1. How will you organize the literature that you have collected in your literature searches?

what is an argument paper?

Speaking of 'hidden layers' in speculative fiction, too many texts, echoes and other references within the texts can be enticing the literature people. Does it really help a person who knew nothing about literary aspects understand its importance in that work?

Taking a serious path in the 1960s, postmodernism is considered the main rival of liberalism after the collapse of communism. Unlike liberalism, postmodernism, which considers knowledge to be relative and the result of social-political dialogue, has been said to have actually died in the 1990s. On the contrary, there is an opinion that it mutated into a postcolonial and feminist concept. Do you agree?

A peach tree in the old vineyard;

a rat on the green branch –

gnawed peaches.

(Taura, 2024)

-----------------

I cleaned a peach in an abandoned vineyard; the peach produced nice fruits this summer. The summer was very hot; there are plenty of rats in the fields, and they did not have water; hence, they ate unriped peaches; only stones remained on the branches. This looked ugly indeed; inspired by thih strange image, I became master Taura and wrote this quasi-poem.

🔎 In response to the need for a systematic and comprehensive classification of organizational and management theories that can encompass a broad range of perspectives and theories, I have developed a new classification. This classification considers core parameters such as organizational performance (efficiency and effectiveness), factors influencing organizational performance (human beings, human groups, structure, environment, and society), and philosophical foundations of theories. The goal of this classification is to provide a more organized and practical framework for analyzing and comparing organizational and management theories.

In response to the need for a systematic and comprehensive classification of organizational and management theories that can encompass a broad range of perspectives and theories, I have developed a new classification. This classification considers core parameters such as organizational performance (efficiency and effectiveness), factors influencing organizational performance (human beings, human groups, structure, environment, and society), and philosophical foundations of theories. This classification aims to provide a more organized and practical framework for analyzing and comparing organizational and management theories.

This category conceptualizes humans within the framework of industrial modernity, adopting a mechanistic perspective that treats them as the primary resource for organizational production and efficiency. The roots of this approach can be traced back to classical economic thought and scientific management theories, which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theories under this category, humans are considered efficient machines tasked with delivering maximum output at minimal cost. Evidently, theories in this category view efficiency, as the organization's paramount goal, as the result of internal production factors. Consequently, external environmental factors hold no significant place in the analysis of organizational essence, performance, or management processes. Within this category, the metaphor of an organization as a machine and humans as tools of production dominates.

The level of analysis here is micro-level, focusing on individual employees. Philosophically, theories in this category regard the organization as a tangible entity and management as an objective process, both of which can be comprehended through a positivist approach. Humans, akin to other tools of production, are utilized within a deterministic cycle. Consequently, addressing organizational and managerial challenges in this category is pursued through rule-based solutions, leaving little room for innovation or inductive reasoning.

This category represents a shift from a mechanistic view of humans to an appreciation of the complexities of human interactions within organizations, with a focus on groups and interpersonal relationships as the core drivers of organizational efficiency. Emerging primarily between the 1920s and 1950s, this perspective was advanced by researchers like Elton Mayo, who demonstrated that informal relationships, emotions, and group dynamics have a more profound impact on organizational efficiency than formal and mechanistic mechanisms. This viewpoint regards humans not as passive tools but as social beings who create meaning and efficiency through their interactions with others.

The level of analysis in this category is meso-level, concentrating on groups and informal structures within work settings. It highlights that organizational efficiency stems not from mechanistic control but from a deeper understanding of employees’ needs, expectations, and social relationships. Theories within this category draw on foundations from social psychology and organizational sociology, emphasizing that workgroups are the primary units for creating meaning and efficiency.

From a philosophical standpoint, these theories still perceive organizations as real phenomena and management as an objective process, which can be understood through a positivist lens. However, they recognize that individuals, while somewhat autonomous, are subjected to forms of compulsion imposed by groups and the organization itself. Methodologically, rule-based approaches continue to dominate research in this category, though there is a transition from purely quantitative measurements to a combination of observation and interpretation in data collection and analysis.

In this category, rooted in organizational sociology and classical management theories, the organizational structure is regarded as the primary determinant of efficiency. These theories, which evolved from the early 20th century through the mid-century decades, assert that the precise design of organizational structures—including hierarchy, division of labor, coordination, and control—can maximize efficiency. Scholars such as Max Weber, with his concept of bureaucracy, and later theorists like James Thompson and Henry Mintzberg, sought to develop optimal organizational models. These models emphasize placing every component in its appropriate position, minimizing friction, and maximizing efficiency.

The level of analysis in this category is macro-level, focusing on the overall architecture of the organization. The approach underscores that efficiency arises from the intelligent design of systems, processes, and organizational relationships rather than solely from the performance of individuals or groups. Theories in this category draw inspiration from engineering sciences, cybernetics, and systems theory, while maintaining a closed-systems perspective. They posit that the closer the organizational structure aligns with a mechanical and machine-like model, the greater its efficiency. Philosophically, these theories follow the same objectivist epistemological foundations as the previous two categories, positioning the science of organization and management on the objective end of the epistemological spectrum.

Theories in this category, influenced by the emerging role of corporate social responsibility, expand the traditional organizational goal of efficiency to include the concept of effectiveness. This category adopts a systemic and interactive view of efficiency and effectiveness, defining the organization not as a closed system but as a dynamic, living entity engaged in continuous interaction with its social environment. Emerging primarily in the 1970s and beyond, this perspective argues that organizational efficiency and effectiveness result not only from internal factors but also from complex, multifaceted interactions between the organization and society.

Thinkers who introduced the concept of open systems, as well as figures like Peter Drucker and Michael Porter who highlighted the importance of creating synergies between organizational and societal interests through social responsibility, transparency, and accountability, belong to this category.

The level of analysis in this category is trans-organizational and inter-organizational, focusing on the intricate relationships between organizations and their external environment. Efficiency and effectiveness are redefined not merely as economic productivity but as an organization’s ability to create social value and align with environmental demands. Theories in this category draw upon disciplines like sociology, institutional economics, and organizational studies, advocating that the boundary between organization and society is not a fixed line but a dynamic, interactive space.

Philosophically, the epistemology and methodology in this category lean towards interpretivist and subjectivist paradigms, though organizations are still largely perceived as real and objective entities. The inclusion of concepts such as social values, however, often necessitates the adoption of nominalist ontologies as well. Furthermore, this category grants individuals a higher level of autonomy within organizational contexts compared to prior categories.

In this category, organizational effectiveness is regarded entirely as a product of broader social systems, where organizations have minimal agency in shaping their goals and directions. This radical approach, rooted in critical theories and post-structuralism, perceives organizations not as independent entities but merely as reflections of larger societal structures. Thinkers like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida argued that organizations are mere reproductions of dominant discourses, power relations, and societal structures, with little to no autonomous role in defining their objectives and trajectories.

The level of analysis in this category is distinctly macro, focusing on discursive and cultural dimensions and emphasizing the role of organizations in reproducing and mirroring social structures. Effectiveness is not defined by the achievement of organizational objectives but rather as a direct outcome of social, cultural, and historical processes. Theories within this category draw inspiration from critical theories, post-structuralism, and historical sociology, contending that organizations act as passive entities that merely reflect societal structures rather than independently shaping them.

This perspective shifts organizational knowledge entirely towards interpretivist and subjectivist philosophical foundations, spanning ontology, epistemology, methodology, and the view of human agency and values. However, regarding human agency, influenced by anarchist thought, the shift in perspective becomes even more radical.

💬 Please share your views in the comments section. Your insights will be invaluable for refining and enhancing this academic framework!

#Management #Organization #TheoriesOfManagement #OrganizationalDevelopment #Efficiency #Effectiveness #Research #AcademicDiscussion #OrganizationalTheory #ComparativeAnalysis

I hope this academic post resonates with the goals of your research and facilitates meaningful discussions on ResearchGate. Should you require any adjustments, let me know!

Especially in the literary studies where it is linked to narrative. We find it defficult to distinguish between them

Romanticism and realism are two important schools in the history of literature, which represent different cultural tendencies, artistic pursuits and creative methods. To add a deeper understanding

I'm doing PhD in the domain of English literature. I'm applying multiple insights of feminist critics (including Olsen and Mohanty) on my selected novels to analyze female silence and voice. I need strong examples to support multiple insights of critics. Give your answers with references of such works.

This question examines the impact of educational leaders on the advancement of modern education. It challenges whether their actions and decisions hinder progress or actively promote innovative practices that meet contemporary educational needs. The focus is on their role in shaping a system that either embraces change or resists it.