex organizationalsituations, it must be able to deal with changesin organizational form, strategy and culture,power alignments, political bargaining, culturaldiversity (at different levels of the organization),stability and instability. Harrison therefore pro-posed some changes to diagnosis in OD. How-ever, it still has a limited capacity to guideinquiry through a variety of political andcybernetic attributes of organizations that arepertinent to change. It would be ideal if a mapcould be found that enhances the propositionalcapacity of OD to do this. To satisfy this, moretheory needs to be embedded into the proposi-tional base of OD. In due course we will showthat this theory can be derived from VST.

THE ORGANIZATION AS ATRANSFORMING SYSTEM

Nadler’s model that underpins OD is referred to asthe Congruence Model of Organizational Beha-viour (Nadler and Tushman, 1977, 1979) because itsupports the notion that organizations need tohave congruency between four subsystems: tasks,individuals, formal organization and informalorganization. Thus, for instance, there needs tobe congruency between tasks and individuals, orbetween the formal organization, its controlstructures and processes, and the informal powerstructures and processes that exist within theorganization. The basic hypothesis of the model isthat an organization will be most effective whenall the four components of the system arecongruent with each another. Nadler’s four sub-systems have been subsumed into a systemdefinition, part of the Systems as a Transformer, inTable 1, which also incorporates Harrison’s (1994)explanations of organizational focus.

GENERIC PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND ACTIONSFOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

In the underlying theory of OD coherent organi-zations have political systems composed of

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER


Paradigmatic Metamorphosis and Organizational Development 179

Table1.

Afocussed

view

oftheorganizationthrough

Organizational

Development

Sy

stem

focu

sIn

pu

tsS

yst

emas

atr

ansf

orm

erO

utp

uts

Sy

stem

Fo

cus

env

iro

nm

ent

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Res

ou

rces

faci

lita

teth

eG

oal

s,cu

ltu

re,

Pro

vid

esco

nst

rain

ts,

Pro

du

cts

and

serv

ices

.es

tab

lish

men

tan

dte

chn

olo

gy

,p

roce

ss,

dem

and

san

dP

erfo

rman

cein

dic

ates

mai

nte

nan

ceo

fst

ruct

ure

s,b

ehav

iou

r,fo

rmal

and

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

the

the

abil

ity

of

the

and

acti

vit

ies

of

the

info

rmal

org

aniz

atio

n.

org

aniz

atio

no

rgan

izat

ion

toac

hie

ve

org

aniz

atio

n.

His

tory

pro

vid

esa

its

des

ires

Str

ateg

y:

ase

to

fk

eyb

ack

gro

un

dth

atv

alid

ates

dec

isio

ns

abo

ut

the

mat

cho

fth

eo

rgan

izat

ion

,it

sth

eo

rgan

izat

ion

’sre

sou

rces

stru

ctu

res

and

acti

vit

ies

toen

vir

on

men

tal

imp

erat

ive

Gro

up

Res

ou

rces

faci

lita

teth

eG

rou

pco

mp

osi

tio

n,

Org

aniz

atio

np

rov

ides

Pro

du

cts,

serv

ices

.m

ain

ten

ance

of

stru

ctu

res

stru

ctu

re,

tech

no

log

y;

task

defi

nit

ion

and

Per

form

ance

ind

icat

esan

dac

tiv

itie

so

fth

eg

rou

pg

rou

pb

ehav

iou

rp

roce

ss,

red

efin

itio

n,

con

tro

lo

fth

eab

ilit

yo

fth

eg

rou

pcu

ltu

re.

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

ina

chan

ge,

resi

stan

ceto

tosa

tisf

yit

sin

ten

ded

gro

up

’sp

erfo

rman

ceis

chan

ge,

po

wer

tofu

nct

ion

det

erm

ined

by

stra

teg

icsh

ape

org

aniz

atio

nal

go

als

dy

nam

ics

Ind

ivid

ual

Hu

man

reso

urc

esIn

div

idu

aljo

bs/

task

s;G

rou

p/

org

aniz

atio

nP

rod

uct

s,se

rvic

es,

ind

ivid

ual

beh

avio

ur,

pro

vid

esq

ual

ity

of

idea

s.P

erfo

rman

ceat

titu

des

,o

rien

tati

on

sw

ork

life

,w

ell-

bei

ng

ind

icat

esth

eab

ilit

yo

fin

div

idu

als

too

per

ate




individuals, groups, and coalitions, all of whichmay be competing for power (Tushman, 1977).New ideologies can also influence power posi-tions. Balances of power exist within organiza-tions, and changes can upset these, generatingnew political activity that forges stable powerrelationships. In order to facilitate change, it isnecessary to shape the political dynamics of anorganization, enabling change to be acceptedrather than rejected.

Nadler argues that change situations havethree generic problems. Change might upsetexisting power relationships, and a politicaldynamic for change is needed. Change may alsomake people feel that their existing powerpositions are threatened. Nadler has also identi-fied resistance to change as a generic problem.This may occur when individuals are faced withchange situations that they feel may affect theirsecurity or stability (Watson, 1969; Zaltman andDuncan, 1977). Not only can it generate anxietyand affect a sense of autonomy, but it can alsomake individuals alter the patterns of behaviourthat have enabled them to cope with themanagement structures and processes. Finally,Nadler identifies control as a factor necessary tomanage change processes. Table 2 is indicative ofNadler’s view that each of these three factors aregeneric problems that have associated with themorganizational needs, and prescribed actions forintervention that can be used to improveproblem situations.

We have said that it will be of use to take ODthrough a linguistic shift, thereby explainingNadler’s generic problems in terms of VST foruse later. Resistance to change is expressed interms of four actions that are intended tomotivate the organization to adopt a reorienta-tion that can deal with the change. Thus, actions(1) and (2) develop the fundamental support thatis able to motivate a new orientation for theorganization, and in (3) the use of social symbolscan be used to share meanings through whichexplicit and implicit patterns of behaviour areacquired and transmitted. In (4) the creation ofstability can concretize the orientation that hasbeen created. Hence, Nadler’s idea of theproblem of resistance to change can also beexpressed in terms of providing a reorientation

in the change for the organization as a whole. Theidea of an organizational reorientation willsubsume within it the need to reduce resistanceto change.

Control is normally cybernetic, but this is notconsistent with the notion of managing thetransition. Rather managing the transition mightbe better expressed in terms of the actions thatrelate to an organization’s possibilities of develop-ment. The action (5) of surfacing dissatisfaction isa prerequisite that will in part involve seekingthe views of the membership of the organization,thereby identifying the unrest that perturbs theorganization and enables the possibility ofcreating variety. Action (6) is directed at themanifestation of variety, as is action (7). Action(8) provides for the possibilities thrown up withthe variety generation to be selected and insti-tuted, and is therefore part of the dynamics of thechange process.

In Nadler’s problem area designated bypower, actions (9) and (12) are cyberneticprocesses that may be considered to be inde-pendent of power. Further, (11) relates to anorganizing process rather than to power, andthus is a function of polity that enables thecreation of order. All three points therefore arean energizing process as opposed to an empow-ering one, and can perhaps be better describedas kinematic—an energetic movement that canbe considered abstractly without reference to thesource of that motion. Action (10) identifiesleverage points to pressure the change. Whileleverage is consistent with the creation offorce and the use of power, other approachesare possible.

While these proposed modifications mayseem trivial, they will in due course assistin facilitating entry into the VST frame ofreference.

THE VIABLE SYSTEM MODEL

Beer (1959), in his development of managerialcybernetics, explored the nature of viable systemswhen he created his Viable Systems Model (VSM).Viable systems participate in the autonomousdevelopment of their own futures. A viable




Table2.

Actionsrelatingto

problemsandneeds

forchange

Gen

eric

pro

ble

mN

eed

Act

ion

Nad

ler

Yo

lles

Nad

ler

Yo

lles

Res

ista

nce

Ch

ang

ing

ori

enta

tio

nM

oti

vat

ech

ang

eS

up

po

rtth

ech

ang

e1.

Ass

ure

sup

po

rto

fk

eyp

ow

erg

rou

ps

2.U

sele

ader

beh

avio

ur

tog

ener

ate

ener

gy

insu

pp

ort

of

chan

ge

Un

der

pin

the

chan

ge

3.U

sesy

mb

ols

and

lan

gu

age

4.B

uil

din

stab

ilit

y

Co

ntr

ol

Man

ifes

tin

gp

oss

ibil

itie

sM

anag

eth

etr

ansi

tio

nM

anif

est

per

turb

ing

un

rest

5.S

urf

ace

dis

sati

sfac

tio

nw

ith

pre

sen

tst

ate

Man

ifes

tsu

pp

ort

and

var

iety

6.P

arti

cip

atio

nin

chan

ge

gen

erat

ion

7.R

ewar

ds

for

beh

avio

ur

insu

pp

ort

of

chan

ge

Intr

od

uce

new

var

iety

8.T

ime

and

op

po

rtu

nit

yto

dis

eng

age

dy

nam

ical

lyfr

om

the

pre

sen

tst

ate

Po

wer

En

erg

izin

gk

inem

atic

Sh

ape

po

liti

cal

Cy

ber

net

ics

9.D

evel

op

and

com

mu

nic

ate

acl

ear

imag

eo

fth

ep

roce

sses

dy

nam

ics

futu

re10

.B

uil

din

feed

bac

km

ech

anis

ms

Po

lity

11.

Dev

elo

po

rgan

izat

ion

alar

ran

gem

ents

for

the

tran

siti

on

Sem

anti

cco

mm

un

icat

ion

12.

Fac

ilit

ate

sup

po

rt




organization participates in automorphosis,5

when it is responsible for and participates inchanging its own form, and thus enabling it tomaintain appropriate operational behaviourwithin a changing environment and survive.The form is determined by its structure (Yolles,1999) that both facilitates and constrains thatbehaviour. Its refinement over OD is that strategicdecisions are not simply seen as an input to thesystem. Rather, they derive from its metasystem(the metaphorical ‘cognitive consciousness’ of thesystem) that is responsible for manifesting andmaintaining its structure. While OD sees thesystem itself as the transformation, the manage-ment cybernetics that underpins VSM invents ametasystem, and it implicitly supposes a trans-formation between the system and the metasys-tem. Thus, for instance, in OD strategy decisionsare seen as inputs to the system, while in VSMthey derive from the metasystem. In this way themetasystem formally becomes one aspect of astructured inquiry.

When decision making is part of a formalizeddeterminable process in an organization, so themetasystem is also formalised, and decisions aremade within it with respect to the perceivedneeds of the organization at the level of focusconcerned. This does not mean, however, thatthere may not be another informal metasystemfrom which informal decisions derive. Themetasystem ultimately operates through and isdefined by the worldviews that determine thenature of the organization. When a worldviewexists formally it may be called its paradigm(Yolles, 1996, 1999) and when it is informal it maybe called its Weltanschauung.

VSM is a generic model of the organizationthat promotes principles of communication andcontrol that help it to maintain its viability (seeSchwaninger, 2001). It is axiomatic in VSM thatany organization that can be modelled as a viablesystem can also be modelled as a set of fivesubsystems. They each represent an interactivecybernetic function that act together as a filter

between the environment and the organization’smanagement hierarchy, and connect manage-ment processes and their communication chan-nels. The filter is sophisticated because itattenuates (reduces the importance of) some datawhile it simultaneously amplifies other data. Thefiltered data is converted into information that isrelevant to different levels of managementwithin the organization. A final control elementaddressed in the model offers auditing tools tomake sure that the correct data is being collated.The audit channel mops up variety by sporadicor periodic checks. However, making sure thatthe appropriate data is assembled is only one ofits functions.

The five subsystems of VSM are referred to hereas S1–S5, and the control element that operates asan auditor is represented as S3*. These subsystemrelationships are shown in Figure 1. Some of thesubsystems are assigned to the metasystem (S3,S4, S5). The system of operations with itsimmediate management is S1. However, S2 andS3* do not have assignment since they are not partof the system as such, or the metasystem.Interestingly, the system of operations is definedmore usefully in an OD way, in terms of itstechnology, structures (including jobs/tasks),process, activities/behaviour (including jobs andoperational activities). Unlike VSM, OD alsoincludes culture and its associated belief system,and it makes conceptual and analytical sense todistinguish this from the system.

The recursive nature of both the metasystem/system conceptualization, and thus the VSM aswell, can be appreciated by realizing that each ofS2–S5 can individually also be seen as systemswith their own operations and metasystems.Thus, for instance, the operations of S5 are policyformation, and its metasystem is responsible forthe creation of decisions that form policy. Thisrecursive feature is both powerful and importantfor the development of analytic frameworks.

THE BASIS FOR VIABLE SYSTEMS THEORY

VST was stimulated through some of themanagerial cybernetic theory that grounds VSM.Like Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland,

5The term self-organizing’ is normally used here, but within thecontext of this paper it can be misleading in that it can be supposed tobe part of an ‘organizing’ domain, rather than what it is, associatedwith system structure and its manifest behaviour. It is for this reasonthat we refer to it as automorphosis, or self-change-of-form, relating tothe concept of morphogenesis (Yolles, 1999).




1980) and Critical Systems Thinking (Midgley,2000), it adopts a subjectivist epistemology (asembedded in critical theory). In VSM decisionsthat derive from the metasystem are transformedsuch that they can become manifested in thesystem. This has been expressed explicitly inFigure 1 (based on Yolles, 1999) using a dottedline to define a new version of the metasystem(S4 and S5), and leaving S2, S3 and S3* as part of

the transforming domain between the metasys-tem with the system (S1). This modification doesnot affect the working of the VSM in anysubstantive way.

The relationship between the system and themetasystem couple has been developed into arelationship between a phenomenal and cogni-tive domain couple, and this has been madeexplicit in Figure 2 (deriving from Yolles, 1996).

Figure 1. Relationship diagram showing the outline concept of the Viable Systems Model. The subsystem entities in S1(management and operations) are implicitly interconnected

Figure 2. Relationship between the behavioural and cognitive domains in the three-domains model




Though the space between the phenomenal andcognitive domains is one of transformation, it isalso susceptible to being defined as a domain inits own right, resulting in a three domains model.This model has evolved into Figure 3 throughconsidering the VST in terms of the phenomenalprocess of transformational change in China as itjoins the World Trade Organization and simulta-neously embraces Internet and related technolo-gies (Yolles and Iles, 2003). Here, the phenomenaldomain embeds a plurality of conscious purpose-ful complex adaptive systems seen as actors withbehaviour driven by worldviews and patterns ofknowledge that reside in the cognitive domain.Thus, the phenomenal domain constitutes a localenvironment that may be conceptually con-strained in its scope and context by definingwithin it a suprasystem of interacting actors. Thephenomenal domain represents the manifestexperienced phenomena of the perceiving actors.The virtual domain maintains a virtual imagefrom which polity (order) develops. The knowl-edge attributes represented in each domain areexplained, for instance, in Yolles (2000c), Iles andYolles (2002) and Iles et al. (2000). They derivefrom Marshall’s (1995) classification of threedifferent forms of knowledge that replace thetraditional idea of procedural and declarativeknowledge. The dotted lines that connect acrossthe domains are indicators of the ontologicalrelationship between them, and we shall discussthis in a moment.

Figures 2 and 3 represent different attributes ofthe overall model. We should note that eachdomain has its own meaningful boundary6 thatdistinguishes possible validity claims aboutreality. Such validity claims about reality shouldbe explored, at least briefly, because they providea coherent basis for further examination aboutthe three domains and their relationships. Indoing this, we are led to parallel validity claimsabout reality to that explored by Habermas(1987) for his three-worlds model. These aresummarized in Table 3, and compared tosummaries of those of Habermas.

Habermas considered validity claims aboutreality in his ‘three-worlds’ model upon whichsits his theory of communicative action that refersto participants who pursue mutual understand-ing. Each world (external, social and internal) isabsolute and has a fixed boundary, and thevalidity claims operate through basic functionsof language. Language allows us to make truthclaims (about the external world), rightnessclaims (about our social world) and claims aboutsubjective experiences and sincerity (internalworld). The theory of communicative actionrelates to information processes that enableproblems to be structured in an action situation

Figure 3. Influence diagram exploring the relationship between the phenomenological, virtual and cognitive domains

6The nature of the boundaries of each domain is of particular interest,because they can be seen as a transformer in their own right. We haveno space here to explain how or why this occurs, but it can be arguedto be true by relating Schwaninger (2001) to Yolles and Dubois (2001).




Table3.

Validityclaimsaboutrealityin

term

sof

threedomainsandHabermas’sthreeworlds

Th

ree

wo

rld

sT

hre

ed

om

ain

s

Ty

pe

of

wo

rld

Nat

ure

of

wo

rld

Ty

pes

of

do

mai

nN

atu

reo

fre

alit

y

Th

eex

tern

alM

ater

ial

ob

ject

sh

ave

Ph

eno

men

alo

rb

ehav

iou

ral

Mat

eria

lo

bje

cts

or

even

tsin

inte

ract

ion

,th

en

atu

ral

(ob

ject

)re

lati

on

sb

etw

een

them

and

per

cep

tio

no

fw

hic

his

con

dit

ion

edb

ya

cog

nit

ive

bet

wee

nin

div

idu

alac

tors

kn

ow

led

ge-

bas

edfr

ame

of

refe

ren

ce.

Itis

cog

nit

ivel

y(a

nd

thei

rst

rate

gie

s),

ina

dem

iurg

ic(m

ean

ing

form

ativ

eo

rcr

eati

ve)

,co

gn

itiv

ek

no

wle

dg

e-b

ased

der

ivin

gfr

om

the

no

tio

no

fo

ne

wh

ofa

shio

ns

the

fram

eo

fre

fere

nce

mat

eria

lw

orl

dfr

om

chao

s,an

dco

nsi

sten

tw

ith

Hu

sser

l(1

950)

and

Fri

eden

(199

9,p

.10

8)

Th

eso

cial

Act

ion

sas

soci

ated

wit

hS

ym

bo

lic

or

log

ical

rela

tio

nal

imag

esth

atre

late

toac

tors

ina

soci

alg

rou

pp

hen

om

enal

real

ity

and

inv

olv

ep

urp

ose

ful

der

ive

fro

mco

mm

on

val

ues

Vir

tual

or

org

aniz

ing

org

aniz

ing

.It

islo

cal

toth

eex

per

ien

ces

of

the

exp

ress

edas

ase

to

fn

orm

s.p

erce

iver

.Im

ages

of

val

ue

and

bel

ief

are

mai

nta

ined

,T

he

no

rms

tak

eo

nsp

ecia

lp

artl

yre

pre

sen

ted

thro

ug

het

hic

san

did

eolo

gy

.T

he

stat

us

that

incl

ud

esm

ora

ld

om

ain

isco

nd

itio

ned

by

aco

gn

itiv

ek

no

wle

dg

e-v

alid

ity

and

fact

sb

ased

fram

eo

fre

fere

nce

Th

ein

tern

al(s

ub

ject

ive)

Th

elo

cal

sph

ere

of

inte

rnal

Co

gn

itiv

eT

he

loca

lb

elie

f-b

ased

crea

tio

no

fco

nce

pts

and

thei

rp

erso

nal

exp

erie

nce

san

dp

atte

rns

hel

din

wo

rld

vie

ws

that

esta

bli

sha

fram

eo

fm

ean

ing

sas

soci

ated

wit

hth

ere

fere

nce

,an

dd

eter

min

ew

hat

isk

no

wn

and

thei

rin

div

idu

alw

orl

dv

iew

sre

late

dm

ean

ing

s




within the horizon of a lifeworld.7 It involves agroup of participants who interpret an actionsituation and together arrive at some agreementabout it. The participants pursue their planscooperatively on the basis of a shared definitionof the situation within the framework of thelifeworld.

Habermas’s theory provides an entry into thecybernetic world of autonomous behaviour, forwhich communication and information pro-cesses are central. Cybernetic needs go beyondthose of communicative action, however, and soour three-domains model would be expected tohave different validity claims about reality thanthe three worlds.

To explore this further, we note that validityclaims about reality are ontological expressions.Maturana (1996) explores the nature of reality,regarded as:

a proposition that we use as an explanatorynotion to explain our experiences . . . [beyondthis] it is that which in our living as humanbeings we live as the fundament of our living.Under these circumstances, reality is notenergy, not information, however powerfulthese notions may appear to us in theexplanation of our experiences. We explainour experiences with our experiences andwith the coherence of our experiences. Thatis we explain our living with our living, and inthis sense we explain human beings asconstitutively the fundament for all that exists,or may exist in our domains of cognition.

Explaining our experiences with our experiencesis a recursive phenomenon, enabling whateverimages of reality that we perceive to be

embedded within other images, like two mirrorsat an angle reflecting an image of an object toinfinity. This is effectively a recursive frame ofreference, and each image represents a newvalidity claim about reality that is contextualizedby the validity claim in which it is embedded.This idea allows us to talk about ontologicalrecursion, by which we mean that each of thethree domains can, through the local context ofits own validity claim about reality, recursivelyhost the set of three domains. When thishappens, the host domain has a validity claimthat is ontologically distinguished. When thedomain hosts other relative domains within it,they are capable of formulating finer, more localvalidity claims about reality.

Let us illustrate this. Phenomenal reality canbe apprehended by a unitary consciousness fromwhich a single person responds to his or herphenomenal experiences. Alternatively a sociallyplural consciousness with distinguishable com-plexities may be defined, for which coherentsocial behaviour occurs phenomenally. This isenabled through phenomenal structures thatanticipate8 a plurality of commonalities andnorms, and an expectation for behaviouraladherence to them. It is within the virtualdomain that images of these arise that enablethe phenomenal structures and behaviours to bemanifested in the first place. They are defined inthe conceptual domain through the knowledgethat constitutes such commonalities and norms.This is only possible because of the recursivenature of the domains within the conceptualdomain, through which the commonalities andnorms are manifested through the interaction ofa plurality of consciousnesses. It may be notedthat the commonalities and norms that havearisen to create a paradigm for the group aroseoriginally through the creation of a virtual par-adigm in the virtual domain at another level ofrecursion. In this case the paradigm itself with itsshared concepts and their structured intercon-nections that constitutes a pattern of normative

7Lifeworld is a teleogical and communicative social environment foraction situations that are to be managed. It appears as a reservoir oftaken-for-granteds, or unspoken convictions that participants incommunication draw upon in cooperative processes of interpretation.Single elements are mobilized as consensual (problemizable) knowl-edge when they are relevant to an action situation. Lifeworld is aculturally transmitted linguistically organized stock of interpretativepatterns. Its horizon represents the limits of what can be mastered andproblematized in an action situation, and understanding about thismay change. Lifeworld defines patterns of the social system as awhole. It is a transcendental site where speakers and hearers meet forintersubjective affairs like dealing with validity claims, settlingdisagreements and achieving agreements. It appears as a reservoirof taken-for-granteds, or unspoken convictions that participants incommunication draw upon in cooperative processes of interpretation.

8When we say anticipation, we are actually referring to ‘stronganticipation’ (Yolles and Dubois, 2001), relating to the nature andrelationship of the boundaries of the three domains and their validityclaims about reality.




knowledge would have been associated with thephenomenal domain.

Consistent with the notions of phenomenol-ogy, the three domains have boundaries thatcondition their validity claims about reality. Thatof one domain is differentiated from that of theothers through its ontological horizon.9 Thishorizon maintains a content that varies depend-ing on the cognitive perceiver that provides anentry into what may be meaningfully reflectedon, spoken about, or acted over. The threedomains are ontologically related, and theirhorizons meld10 when the domains are seen asan emergent whole. However, this can onlyoccur if the boundaries that create the horizonsalso harbour ontological connections that condi-tion that melding. Thus, ontological horizonsboth distinguish and connect differentiable valid-ity claims about reality. This notion providesentry into the understanding that the boundarieshave themselves transformation attributes.

Since the domain boundaries entail ontologicalrelationships, it is not problematic to note thatthe relationship between the virtual and phe-nomenal domains is ultimately autopoietic(Maturana and Varela, 1979; Schwarz, 1997;Yolles and Dubois, 2001). It leads to the simplenotion that the autopoietic capacity for a systemcan be directly related to its ability to manifestphenomenally its own virtual images throughthe self-production of usually structured inten-tional behaviour. We say ‘usually’ becauseorganizations operate through normative beha-viour that is consistent with their expectations,and normative behaviour is normally regulatedthrough structure. This does not mean, of course,that structure is a necessary condition forregularized behaviour to occur. Having said this,it is probably possible to express any mechan-isms through which regularized behaviouroccurs in terms of either implicit or explicitstructure associated with the organization infocus.

DOMAIN PROPERTIES

Each of the three domains of VST can beassociated with a set of cognitive properties.They are cognitive because they relate to humanorientations that are manifested from the world-view. We identify three classes of such orienta-tion: interests, properties, and influences. Takentogether, it is possible to formulate a picture ofthe cognitive properties of any purposefulactivity system, as illustrated in Table 4. Thisdevelops on the cognitive properties table ofYolles (2000a), including some of Vicker’s (1965)ideas on the notion of the appreciative system,and a development of the organizational surfingtable of Yolles (2000b) that we shall furtherdiscuss in due course.

Earlier we introduced the three-worlds modelof Habermas, which is underpinned by histheory of human Knowledge Constitutive Inter-ests (KCI) (Haberamas, 1970). The notion of‘knowledge constitutive’ is used because it deter-mines the mode of discovering knowledge andwhether knowledge claims may be warranted.The three generic cognitive areas concern work,interaction and power. Empirical–analyticsciences incorporate a ‘technical cognitive inter-est’ that connects with knowledge about work,and is associated with the instrumental control ofthe environment that identifies what is appro-priate action. The historical–hermeneuticsciences provide access to facts through theunderstanding of meaning rather than by obser-vation, which involves the interpretation of texts.Their validity is dependent on a mutual under-standing derived from traditions, which actors ina situation aim to attain. It is this level of inquirythat Habermas claims is driven by the practicalknowledge interest. Finally, emancipatory knowl-edge enables us to become self-aware of both theinternal and external forces that distort ourcommunications.

It should be said that Habermas’s KCI wasdirected at the individual within a social envir-onment. By adopting his concepts as propertiesof the organization, KCI plays a slightly differentrole. This is illustrated by the distinctive use ofemancipation. Habermas uses it in a way that isdirected towards the self-development,

9The idea of ontological horizon may be developed by referring toLadriere (2002).10According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition 2000online, meld means to merge or blend (e.g., a meld of diverse ethnicstocks). In our context it relates to a process of de-differentiating that isa consequence of emergence.




Table4.

The

threedomains,theircogn

itiveproperties,andorganizational

patterning

Org

aniz

atio

nal

pat

tern

Co

gn

itiv

ep

rop

erti

esK

inem

atic

sO

rien

tati

on

Po

ssib

ilit

ies

(th

rou

gh

ener

get

icm

oti

on

)(d

eter

min

ing

traj

ecto

ry)

(th

rou

gh

po

ten

tial

dev

elo

pm

ent)

Cognitiveinterests

Techn

ical

Practical

Criticaldeconstraining

Ph

eno

mo

nal

or

Wo

rk.

Th

isen

able

sp

eop

leIn

tera

ctio

n.

Th

isre

qu

ires

that

peo

ple

Deg

ree

of

eman

cip

atio

n.

Fo

rb

ehav

iou

ral

do

mai

nto

ach

iev

eg

oal

san

das

ind

ivid

ual

san

dg

rou

ps

ina

soci

alo

rgan

izat

ion

alv

iab

ilit

y,

the

real

izin

gg

ener

ate

mat

eria

lw

ell-

syst

emg

ain

and

dev

elo

pth

eo

fin

div

idu

alp

ote

nti

alis

mo

stb

ein

g.

Itin

vo

lves

tech

nic

alp

oss

ibil

itie

so

fan

un

der

stan

din

go

fef

fect

ive

wh

enp

eop

le:

(i)

lib

erat

eab

ilit

yto

un

der

tak

eac

tio

nea

cho

ther

’ssu

bje

ctiv

ev

iew

s.It

isth

emse

lves

fro

mth

eco

nst

rain

tsin

the

env

iro

nm

ent,

and

the

con

sist

ent

wit

ha

pra

ctic

alin

tere

stin

imp

ose

db

yp

ow

erst

ruct

ure

s,(i

i)le

arn

abil

ity

tom

ake

pre

dic

tio

nm

utu

alu

nd

erst

and

ing

that

can

add

ress

thro

ug

hp

reci

pit

atio

nin

soci

alan

dan

des

tab

lish

con

tro

ld

isag

reem

ents

,w

hic

hca

nb

ea

thre

atto

po

liti

cal

pro

cess

esto

con

tro

lth

eir

the

soci

alfo

rmo

fli

feo

wn

des

tin

ies

Cognitivepu

rposes

Cybernetical

Rational/app

reciative

Ideological/moral

Vir

tual

or

org

aniz

ing

Inte

nti

on

.T

his

isth

rou

gh

Fo

rmat

ive

org

aniz

ing

.E

nab

les

Man

ner

of

thin

kin

g.

An

inte

llec

tual

do

mai

nth

ecr

eati

on

and

stra

teg

icm

issi

on

s,g

oal

san

dai

ms

tob

ed

efin

edfr

amew

ork

thro

ug

hw

hic

hp

oli

cyp

urs

uit

of

go

als

and

aim

san

dap

pro

ach

edth

rou

gh

pla

nn

ing

.It

mak

ers

ob

serv

ean

din

terp

ret

real

ity

.th

atm

aych

ang

eo

ver

tim

e,m

ayin

vo

lve

log

ical

,an

d/

or

rela

tio

nal

Th

ish

asan

aest

het

ical

or

po

liti

call

yan

den

able

sp

eop

leth

rou

gh

abil

itie

sto

org

aniz

eth

ou

gh

tan

dac

tio

nco

rrec

tet

hic

alo

rien

tati

on

.It

pro

vid

esco

ntr

ol

and

and

thu

sto

defi

ne

sets

of

po

ssib

lean

imag

eo

fth

efu

ture

that

enab

les

com

mu

nic

atio

ns

pro

cess

essy

stem

atic

,sy

stem

ican

db

ehav

iou

rac

tio

nth

rou

gh

po

liti

call

yco

rrec

tto

red

irec

tth

eir

futu

res

po

ssib

ilit

ies.

Itca

nal

soin

vo

lve

the

use

stra

teg

icp

oli

cy.

Itg

ives

ap

oli

tica

lly

of

taci

tst

and

ard

sb

yw

hic

hex

per

ien

ceco

rrec

tv

iew

of

stag

eso

fh

isto

rica

lca

nb

eo

rder

edan

dv

alu

ed,

and

may

dev

elo

pm

ent,

inre

spec

to

fin

tera

ctio

nin

vo

lve

refl

ecti

on

wit

hth

eex

tern

alen

vir

on

men

t

Cognitiveinfluences

Social

Cultural

Political

Co

gn

itiv

ed

om

ain

Fo

rmat

ion

.E

nab

les

Bel

ief.

Infl

uen

ces

occ

ur

fro

mF

reed

om

.In

flu

ence

so

ccu

rfr

om

ind

ivid

ual

s/g

rou

ps

tob

ek

no

wle

dg

eth

atd

eriv

esfr

om

the

kn

ow

led

ge

that

affe

cto

ur

po

lity

infl

uen

ced

by

kn

ow

led

ge

cog

nit

ive

org

aniz

atio

n(t

he

set

of

det

erm

ined

,in

par

t,b

yh

ow

we

thin

kth

atre

late

too

ur

soci

alb

elie

fs,

atti

tud

es,

val

ues

)o

fo

ther

abo

ut

the

con

stra

ints

on

gro

up

and

env

iro

nm

ent.

Th

ish

asa

wo

rld

vie

ws.

Itu

ltim

atel

yd

eter

min

esin

div

idu

alfr

eed

om

s,an

din

con

seq

uen

cefo

ro

ur

soci

alh

ow

we

inte

ract

and

infl

uen

ces

ou

rco

nn

ecti

on

wit

hth

isto

org

aniz

ean

dst

ruct

ure

san

dp

roce

sses

un

der

stan

din

go

ffo

rmat

ive

org

aniz

ing

beh

ave.

Itu

ltim

atel

yh

asim

pac

to

nth

atd

efin

eo

ur

soci

alfo

rms

ou

rid

eolo

gy

and

mo

rali

ty,

and

ou

rth

atar

ere

late

dto

ou

rd

egre

eo

fo

rgan

izat

ion

alin

ten

tio

ns

and

beh

avio

urs

eman

cip

atio

n




self-knowledge or self-reflection of the indivi-dual, and beyond the limitations of one’s rolesand social expectations. Self-emancipation gainsknowledge through reflection leading to atransformed consciousness. However, our refer-ence to ‘degrees of emancipation’ in Table 4 isintended to describe the condition of an organi-zation in respect of the emancipation that itprovides for the individuals within it, whichrepresents a reflection of the ideology, ethics andpolitics of the organization. This, of course, notesthat the emancipatory condition will varybetween different classes of individuals in anorganization (e.g., director, manager and sub-ordinate). Most organizations involve structuralviolence (Yolles, 1999) that is directed differentlytowards different classes, and it limits thepotential for ‘improvement’ of both the indivi-dual and ultimately the organization, at least inrespect of variety generation and thus viability.This does not limit the capacity for any indivi-dual to seek his or her own emancipation.

KCI theory creates primary generic propertiesin which human interest generates knowledge.Yolles (1999, 2001) has applied it to the phenom-enal domain, and extended its conceptualiza-tions to the virtual and cognitive domains. Weshall explore this here.

Organizations adopt the purposeful behaviourassociated with the individuals that composethem (Espejo et al., 1996). The concept ofpurposefulness comes from the idea that humanbeings attribute meaning to their experiencedworld, and take responsive action that haspurpose. Bertalanffy (1968) attributed the ideaof purposefulness to Aristotle, and its consequenceintention as conscious planning to Allport (1961,p. 224). Purposefulness (Ackoff, 1981, p. 34)enables the selection of goals and aims and themeans for pursuing them. Checkland andScholes (1990, p. 2) tell us that human beings,whether as individuals or as groups, cannot helpbut attribute meaning to their experiencedworld, from which purposeful action follows.They, like Flood and Jackson (1991), also notethat purposeful action is knowledge based. Onewould therefore expect that different knowledgeis responsible for the creation of differentpurposeful behaviours. Consider now that pur-

poseful behaviour is a property of an organiza-tion that can be associated with its paradigms(and thus knowledge) and their associatedcognitive models, processes and intentions. Itis thinking as part of this (Levine et al., 1986)that enables the creation of the goals and thetaking of actions to achieve them. Goals providea target towards which purposeful behaviourcan occur.

Cognitive purpose is a property of the orga-nizing or virtual domain. In Table 4, threecognitive purposes are assigned to the organiz-ing domain: cybernetic, rational/appreciativeand ideological/moral. Cybernetic cognitivepurpose is connected with intention. This occursthrough the creation and strategic pursuit ofgoals and aims that may change over time. Itenables people through control and communica-tion processes to redirect their futures. Therational cognitive purpose is connected to for-mative organizing that has logical and/or rela-tional connections. It enables missions, goals andaims to be defined and approached throughplanning, all of which derive from a worldview.It may involve rational aspects that refer tological and relational abilities to organizethought and action and thus to define sets ofpossible systemic and behaviour possibilities.We have, in addition, included Vickers’ (1965)concept of the ‘appreciative system’, whereappreciation provides a reflective view of asituation that entertains both cognitive andevaluative aspects, and it may involve tacitstandards by which one can order and valueexperience. Appreciation might also be related toattitudes with reflection.

Ideological/moral cognitive purpose is con-cerned with the manner of thinking. It providesan intellectual framework through which policymakers observe and interpret reality. It may bedefined as a collection of rationalized andsystemized beliefs that coalesce into an imagethat establishes a phenomenal potential orexperience. Political ideology can be instrumen-tal in defining (Holsti, 1967, p. 163):

(a) an intellectual framework through whichpolicy makers observe and interpret reality;

(b) a politically correct ethical orientation;




(c) an image of the future that enables actionthrough strategic policy;

(d) stages of historical development in respect ofinteraction with the external environment.

Ideological properties can be associated with‘political correctness’,11 when stakeholders in asocial situation will have a worldview thatcreates some ethical expectation about the natureof the manifestation of the social structures andtheir associated behaviours. Politics provides forthe social engineering of these expectations;politics is ‘correct’ when it is associated withpurposes that satisfy those expectations.

Ideology/morality has an ethical orientation.Ethics is a term that Midgley (2000) refers to as‘values in purposeful action’. However, for us itis the harnessing of ethical and aesthetic valuesto form a virtual image that an autonomoussystem will try to manifest phenomonologically.It can provide an image of the future that enablespolitically correct action through appropriatestrategic policy. It also gives a politically correctview of stages of historical development, inrespect of interaction with the external environ-ment, and occurs through values that distinguishbetween right and wrong. While aesthetics isrelated to ethics (Mackie, 1977), it does not haveassociated with it social objectification that isnormally associated with ethics, that is it is notsupposed to be taken as socially normative orcommon.

We have been referring to cognitive purposes,but cognitive influences are also said to exist.This occurs because every coherent organizationcan be defined in terms of differentiable cultural,political and social belief systems. The threecognitive influences then, are (i) social relating tothe formation of groups, (ii) political relating toindividual and group freedom, and (iii) culturalrelating to knowledge and meaning about selfand others. Further explorations of cognitiveinfluence can be found, for instance, in Yolles(2000b, 2000c).

ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNING

The origin of the idea of organizational pattern-ing derives from a tongue-in-cheek paper byYolles (2000b) on ‘surfing the organization’. It isrepresented in Table 4 as column headers thatindicate horizontal interactivity between the rowattributes. The proposition is that just as the rowseach have empirical and analytical independenceso do the columns. Thus, both horizontal andvertical interactivity can occur between cellsthrough their ontological interconnections.

The first column involves: (a) technical cogni-tive interests connected to work that may beassociated with some form of creation; (b)cybernetical cognitive purpose connected tointention and implicitly involving time throughfeedback if nothing else; and (c) social propertiesconnected to the formation of something, sug-gesting an idea of something in motion, forwhich we adopt the term kinematic. We recall thatthe motion being considered is abstract, withoutreference to a source.

Since the kinematic classification relates towork, intention and formation, it may be seen asbeing representative of ‘viability in action’. Workknowledge conditions knowledgeable action,and may be explored by examining how workprocesses change with the introduction of newknowledge. Measurements for this control pro-cess are qualitative, requiring an inquirer tosearch the local environment for ways in whichknowledge has been applied (directly or indir-ectly) to varieties of situation. Social influencesrepresent knowledge about the way in whichsocial processes operate. This dimension canperhaps be measured not in terms of socialmeaning, but in terms of the reticence that actorshave to the introduction of new social meaning.

Consider the second column now. The first cellrelates to the practical cognitive interest that is afunction of interaction, and enables people in theorganization to work together in a particularway. This can be taken with logical and relationalaspects of the rational cognitive purposes thatorient the organization through its rational baseand nature of the interactions that can occur.Also the orientating cultural belief system ofcognitive influence can be added in, all

11This notion of political correctness is weaker than that often used inpolitics to indicate an excessive attitude towards a political particularsituation.




contributing to an organizational orientation thatdetermines its present and future trajectories.One metaphor for organizational orientationleads us to the notion of the study of anorganization’s formative orientation within thecomplex that it creates for itself, and thatdetermines its present and future trajectory.

It has been said in this paper that orientation isa classification concerned with interaction, logi-cal and relational attributes, and beliefs. Theseare all connected with what we may call relevantothers, that is, those other actors that are relevantto a situation from the perspective of an inquirer.Interaction knowledge conditions knowledge-able action (action that results from knowledge),and might possibly be explored by examininghow interaction processes change with theintroduction of new knowledge. Cultural cogni-tive influences can be evaluated by examiningbeliefs, values and attitudes (cognitive organiza-tion). One way of doing this may be to examineindividual and group resistance to new classifi-able patterns of cognitive organization within acompound actor. The classifications should beindicative of beliefs that limit the possibility ofvariation and variety in the organization.

Finally, in the third column, we have emancipa-tion, manner of thinking and freedom, suggest-ing that by releasing greater potential toindividuals or groups the possibility of greaterorganizational viability is ultimately enabled.This can liberate more possibilities for theorganization. Let us consider these three classi-fications a little more fully.

The possibilities classification relates to eman-cipation, manner of thinking and freedom, and isconcerned with the liberty that is essential for thecreation of variety. As such, variety generationmay be one way of evaluating the possibilitiesdimension of an organization. We can nowattempt to propose specific approaches to mea-surements of an organization’s possibilities,which function as attributes of variety genera-tion. Knowledge about emancipation may bedeterminable through in-depth questioning ofrelevant others. It may relate to the structuralviolence that may be believed to exist within anorganization. This is reflected, for example,through the rules that staff within an organiza-

tion may need to follow. It may be possible tomeasure this qualitatively by obtaining percep-tions of the equity among different sets of rulesthat relate to distinguished groups. Manner ofthinking relates to the ideological and ethicalattributes of actors, and can be explored throughin-depth questioning. It filters and restricts theway that information is considered (Midgleyet al., 1998).

These ideas have meaning that is able todescribe aspects of the viability of organizationsin a holistic rather than piecemeal way. Further,it seems that there are measurable qualities andquantities that may be able to produce acomplete profile of an organization and itscapabilities within a given environment. Thiscould tell us more about an organization than aset of different individual explorations intendedto address a particular problem through theapplication of a particular methodology.

It is now possible to link Tables 2 and 4, andgenerate a new table appropriate to OD thatresults in organization patterning. It provides thepossibility of extending the conceptual brief ofOD by taking into account the propertiesassociated with VST, for instance ideology, ethicsand the development of potential. This providesa new and powerful option for OD that is moreappropriate to complex situations than theprevious, more simplistic approach. A practicalorientation to this is initially suggested in Table 5.

Noting that cognitive influence is linked to thecreation of knowledge enables us to explainTable 5. Social kinematics is related to providingpeople with an image of the future that will act asa basis for change motivation. Cognitive pur-poses are linked to information, are local, andinvolve politics that enable polity. In kinematiccybernetics, communication must be logicallyenabled through social design; that is, formalaccessible channels of communication should becreated through which common meanings can beaccessed. As part of this, feedback must also beseen as an essential component of the logicaldesign. Transition processes must also be ration-ally or appreciatively designed so that newstructures can materialize within which peoplecan work. This is the same for organizationalarrangements for the transition. Facilitating




Table5.

Extendingorganizational

patterningof

OD

Org

aniz

atio

nal

pat

tern

Co

gn

itiv

eK

inem

atic

sO

rien

tati

on

Po

ssib

ilit

ies

pro

per

ties

(th

rou

gh

ener

get

icm

oti

on

)(d

eter

min

ing

traj

ecto

ry)

(th

rou

gh

po

ten

tial

dev

elo

pm

ent)

Interest

Techn

ical

Practical


Ro

uti

nes

for

com

mu

nic

atio

n.

Sy

mb

ols

;en

erg

yo

fle

ader

;R

ewar

ds

for

beh

avio

ur;

dis

eng

age

Cau

sal

exp

lan

atio

ns.

Use

enco

ura

ge

app

rop

riat

eb

ehav

iou

r.fr

om

pre

sen

tst

ate.

Use

crit

ical

emp

iric

al–a

nal

yti

cm

eth

od

sS

eek

des

crip

tio

ns

of

per

ceiv

edap

pro

ach

essi

tuat

ion

and

pra

ctic

alu

nd

erst

and

ing

Purposes

Cybernetical

Rational/app

reciative

Ideological

Lo

gic

alp

roce

sses

of

Key

po

wer

gro

up

sup

po

rt.

See

dis

sati

sfac

tio

nin

ideo

log

ical

com

mu

nic

atio

nan

dfe

edb

ack

;B

uil

din

stab

ilit

yp

roce

sses

.te

rms.

Mo

bil

ize

chan

ge

thro

ug

hD

esig

no

ftr

ansi

tio

np

roce

sses

;E

nco

ura

ge

refl

ecti

on

par

tici

pat

ion

.E

val

uat

eet

hic

alo

ro

rgan

izat

ion

alar

ran

gem

ents

for

aest

het

icp

oli

tica

lat

trib

ute

str

ansi

tio

n;

faci

lita

tesu

pp

ort

Influence

Social

Cultural

Political

Imag

eso

fth

efu

ture

inth

eU

seo

fla

ng

uag

ean

dre

late

dco

nce

pts

Cre

ates

acu

ltu

re’s

no

rmat

ive

man

agem

ent

of

soci

alp

roce

sses

that

can

giv

em

ean

ing

tok

no

wle

dg

eb

ou

nd

arie

sth

rou

gh

its

bel

iefs

,v

alu

es,

are

imp

ort

ant.

An

un

der

stan

din

g(m

etak

no

wle

dg

e).

Itsu

pp

ort

sm

yth

ssy

mb

ols

,st

ori

es,

and

pu

bli

cri

tual

sth

ato

fth

ecy

ber

net

icp

urp

ose

sis

also

that

can

mis

dir

ect

the

org

aniz

atio

n.

bin

dp

eop

leto

get

her

and

dir

ect

them

imp

ort

ant

toen

able

tech

nic

alT

he

pro

po

siti

on

so

fth

eo

rgan

izat

ion

inco

mm

on

acti

on

.T

hes

ed

eter

min

eas

pec

tso

fth

eo

rgan

izat

ion

toar

ed

efin

edh

ere,

tho

seth

atg

ive

the

crea

tio

no

fid

eolo

gic

al/

eth

ical

and

mat

eria

lize

.Is

imp

ort

ant.

mea

nin

gto

its

exis

ten

ce.

po

wer

con

stra

ints

.T

hey

con

nec

tto

the

Ob

ject

ives

pla

yan

imp

ort

ant

par

tO

rgan

izat

ion

alm

issi

on

and

stru

ctu

reo

fan

org

aniz

atio

nan

dth

eh

ere,

and

mu

stb

eu

nd

erst

oo

do

bje

ctiv

esd

eriv

efr

om

this

way

that

po

wer

isd

istr

ibu

ted

and

use

d




support is also a political process that links tocontrol and logical communication. Cognitiveinterest is linked to data and data collection. ODties into technical cognitive interest kinematics asfar as it requires that people actually usecommunication as a part of their designatedwork profile. The potential for communicationmay not be adequate. Motivating routines mustbe established in which people take communica-tion to be an important part of their workprocesses. The interests row has been enhancedwith the knowledge constitutive counterparts ofHabermas’s cognitive interests that refer to theuse of causal and empirical–analytical methods,descriptions and practical understanding, andthe use of critical approaches (Habermas, 1987;MacIsaac, 1996; Fleming, 1997). Knowledgemanagement processes might well furtherdevelop on these (e.g., Iles et al., 2000; Yolles,2000c).

Orientation is affected by cultural purposes inthat the nature of the language used will providesomething of an image and meaning to partici-pants in the change. For cognitive purposes, therational and appreciative aspects of orientationformulate key power group support by thepolitical creation of that support (with the helpof the appropriate language). Stabilizing thissupport is an important feature of changemanagement. The practical interest aspect oforientation involves the adoption of symbols thatpeople can apply in the technological commu-nications that they establish. Practical interestsare facilitated by the provision of, say, the use oftechnology in creating networks of communica-tion, or more simply just manifest schedules forregular meetings. These clearly link to technicalinterests, so that, for instance, people may bestimulated to attend a scheduled meeting.Leaders should have energy that can be put atthe disposal of the change. Their politicalbehaviour should also be coincident with theperceived needs of the change process.

No cognitive influences in the area of possibi-lity for change are indicated within OD. Theycould have involved, say, awareness that anexisting despotic political culture does notprovide sufficient empowerment for participantsin a change to help carry it through, and that a

new, more open, political structure is required.The ideological attributes of organizationalpotential for change occur by ensuring thatpeople become dissatisfied with the logical orpolitical basis of the organization, and theirbeliefs can be developed or harnessed to encou-rage them to want to participate in change.Ethical considerations that are part of ideologydo not form part of the traditional OD paradigm.Within critical deconstraining, people are pro-vided with rewards for their behaviour inparticipating in change. These rewards may ormay not take the form of exchange media likemoney or power (Habermas, 1987); but theyshould contribute to an increase in their libera-tion, thus enabling them to see that they shoulddisengage from the present state of the organiza-tion. Part of this process could also be the abilityfor people to decide their own constraints ontheir behaviour. However, at best this must be alifeworld process that enables semantic commu-nication.

This context enables us to adopt the theoreticalbase provided by VST, and to construct atransformation of Nadler’s theory of organiza-tional change that more satisfies the needsexpressed in Table 2. It results in a tableau thatguides an inquirer in an inquiry into organiza-tional change management through a set ofcharacteristics that effectively assemble a num-ber of conventional arguments together). Aconsequence is that certain remedies can beimplemented within the context of an ODinquiry that can improve the organization interms of its kinematic energetic processes, thedirection that it is taking, and its future possibi-lities.

Paradigmatic Metamorphosis and Organiza-tional Development in Table 2 provides the basisfor an exploration of distinct aspects of theorganization at the cultural, polity and activitylevels of the organization. It may be thatadditional attributes must also be introducedthat are reflected in the work of other compatibletheories. The attributes of Table 2 enable thedifferent aspects of the organization to beexplored in connection with its current capabil-ities and capacities, and its possible futures. Itthus acts as an energy and change map of the




organization that can assist the inquirer todevelop appropriate intervention strategies thatcan be hailed as remedies for improvement. Thismap is quite broad, and it is possible toincorporate a number of models into it that areprevalent in the literature, for instance by Child(1973), who drew attention to more intangibleelements of organizational life such as thepolitical behaviour of organizational members,and by Huczynski and Buchanan (1991), whereorganizations are social arrangements for thecontrolled performance of collective goals. Aconsequence of this map is to provide a topologyof problems that direct the inquirer to a portfolioof remedies for improvement, consistent with the‘actions’ as illustrated in Table 6, but moreextensive and with cybernetic qualities thatpattern the organization.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we have developed a cybernetictheory of organizational patterning that canenrich and complexify OD, enabling it to bemore effective in creating intervention strategiesfor organizations in need of change.

This development has arisen because we haveargued that OD, the theory that underpins VSM,and VST are each supported by paradigms thatrepresent distinct species of managerial cyber-netics as it has passed through paradigmaticmetamorphoses, with all lying on the sameevolutionary pathway. This is illustrated by thecreation of a frame of reference in whichtransformation is seen as a conceptual device.In each case the number of fundamental dimen-sions of the frame of reference has increased as anew way of defining transformation has beenadopted. The notion that the boundary of each ofthe domains of VST is also a transformationaldevice has been mentioned but not exploredhere, and provides entry into another new andpotentially exciting paradigmatic metamorpho-sis open to a new process of research.

OD sees the open system as a space thattransforms inputs into outputs. To enable theorganization to become more operationallyeffective, and thus to create improvement in its

outputs (for given inputs) that it perceives to bemore appropriate to its environment, the systemand the cultural base that defines it must bemodified. To enhance its capacity to map aspectsof the organization, we have modified OD toadopt a terminology that is consistent with thatof Viable Systems. Doing this, it becomes clearthat traditional OD does not explore many of thefacets of an organization that can be pertinent tochange.

VSM operates through a system and a meta-system, with an implicit transformation thatcouples the two. In this sense it can be seen asan evolutionary development of OD. It can alsobe thought of as a model that sits within VST,where the implicit transformational processes ofVSM are attributed to an independent domain.Here, transformational processes become ass-igned to the boundaries of the domains. Thevalidity claims about reality of its three domainswas discussed. It resulted in two conceptualiza-tions for VST: (a) boundaries are ontologicalentities in themselves that embed both distinc-tion and connectedness; and (b) validity claimsabout reality can imply recursive frames ofreference. This lies at the basis of the three-domains model and is quite distinct from that ofthe three worlds of Habermas (1987). While thethinking for Habermas’s theory centres oncommunicative action, that of VST derives froma cybernetic frame of reference that is influencedby Habermas but draws significantly on thework of Eric Schwarz (1997). The three domainsoffer conditioned validity claims about realitythat also admit elements of communicativeaction.

Since VST admits more fundamental concep-tual extensions than does VSM or traditional OD,it would be expected to encompass morecapacity to model complex situations. This hasoccurred because of the relationship that hasbeen developed between VST, Schwarz’s cyber-netic theory of viable systems and Habermas’stheory of communicative action. Schwarz’s the-ory provides a grounded theory of the complexcybernetic mechanics of autonomy. The cogni-tive properties of VST domains were inspired byHabermas’s KCI theory. This provides a con-ceptual map through which cultural, virtual and




Table6.

Tableau

fororganizational

patterningin

OD

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Ch

arac

teri

stic

s

Co

gn

itiv

ed

om

ain

Kin

emat

ics

Ori

enta

tio

nP

oss

ibil

itie

sp

rop

erti

es(t

hro

ug

hen

erg

etic

mo

tio

n)

(det

erm

inin

gtr

ajec

tory

)(t

hro

ug

hp

ote

nti

ald

evel

op

men

t)

Cognitive

Techn

ical

Practical


domain/

Th

isen

able

sp

eop

leto

ach

iev

eS

ym

bo

lsan

dri

tual

ssh

ou

ldb

eR

ewar

ds

for

beh

avio

ur;

dis

eng

age

fro

minterest

go

als

and

gen

erat

em

ater

ial

har

nes

sed

;en

erg

yo

fle

ader

ssh

ou

ldp

rese

nt

stat

e.w

ell-

bei

ng

.b

ed

irec

ted

;ap

pro

pri

ate

beh

avio

ur

Itin

vo

lves

tech

nic

alab

ilit

ysh

ou

ldb

een

cou

rag

ed.

Em

anci

pat

ion

fro

mth

ecu

rren

tst

ate

and

tou

nd

erta

ke

intr

insi

can

dIn

tera

ctio

ns

that

mai

nta

inth

eem

po

wer

men

ten

abli

ng

peo

ple

toex

trin

sic

acti

on

,an

dth

eab

ilit

yto

dir

ecti

on

of

the

chan

ge

are

con

trib

ute

toa

new

futu

re.

Fo

rm

ake

pre

dic

tio

nan

des

tab

lish

esse

nti

alo

rgan

izat

ion

alv

iab

ilit

y,

the

real

izin

go

fco

ntr

ol

ind

ivid

ual

po

ten

tial

ism

ost

effe

ctiv

ew

hen

peo

ple

:(i

)li

ber

ate

them

selv

esfr

om

the

con

stra

ints

imp

ose

db

yp

ow

erst

ruct

ure

san

d(i

i)le

arn

thro

ug

hp

reci

pit

atio

nin

soci

alan

dp

oli

tica

lp

roce

sses

toco

ntr

ol

thei

ro

wn

des

tin

ies

Virtual

Cybernetical

Rational/app

reciative

Ideological/moral

domain/

Th

rou

gh

inte

nti

on

alit

yfo

rth

eK

eyp

ow

erg

rou

psu

pp

ort

See

dis

sati

sfac

tio

nin

ideo

log

ical

term

s;pu

rposes

futu

re,

top

rov

ide

log

ical

Bu

ild

inst

abil

ity

pro

cess

esm

ob

iliz

ing

chan

ge

thro

ug

hp

arti

cip

atio

np

roce

sses

of

com

mu

nic

atio

nan

dD

evel

op

and

form

ula

teo

bje

ctiv

es/

and

the

faci

lita

tio

no

fim

age.

Cla

rifi

cati

on

feed

bac

k;

des

ign

of

tran

siti

on

go

als

for

the

chan

ge.

of

wh

atco

nst

itu

tes

ap

oli

tica

lly

corr

ect

pro

cess

es;

org

aniz

atio

nal

En

able

sm

issi

on

s,g

oal

s,an

dai

ms

tob

eap

pro

ach

for

dea

lin

gw

ith

the

chan

ge

arra

ng

emen

tsfo

rtr

ansi

tio

n;

defi

ned

and

app

roac

hed

thro

ug

hp

roce

ssfa

cili

tate

sup

po

rt.

Th

iso

ccu

rsp

lan

nin

g.

Itm

ayin

vo

lve

log

ical

,an

d/

thro

ug

hth

ecr

eati

on

and

stra

teg

ico

rre

lati

on

alab

ilit

ies

too

rgan

ize

tho

ug

ht

pu

rsu

ito

fg

oal

san

dai

ms

that

and

acti

on

and

thu

sto

defi

ne

sets

of

may

chan

ge

ov

erti

me,

enab

les

po

ssib

lesy

stem

atic

,sy

stem

ican

dp

eop

leth

rou

gh

con

tro

lan

db

ehav

iou

rp

oss

ibil

itie

s.It

can

also

com

mu

nic

atio

ns

pro

cess

esto

inv

olv

eth

eu

seo

fta

cit

stan

dar

ds

by

red

irec

tth

eir

futu

res.

wh

ich

exp

erie

nce

can

be

ord

ered

and

val

ued

,an

dm

ayin

vo

lve

refl

ecti

on

Phenom

onal

Social

Cultural

Political

domain/

Imag

eso

fth

efu

ture

inth

eK

no

wle

dg

eab

ou

tth

ecu

rren

tst

ate

and

Val

ues

that

crea

teg

rou

ps,

hie

rarc

hie

s,Influence

man

agem

ent

of

soci

alp

roce

sses

its

futu

reis

imp

ort

ant,

and

rem

ov

alo

fle

ader

s,p

ow

erp

osi

tio

ns

and

po

wer

are

imp

ort

ant.

An

my

ths

isal

soes

sen

tial

.U

seo

fla

ng

uag

e,re

lati

on

ship

s.It

esta

bli

shes

the

bas

isfo

ru

nd

erst

and

ing

of

the

cyb

ern

etic

and

are

defi

nit

ion

of

iden

tity

sho

uld

be

free

do

ms

that

pro

vid

ea

new

futu

refo

rth

e




behavioural attributes of an organization can beconsidered. The cognitive properties of theconceptual map are row attributes (of Table 4).However, column attributes also exist, and thesecan be used to pattern an organization in such away that its viability could be more clearlyassessed. These column attributes are capableof patterning an organization. They do this byidentifying its overall kinematic processes thatenergize its movements in its environment, itsorientations that determine an intended trajec-tory for action and its possibilities for potentialdevelopment.

This conceptual OD development can enableinquiry into a coherent organization, its groups,or its individual participants, thereby exploringits viability within more complex situations thannormally occurs within traditional OD. This isbecause it extends the brief of OD through itsorganizational patterning map significantlybeyond that proposed by Nadler or Harrison.Having claimed this, the suitability of this plat-form for OD development will need to be evalua-ted through practical results, and this work iscurrently in process (Yolles and Guo, 2002).

REFERENCES

Ackoff RL. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. Wiley:New York.

Allport GW. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personality.Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York.

Beer S. 1959. Cybernetics and Management. EnglishUniversities Press: London.

Beer S. 1979. The Heart of the Enterprise. Wiley: NewYork.

Bertalanffy L von. 1968. General Systems Theory.Penguin: London.

Casti JL. 1989. Paradigms Lost. Abacus: London.Burrell G, Morgan G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms andOrganizational Analysis. Heinemann: London.

Checkland PB. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice.Wiley: Chichester.

Checkland P, Scholes J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodologyin Action. Wiley: New York.

Child J. 1973. Strategies of control and organizationalbehaviour. Administrative Science Quarterly 18: 1–17.

Churchman CW. 1970. Operations research as aprofession. Management Science 17: B37–B53.

Coghlan D. 1993. In defence of process consultation. InManaging Change, Mabey C, Mayon-White B (eds).Paul Chapman: London; 117–124.

pu

rpo

ses

toen

able

tech

nic

alh

arn

esse

dto

dir

ect

the

org

aniz

atio

n.

org

aniz

atio

nin

av

ery

dif

fere

nt

asp

ects

of

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

Use

of

lan

gu

age

and

rela

ted

con

cep

tsen

vir

on

men

t,an

dw

ill

ult

imat

ely

mat

eria

lize

isim

po

rtan

t.th

atca

ng

ive

mea

nin

gto

kn

ow

led

ge

det

erm

ine

thro

ug

hn

orm

ativ

eco

nst

rain

tsO

bje

ctiv

esal

sop

lay

an(m

etak

no

wle

dg

e).

Itsu

pp

ort

sm

yth

so

nst

ruct

ure

wh

atb

ehav

iou

rsw

ill

be

imp

ort

ant

par

th

ere,

and

mu

stth

atca

nm

isd

irec

tth

eo

rgan

izat

ion

.p

oss

ible

.C

reat

esa

cult

ure

’sn

orm

ativ

eb

eu

nd

erst

oo

dT

he

pro

po

siti

on

so

fth

eo

rgan

izat

ion

bo

un

dar

ies

thro

ug

hit

sb

elie

fs,

val

ues

,ar

ed

efin

edh

ere,

tho

seth

atg

ive

sym

bo

ls,

sto

ries

and

pu

bli

cri

tual

sth

atm

ean

ing

toit

sex

iste

nce

.b

ind

peo

ple

tog

eth

eran

dd

irec

tth

emin

Org

aniz

atio

nal

mis

sio

nan

do

bje

ctiv

esco

mm

on

acti

on

.T

hes

ed

eter

min

eth

ed

eriv

efr

om

this

.cr

eati

on

of

ideo

log

ical

/et

hic

alan

dp

ow

erco

nst

rain

ts.

Th

eyco

nn

ect

toth

est

ruct

ure

of

ano

rgan

izat

ion

and

the

way

that

po

wer

isd

istr

ibu

ted

and

use

d




Espejo R, Schuhmann W, Schaniger M, Bielello U.1996. Organizatonal Transformation and Learning.Wiley: Chichester.

Fleming M. 1997. Emancipation and Illusion: Rational-ity and Gender in Habermas’s Theory of Modern-ity. Penn State University Press: University Park,PA.

Flood RL, Jackson MC. 1991. Creative Problem Solving:Total Systems Intervention. Wiley: Chichester.

Frieden R. 1999. Physics from Fisher Information: AUnification. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Guba EG, Lincoln YS. 1994. Competing paradigms inqualitative research. In Handbook of QualitativeResearch, Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds). Sage:Thousand Oaks, CA; 105–117.

Habermas J. 1970. Knowledge and interest. InSociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis,Emmet D, MacIntyre A (eds). Macmillan: London;36–54.

Habermas J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action,Vol. 2. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.

Harrison IH. 1994. Diagnosing Organizations: Methods,Models and Processes. Sage, Thousand: Oaks, USA.

Holsti KJ. 1967. International Politics: A Framework forAnalysis. Prentice Hall: Englewood Clipp, NJ.

Huczynski A, Buchanan D. 1991. Organisational Beha-viour. Prentice Hall: Hemel Hempstead. Institutefor Employment Research. 1995. University ofWarwick, Coventry.

Iles PA, Yolles M. 2002. International joint ventures,HRM, and viable knowledge migration. InternationalJournal of HRM, 13(14): 624–-641.

Iles PA, Yolles M, Altman Y. 2000. HRM and knowl-edge management: responding to the challenge.Journal of Research and Practice in HRM 8(2): 3–33.

Kuhn ST. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Ladriere J. 2002. Technical universe in an ontologicalperspective. Society for Philosophy & Technology,

vol. 4, no. 1, http : //scholar:lib:vt:edu/ejournals/

SPT/v4nl/LADRIERE:htmlLevine RI, Drang DE, Edelson B. 1986. A ComprehensiveGuide toAI andExpert Systems. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Lewin K. 1947. Frontiers of group dynamics. HumanRelations 1: 5–41.

MacIsaac D. 1996, The critical theory of Jurgen Haber-mas. http : //www:physics:nau:edu/�danmac

Mackie JL. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.Penguin: London.

Marshall SP. 1995. Schemes in Problem Solving. Cam-bridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Maturana H. 1996. Metadesign, Instituto de TerapiaCognitiva. http : ==www:inteco:cl=articulos=006=

doc ing4:htm [16 January 2003]

Maturana H, Varela FJ. 1979. Autopoiesis and Cognition.Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Boston,MA.

Midgley G. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy,Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum: New York.

Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M. 1998. The theory andpractice of boundary critique: developing housingservices for older people. Journal of the OperationalResearch Society 49(5): 467–478.

Nadler DA. 1993. Concepts for the management oforganizational change. In Managing Change(2nd edn), Mabey C, Mayon-White B. (eds). PaulChapman: London; 85–98.

Nadler DA, Tushman ML. 1977. Feedback and Organiza-tions Development: Using Data Based on Methods.Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Nadler DA, Tushman ML. 1979. A congruence modelfor diagnosing organizational behaviour. In Organi-zational Psychology: A Book of Readings (3rd edn),Kolb D, Rubin I, McIntyre J (eds). Prentice Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Nicholson M. 1993. Organizational Change. In Mana-ging Change, Mabey C, Mayon-White B (eds). PaulChapman: London; 207–211.

Pritchard W. 1993. What’s new in organizationaldevelopment. In Planning and Managing Change,Mayon-White B (ed.). Harper & Row: London;132–140.

Pugh D. 1993. In Managing Change, Mabey C, Mayon-White B (eds). Paul Chapman: London; 109–112.Originally in London Business School Journal 1978;3(2): 29–34.

Schwaninger M. 2001. Intelligent organisations: anintegrative framework. Systems Research 18: 137–158.

Schwarz E. 1997. Towards a holistic cybernetics: fromscience through epistemology to being. Cyberneticsand Human Knowing 4(1): 17–50.

Tushman ML. 1977. a political approach to organiza-tions: a review and rationale. Academy of Manage-ment Review 2: 206–216.

Vickers G. 1965. The Art of Judgement. Chapman & Hall:London (reprinted 1983, Harper & Row: London).

Watson G. 1969. Resistance to change. In The Planningof Change, Bennis WG, Benne KF, Chin R (eds). Holt,Reinhart & Winston: New York; 488.

Weisbord MR, Janoff S. 1996. Future search: findingcommon ground in organizations and communities.Systems Practice 9(1): 71–84.

Williams A, Dobson P, Walters M. 1993. OrganizationalCulture: New Organisational Approaches. IPM: London.

Yolles MI. 1996. Critical systems theory, paradigms, andthe modelling space. Systems Practice 9(6): 549–570.

Yolles MI. 1998. Changing paradigms in operationalresearch. Cybernetics and Systems 29(2): 91–112.

Yolles MI. 1999. Managment Systems: A Viable Approach.Financial Times/Pitman: London.

Yolles MI. 2000a. The theory of viable joint ventures.Cybernetics and Systems 31(4): 371–396.

Yolles MI. 2000b. From viable systems to surfing theorganization. Journal of Applied Systems 1(1): 127–142.




Yolles MI. 2000c. Organizations, complexity, andviable knowledge management. Kybernetes29(9/10).

Yolles MI. 2001. Viable boundary critique. Journal of theOperational Research Society 51: 1–12.

Yolles MI, Dubois D. 2001. Anticipatory viablesystems. International Journal of Computing Anticipa-tory Systems 9: 3–20.

Yolles MI, Guo K. 2002. Organization development inChinese state-owned commercial banks: a develop-ing organizational development perspective. Con-

ference of International Society for Systems Science, 2–5August 2002, Shanghai, China.

Yolles MI, Iles P. 2003. Transformational change inChina. In Organizational Transformation and SocialChange. Based on a keynote speech presented byYolles MI, 2002, Change, informatization and theWorld Trade Organization, Fourth InternationalConference on Chinese Management Innovation, Qing-dao, China, 28–30 September 2002.

Zaltman G, Duncan R. 1977. Strategies for PlannedChange. Wiley: New York.




Documents

Paradigmatic metamorphosis and organizational development