5 ms·

Actually, there is a entire field dedicated to this (disclaimer: I studied it at uni, plus CS and info systems) - organizational studies [1]. It has subdomains

Actually, there is a entire field dedicated to this (disclaimer: I studied it at uni, plus CS and info systems) - organizational studies [1]. It has subdomains such as organizational structure/models, behavior, communication, etc. Much of it backed by theories, studies and more, ranging in disciplines. Time and motion studies (for example) were part of the scientific management revolution for industrial management [2]. There have been both qualitative and quantitative studies of all kinds of things - organizational forms, people networks (things like, Dunbar's number[3]), power distribution (ex. work of Pfeffer), etc. I could go on. I do think we are reliving an era of interest in management by data and metrics, much like that of the industrial revolution and scientific management. Nothing wrong with using science and quantitative measures to optimize, but any human who has been subject to purely management by quantitative objective will likely tell you it often becomes.. rather, inhumane. This is often what led to automation, I feel - to remove the human element that was crushed by industrial efficiency. I suspect this is why the qualitative balance is important (and no less scientific - science can be logic not just metrics right?). My two cents... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_studies [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_motion_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_motion_study [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

throwoutway 5y ago
OP said they were an organizational scientist, so I would assume they know this. However the article rather hypothesizes and references recent books like Working Backwards, rather than long-established theories about org-design (like Mintzberg, who dates to the 60s). I’ve studied many of these and they are very thorough (though none are perfect) I had a similar thought on another commoncog.com post. The author didn’t seem to research deeply before postulating opinions. Looks like this site allows members to post so I don’t know if it’s the same person
- shadowsun7 5y ago
  https://commoncog.com/blog/the-hierarchy-of-practical-evidence/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-hierarchy-of-practical-eviden... I would ask the OP a simple question: what organisations have they built, and where are they now? Longer, but establishes the epistemology of the blog: https://commoncog.com/blog/practice-as-the-bar-for-truth/ https://commoncog.com/blog/practice-as-the-bar-for-truth/ and https://commoncog.com/blog/four-theories-of-truth/ https://commoncog.com/blog/four-theories-of-truth/
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    Sorry but providing three more links to your blog does not contribute to the threaded discussion. If you'd like to ask OP that question, you can ask OP on OP's comment. Otherwise, I'm still not sure why you don't include both (well established) theories, in addition to your own practice in your post.
    - shadowsun7 5y ago
      Ok, since I have to spell it out for you: I have not included any such theories because I have not found them useful. The links are to say something simple: my entire epistemology is pragmatic. That is, true knowledge should lead to effective action. If I cannot apply it and get results, then it is useless to me, and irrelevant when writing up notes for other practitioners. I have noticed that your claim is that 'here is some theory that is well established and rigorous and old'. I have also noticed that your claim is not 'here is some theory that I have found useful, and <insert notes from application>.' I pay attention to arguments of the latter form, because it usually indicates something that I can integrate into my practice. Because you have not included notes from actual application, I am not particularly interested in your argument. (But if you can provide an applied account, I’m all ears!) That is not to say that org theorists are useless, or that research is useless. I have found Herbert Simon's work on organisational decision making useful as a lens on practical rationality, for instance. I’ve also spent a lot of time digging into expertise research for applied ideas. I think the bar I use is simple: when reading a theory, I ask myself if there are actionable handles. If so, I tend to pay attention. If not, or if I’ve applied it and it doesn’t work particularly well, I discount the research. That said, I have noticed that good organisational builders — with a track record of actually building orgs — say different things from organisational theorists. And I think the reason for why is interesting: I suspect that org builders are interested in actual org outcomes, while org theorists are too far removed from actual application; they are interested in tenure. (Edited to soften tone.)

throwoutway 5y ago

OP said they were an organizational scientist, so I would assume they know this. However the article rather hypothesizes and references recent books like Working Backwards, rather than long-established theories about org-design (like Mintzberg, who dates to the 60s). I’ve studied many of these and they are very thorough (though none are perfect) I had a similar thought on another commoncog.com post. The author didn’t seem to research deeply before postulating opinions. Looks like this site allows members to post so I don’t know if it’s the same person

shadowsun7 5y ago
https://commoncog.com/blog/the-hierarchy-of-practical-evidence/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-hierarchy-of-practical-eviden... I would ask the OP a simple question: what organisations have they built, and where are they now? Longer, but establishes the epistemology of the blog: https://commoncog.com/blog/practice-as-the-bar-for-truth/ https://commoncog.com/blog/practice-as-the-bar-for-truth/ and https://commoncog.com/blog/four-theories-of-truth/ https://commoncog.com/blog/four-theories-of-truth/
- throwoutway 5y ago
  Sorry but providing three more links to your blog does not contribute to the threaded discussion. If you'd like to ask OP that question, you can ask OP on OP's comment. Otherwise, I'm still not sure why you don't include both (well established) theories, in addition to your own practice in your post.
  - shadowsun7 5y ago
    Ok, since I have to spell it out for you: I have not included any such theories because I have not found them useful. The links are to say something simple: my entire epistemology is pragmatic. That is, true knowledge should lead to effective action. If I cannot apply it and get results, then it is useless to me, and irrelevant when writing up notes for other practitioners. I have noticed that your claim is that 'here is some theory that is well established and rigorous and old'. I have also noticed that your claim is not 'here is some theory that I have found useful, and <insert notes from application>.' I pay attention to arguments of the latter form, because it usually indicates something that I can integrate into my practice. Because you have not included notes from actual application, I am not particularly interested in your argument. (But if you can provide an applied account, I’m all ears!) That is not to say that org theorists are useless, or that research is useless. I have found Herbert Simon's work on organisational decision making useful as a lens on practical rationality, for instance. I’ve also spent a lot of time digging into expertise research for applied ideas. I think the bar I use is simple: when reading a theory, I ask myself if there are actionable handles. If so, I tend to pay attention. If not, or if I’ve applied it and it doesn’t work particularly well, I discount the research. That said, I have noticed that good organisational builders — with a track record of actually building orgs — say different things from organisational theorists. And I think the reason for why is interesting: I suspect that org builders are interested in actual org outcomes, while org theorists are too far removed from actual application; they are interested in tenure. (Edited to soften tone.)