Decision entity-ness: taking agency seriously in organizational decision-making studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v21i1.18815Keywords:
Decision, Action, Agency, Transaction, Relational sociology.Abstract
Objective of the study: In this essay, we problematize the onto-epistemological assumptions of organizational decision-making theories, focusing on the concepts of action and decision.
Approach: Based on the epistemological perspective of transaction, we propose an understanding of decision as a relational element of action and in action, constructing an explanation supported on the relational ontological understanding of reality.
Originality/relevance: We introduce the concept of decision entity-ness, based on relational sociology from the perspective of transaction and the idea of relational agency.
Main results: The concept of decision entity-ness allowed us to theoretically combine the processual and performative dimensions of organizational decision-making.
Theoretical contribution: As a contribution, we developed an original theoretical-explanatory framework that emphasizes decision, understanding it as an element that distinguishes organizations from other social systems.
Downloads
References
Abbott, A. (1995) Things of Boundaries. Social Research, 62(4), 857–82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971127
Abend, G. (2018). Outline of a sociology of decisionism. The British Journal of Sociology, 69(2), 237-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12320
Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2016). Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. European Management Journal, 34 (2), 93-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.003
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of Decision – explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Harper Collins Publishers.
Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (extended version). New York: Longman Publishing.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330882
Archer, M. S. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer M. S. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Balogun, J., Pye, A., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2008). Cognitively skilled organizational decision making: making sense of deciding. In Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford University Press, USA.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801-831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin, UK.
Brunsson, N. (1982). The irrationality of action and action rationality: decisions, ideologies and organizational actions. Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 29-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00058.x
Brunsson, N. (2007). The consequences of decision-making. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burkitt, I. (2016). Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 322-339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431015591426
Burkitt, I. (2018). Relational Agency. In F. Dépelteau (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology (pp. 523-538). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cabantous, L., & Gond, J. P. (2011). Rational decision making as performative praxis: explaining rationality's éternel retour. Organization Science, 22(3), 573-586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0534
Cabantous, L., Gond, J. P., & Johnson-Cramer, M. (2010). Decision theory as practice: Crafting rationality in organizations. Organization Studies, 31(11), 1531-1566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610380804
Cabantous, L., & Sergi, V. (2018). Seeing the potentialities at the intersection: A reflection on performativity and processuality mindsets. M@n@gement, 21(4), 1229-1243. https://www.cairn.info/revue-management-2018-4-page-1229.htm
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2016). The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 365-401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655483
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 196-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Callon, M., & Law, J. (1995). Agency and the hybrid collectif. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 94 (2), 481-507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822382720-006
Chia, R. (1994). The concept of decision: A deconstructive analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6), 781-806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00639.x
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1), p. 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088
Dawson, P. (2014). Reflections: on time, temporality and change in organizations. Journal of Change Management, 14(3), 285-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2014.886870
Denis, J. L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2011). Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1), 225-244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0501
Dépelteau, F. (2013). What Is the Direction of the ‘Relational Turn’?. In: C. Powell & F. Dépelteau (Ed.). Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues, Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 163-185.
Dépelteau, F. (2015). Relational sociology, pragmatism, transactions and social fields. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 45-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.997966
Dépelteau, F. (Ed.), (2018a) The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 686 pp.
Dépelteau, F. (2018b). Relational Thinking in Sociology: Relevance, Concurrence and Dissonance. In F. Dépelteau (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology (pp. 3–33). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dépelteau, F. (2018c). The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology. In F. Dépelteau (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology (pp. I - XXI). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dépelteau, F. (2018d). From the concept of ‘trans-action’ to a process-relational sociology. In Dépelteau, F. (Ed.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 499-519).
Dewey, J., & A. Bentley (1949) Knowing and the Known. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Donati, P. (2011). Relational sociology: a new paradigm for the social sciences. London: Routledge.
Elias, N. (1978). What Is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281-317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/231209
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency?. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
Ericson, M. (2010). Towards a sensed decision-making approach: From déjà vu to vu jàdé. Management Decision, 48(1), 132 – 155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014490
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D., & Ocasio, W. (2007). Perspective—Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie school’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organization Science, 18(3), 523-536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0277
Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hendry, J. (2000). Strategic decision making, discourse, and strategy as social practice. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 955-978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00212
Krarup, T. M., & Blok, A. (2011). Unfolding the social: quasi-actants, virtual theory, and the new empiricism of Bruno Latour. The Sociological Review, 59(1), 42-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01991.x
Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening Up Decision Making: the view from the black stool. Organization Science, 6(3), 260-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.3.260
Laroche, H. (1995). From decision to action in organizations: Decision-making as a social representation. Organization Science, 6(1), 62-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.62
Laroche, H. (2014). La décision comme production d'ordre dans les organisations. Connexions, 1, 11-18. https://www.cairn.info/journal-connexions-2014-1-page-11.htm
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2012). “What’s the story?”: Organizing as a mode of existence. In Passoth, J., Peuker, B., & M. Schillmeier. (Eds.). Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action. London: Routledge, pp. 163-177.
Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and organization studies. Oxford University Press. 347 pp.
Lorino, P. (2020). Trans-Action: A Processual and Relational Approach to Organizations. In Morgner, C. John Dewey and the Notion of Trans-action (pp. 83-109). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Maitlis, S., & Ozcelik, H. (2004). Toxic decision processes: A study of emotion and organizational decision making. Organization Science, 15(4), 375-393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0070
March J. G. (1988). Decisions and organizations. Oxford: Brackwell.
March, J. G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
March, J. G. (1997). Understanding how decisions happen in organizations. In: Shapira, Z. (Ed.). Organizational decision making. Cambridge University Press, pp. 9-32.
Merkus, S., De Heer, J., & Veenswijk, M. (2014). Decision-making as performative struggle: Strategic political-executive practices influencing the actualization of an infrastructural development. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3(2), 224-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-12-2012-0058
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (2), 246-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392045
Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. (1990). Studying deciding: An exchange of views between Mintzberg and Waters, Pettigrew, and Butler. Organization Studies, 11(1), 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069001100101
Morgner, C. (2020). Reinventing Social Relations and Processes: John Dewey and Trans-Actions. In Morgner, C. John Dewey and the Notion of Trans-action. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 1-30.
Nayak, A., & Chia, R. (2011). Thinking becoming and emergence: process philosophy and organization studies. In: Tsoukas, H.; & Chia, R (Ed.). Philosophy and Organization Theory (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, v. 32). London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 281 – 309.
Nutt, P. (2011). Making Decision-Making Research Matter: some issues and remedies. Management Research Review, 34 (1), 5-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111096441
Passoth, J., Peuker, B., & Schillmeier, M. (Eds.). (2012). Introduction. In Passoth, J., Peuker, B., & M. Schillmeier. (Eds.). Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action. London: Routledge, pp. 1-11.
Pham, Q.N. (2013). Enduring bonds: politics and life outside freedom as autonomy. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 38(1), 29–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375412465676
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision‐making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71(1), 74-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638509383719
Rammert, W. (2012). Distributed agency and advanced technology: or how to analyze constellations of collective inter-agency. In Passoth, J., Peuker, B., & M. Schillmeier. (Eds.). Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action. London: Routledge, pp. 89-112.
Rorty R. (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. Penguin Books. 288 pp.
Rudolf, F. (2012). Questioning the human/non-human distinction. In Passoth, J., Peuker, B., & M. Schillmeier. (Eds.). Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action. London: Routledge, pp. 54-66.
Sayes, E. (2014). Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency?. Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134-149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713511867
Simon, H. A. (1965). Administrative behavior . New York: Free Press.
Tsoukas, H. (2010) Strategic decision making and knowledge: a Heideggerian Approach. In: Nutt, P. C. & Wilson, D. C. Handbook of Decision Making. United Kingdom: Wiley, 2010.
Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don't simplify, complexify: from disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (2), 132-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12219
Vandenberghe, F. The Relation as Magical Operator: Overcoming the Divide Between Relational and Processual Sociology. In F. Dépelteau (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology (pp. 35-57). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Villar, E. G.; Rese, N.; Roglio, K. D. (2020). (Trans)Formative Trajectories of Decisions: An Analysis from The Translation Perspective. BASE - Revista de Administração e Contabilidade da Unisinos, 17 (3), 361-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4013/base.2020.173.01
Vo, L. C., & Kelemen, M. (2014). John Dewey (1859–1952). In Helin, J., Hernes, T., Hjorth, D., & Holt, R. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy and Organization Studies. Oxford University Press.
Weick, K. E. (1969) The social psychology of organizing., Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (v. 3). Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obsfeldt, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking, Organization Science, 16 (4), 409-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
White, H. C. (1992). Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author (s) authorize the publication of the manuscript in the journal;
The author (s) guarantee that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not being evaluated in another journal (s);
The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts emitted in the texts, as they are the sole responsibility of its author (s);
Editors reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt to the publication's rules.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License - 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) that allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.
Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes, as well as increase impact and citation of the published work (see “The Effect of Open Access” at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
Authors can use ORCID for identification. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work appropriately assigned.