Post on 13-Apr-2018
transcript
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 1/30
Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational CultureStudies
Author(s): Majken Schultz and Mary Jo HatchReviewed work(s):Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 529-557Published by: Academy of ManagementStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258671 .
Accessed: 11/09/2012 11:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 2/30
?
Academy
of
Management
Review
1996, Vol.
21,
No.
2, 529-557.
LIVING
WITHMULTIPLE
ARADIGMS:
THE
CASE
OF PARADIGM
NTERPLAY
N
ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE
STUDIES
MAJKEN
SCHULTZ
Copenhagen
Business
School,
Denmark
MARY
JO HATCH
Cranfield
University,
England
Copenhagen
Business
School,
Denmark
This article
presents
a
new
strategy
for
multiparadigm
research
that
promotes
interplay
between
paradigms.
We
develop
interplay
across
the border of
functionalist and
interpretive
paradigms
and
use
organi-
zational
culture
studies
as an
example
of
how
interplay
affects
multi-
paradigm
relations.
In
addition to
clarifying
paradigm
contrasts,
the
article
points to connections
between
paradigms
by
taking
a
postmod-
ern
perspective.
Organizational researchers
in
the late
20th
century
face a
variety
of
paradigms with which to theorize their subject matter. This article devel-
ops
a
new
strategy
for
multiparadigm
research
that
promotes
paradigm
interplay.
Interplay
complements
well-known
contrasts
between
para-
digms with
connections
proposed
by postmodern
critiques of
modernist
social
science.
Considered
simultaneously,
these
contrasts and
connec-
tions
position the
researcher
to
move back
and
forth
between
paradigms
and
invite
researchers to see
and
use the
diversity of
organization theory
in
new ways.
The
paradigm
diversity
of
organization
theory
was
mapped by
Burrell
and
Morgan
(1979),
among
others, who
claimed
that
there are
at
least
four paradigms defining the field of organizational sociology. Burrell and
Morgan
took the
position
that the
paradigms
represent
incommensurable
approaches to
the
study of
organization,
which
means
that each
must be
separately
developed
and
applied.
Our
definition
of
paradigm
follows
Burrell
and
Morgan's-paradigms
are
sets of
ontological
and
epistemolog-
ical
assumptions-but
we do
not
accept
the
paradigm
incommensurability
argument.
Instead,
we
follow
those
who
recommend
that
researchers
chal-
This article benefited greatly from insights offered by Dennis Gioia, Kristian Kreiner,
Linda
Putnam,
Edgar
Schein,
and
Jim
Walsh
and
from
the
suggestions
made
by
three
anony-
mous AMR
reviewers.
An
earlier
version
of the
article
was
presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of the
Academy of
Management, Las
Vegas,
1992.
529
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 3/30
530
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
lenge and cross
paradigm
borders
(Gioia
&
Pitre,
1990; Hassard,
1988;
Parker &
McHugh, 1991;
Weaver &
Gioia,
1994;Willmott,
1990, 1993a,b).
We
prefer the
paradigm-crossing position
because we find
it
impossible
to
ignore the
multiplicity
of
perspectives
that make
up
our field
of
study
and
wish to take
advantage
of the
diversity
organization
theory
offers.
We
believe the debate
is
important
because
regardless
of whether
organiza-
tional
researchers
acknowledge
paradigmatic
assumptions,
they
make
and use them when
they
develop
or
apply
theory.
Our
denial of
incommensurability
does not mean that we
accept
an
integrationist view.
Although
it is difficult to find
organization
theorists
who
openly advocate
an
integrationist
position,
there are
many
who
prac-
tice
integration by
merging paradigms
without
respecting
their
differ-
ences. In this article, we explore the possibilities of paradigm crossing
as
a
third metatheoretical
position
that resists
both
incommensurability
and
integration.
We
contribute
a
new
paradigm-crossing
strategy
that
we
label
interplay,
defined
as the simultaneous
recognition
of
both contrasts
and
connections between
paradigms.
In
addition
to well-known
paradigm
contrasts
(e.g., differences
of
on-
tology
and
epistemology),
we
argue
that
significant
connections can be
made. In
this
article,
these
connections are
established within
postmodern
critiques that reveal several
characteristics held
in
common
by
modernist
paradigms.
Somewhat
ironically,
we
find
that
it
is
postmodernism
that
inspires interplay between paradigms. When
framed within
paradigm
contrasts, postmodernists either
ignore
paradigm boundaries as
mere
modernist
conventions
or deconstruct
paradigms
in
order
to expose
oppressed
oppositions
(e.g.,
Calds &
Smircich, 1991;
Kilduff, 1993;
Martin,
1990).
However,
through
the
connections
it
establishes
between
modernist
paradigms, postmodernism
is also
able to
contribute
constructively, as
opposed
to
deconstructively,
to
the
modernist
paradigm
debate.
In
this
regard,
interplay stands in
stark
contrast to
previous
uses of the
postmod-
ern
perspective.
We contend that paradigm interplay produces a new form of under-
standing
that
some
may
equate with
paradox.
However,
interplay
differs
significantly
from
previous
uses of
paradox in
organization
theory (e.g.,
Poole &
Van
de
Ven, 1989; Van
de
Ven & Poole,
1988) by
stressing
the
interdependent
relationship between
constitutive
oppositions.
We
argue
that
emphasis
on
the
interdependence of
opposed
elements
indicates a
contribution
of
interplay
to
cross-paradigm
thinking. We
are not
interested
in
accepting,
clarifying, or
resolving
the
contradictions
of paradoxes,
but
rather in
preserving
the tension
between
contrasts
and
connections at the
metatheoretical level in
order to
theorize
organizations
in new
ways.
In developing the interplay strategy, we limit our discussion to the
following
two
paradigms,
functionalism
and
interpretivism,
recognizing
that
we must
ignore
a
number
of
others in the
process. We
chose
functional-
ism, as
defined by
Burrell
and Morgan,
because this
has
been the
dominant
paradigm
within
organization
theory (Gioia
& Pitre, 1990;
Morgan & Smir-
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 4/30
1996
Schultz
and
Hatch
531
cich,
1980).
Interpretivism
was selected because
it offers the
greatest con-
trast
to
functionalism's
assumptions,
and
in recent
years
it has
received
increasing
research
attention,
particularly
in
organizational
culture
stud-
ies,
institutional
theory,
and in studies
of
organizational
identity,
learning,
and
cognition.
Simplifying
the issues
of
paradigm
crossing
to the case
of
crossing
between two
paradigms
helps
researchers
to
develop
the
inter-
play
strategy
in
an
explicit
way.
As several
multiparadigm
theorists have
demonstrated
(Gioia
&
Pitre,
1990;
Weaver &
Gioia,
1994;
Willmott,
1993a),
grounding
in a
specific
re-
search domain is
a
useful
first
step
toward
paradigm
crossing.
In
this
article,
we
ground
our
approach
in
organizational
culture
studies,
for
three
reasons.
First, many
culture
researchers evidence
consciousness
of
the
paradigm disagreements within organization theory (Alvesson & Berg,
1992;
Martin,
1992;
Martin &
Frost,
In
press;
Pondy,
Frost,
Morgan,
&
Dan-
dridge, 1983;
Putnam,
1983;
Schultz, 1995;
Smircich,
1983),
and
we
believe
this evidence
indicates that
organization
culture
studies
provide
a
rich
ground
upon
which
to
develop
our
interplay
strategy.
Second, the
para-
digm
disagreements
within
organization
culture
studies
have
been
espe-
cially
pronounced
in
the case of
functionalism
and
interpretivism.
Third,
our
familiarity
with the
development
of
organizational culture
studies
provides
intimate
knowledge of the
issues and
debates
that
constitute
both
functionalist and
interpretivist
approaches.
Although we
ground our
discussion in the example of functionalist and interpretive culture studies,
we
argue that
interplay
has
implications for
other
domains
than
culture
and for
crossing
other
paradigms'
borders
than
those
between
functional-
ism
and
interpretivism.
In
this
article
we
develop the idea of
interplay as a
new
strategy for
engaging with
multiple
paradigms.
First, we
present a
brief
overview of
the various
strategies
that
others
have
offered
for
handling
multiparadigm
relations.
Then
we use
paradigm
contrasts
between
functionalism
and
interpretivism
as
a
beginning
point for
developing
the
interplay
strategy.
From
there, we
examine
the
opposing
theme
of
connections
between
these
two
paradigms, using
postmodernism to
identify
the
connections.
We
then
formulate
interplay
as
a
metatheoretical
strategy
for
crossing
paradigms
and
discuss
the new
form
of
understanding
that
emerges from
interplay
in
relation to
the field
of
culture
studies.
In
this
context, we
will
illustrate
several
implications,
including
generality/contextuality,
clarity/ambigu-
ity,
and
stability/instability.
We
conclude
by
discussing
what
the
interplay
strategy
might contribute
to
other
domains
of
research
within
the field
of
organizational
theory and
to
the
paradigm
debate
within
organization
studies.
MULTIPARADIGM
ELATIONS
We
have
argued
that
students
of
organization
theory
are faced
with
multiple
paradigms
and that
it is
possible to
distinguish three
different
metatheoretical
positions for
doing
multiparadigm
research:
(a)
paradigm
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 5/30
532
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
incommensurability, (b)
paradigm
integration,
and
(c)
paradigm
crossing
(see Figure
1).
Paradigm
incommensurability
has been the
point
of
departure
for
most of the
paradigm
debate within
organization
theory.
The
incommensu-
rability position
argues
for the
separate
development
and
application
of
each
paradigm
(e.g., Jackson
&
Carter, 1991,
1993).
As Weaver and
Gioia
(1994)
demonstrated, the idea of
paradigm
incommensurability
originated
at the
beginning
of
this
century,
but within
organizational
theory
it
is
generally attributed to Burrell
and
Morgan
(1979).
Kuhn
(1970:
103)
also
discussed
paradigm
incommensurability,
but
in
the context
of
paradigm
revolutions rather
than
multiple
paradigms.
Burrell
and
Morgan
claimed
that differences
in
ontology,
epistemology,
and
methodology
as
well
as
assumptions about human nature construct insurmountable barriers be-
tween
paradigmatic
perspectives.
That
is,
each
paradigm
engages
a
unique
perspective
from
which
concepts
are
defined
and
theories
are
developed,
preventing
combinations of
concepts
or
analytical
methods
across
paradigm
borders.
Because each
paradigm
defines
a
different
do-
main
in
which
theories can
be
conceived, there is
little or
no
possibility
of
effective
communication
between their
adherents.
Paradigm
integration
is a
second
metatheoretical
position
described
by
Willmott
(1993a)
and
Reed
(1985).
From
this
metatheoretical
position,
it
becomes
possible to assess
and
synthesize a
variety of
contributions,
thus ignoring the
differences
between
competing
approaches and
their
paradigmatic
assumptions.
In
some
cases, the
integration
position
repre-
FIGURE
1
Metatheoretical
Positions
With
Respect to
Multiple
Paradigms
CROSSING
INCOMMENSURABILITY
INTEGRATION
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 6/30
1996
Schultz and Hatch
533
sents
simple
resistance
to
multiparadigm
thinking.
Pfeffer
(1993),
for
exam-
ple,
proposed
a
strong
hegemonic
argument
that advocates
abandoning
all but one paradigm in order to increase the influence of organization
theory
as
an
academic field. More
often,
however,
the
integrationist
posi-
tion
provides
an
overall
framework
that mixes
and combines
terms
and
implications
of
arguments
grounded
in
different
paradigmatic
assump-
tions without
considering
the
relationship
between
the
assumptions them-
selves.
We
argue the
necessity
to
define
a
third
metatheoretical
position,
which we
label
paradigm
crossing.
The
focus
of
the
crossing position
is
on how
multiple
paradigms
might
be
engaged
by
individual
researchers.
From
this
position,
the researcher
recognizes
and
confronts
multiple
para-
digms, rather than ignoring them as in the integrationist position, or refus-
ing to
confront them as
in
the
incommensurability
position.
The
result of
previous
attempts
to
cross
paradigms
has been
the
use
of
several
quite
different
strategies
for
conducting
multiparadigm
research. We
review
and
explicate
these
strategies
and
suggest
our
own,
which
we call
interplay.
According to the first
strategy,
which
we
label
sequential,
specific
paradigms
are
mutually
complementary
rather
than
exclusive.
Paradigms
operate
as
complements
by
revealing
sequential
levels
of
understanding
within an integrated research project. Within organizational research, Lee
(1991)
presented
a
sequential
multiparadigm
model,
in
which
interpretive
methods are used
prior to the
application
of
functionalist
methods, so
that
the
insights
derived
from
interpretive
studies
serve
as
inputs to
functional-
ist
research.
Similarly,
Gioia,
Donnellon, and
Sims
(1989)
demonstrated
that
functionalist
research
can
inform
interpretive
studies,
thereby
invert-
ing the
more
typical
sequence from
interpretivism to
functionalism.
The
sequential
strategy
allows
one
paradigm to inform
another;
however,
this
influence
operates
only in
one
direction.
Thus, the
sequential
strategy
constructs the relationship between paradigms as linear and unidirec-
tional,
although
it
can
move
in
either
direction.
A
second
strategy is
termed
parallel,
because
different
paradigms
are
all
applied
on
equal terms
rather
than
sequentially.
Hassard
(1988,
1991)
provided
an
illustration
of
the
parallel
strategy
in his
study
of
the
British
Fire
Service, in
which
he
applied a
theory and
methodology
from
each
of
Burrell
and
Morgan's
four
paradigms.
In
cultural
studies,
Martin
(1992:
5)
made
a
similar
agrument,
stressing
that each
paradigm must
be
applied
separately:
What
is to
be
learned
from
culture
research
is,
in
part, the
usefulness of
preserving
the
differences
between
these
social
scientific perspectives and deepening rather
than
eradicating,
the
conflicts
between
them.
According to
this
strategy,
maintaining
an
attitude of
tolerance
is
advocated, in
order to
enrich the
field
of
organization
studies
with
the
diversity
produced by
applying
different
paradigms.
The
parallel
strategy
allows the
researcher
to
compare
paradigms but
encourages
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 7/30
534
Academy of
Management Review
April
a hands-off'
policy by
emphasizing
differences and conflicts
between
paradigms
rather than similarities.
Although
sequential
and
parallel
strategies
leave the boundaries of
each
paradigm
intact, according
to
the
bridging
strategy,
the boundaries
separating paradigms
are more
permeable
than
proponents
of incommen-
surability admit.
The
ambition
of
paradigm
bridging
was articulated
by
Gioia
and Pitre
(1990),
who
argued
that there are transition
zones
between
paradigms
that disallow their
being
completely
isolated.
Paradigm
cross-
ing,
they proposed, is
accomplished
within
these transition zones
by
the
use of second-order theoretical
concepts
that act as
bridges.
Examples
of such second-order
concepts
include
structuration
(Giddens, 1976,
1979), negotiated
order
(Strauss,
1978),
and
organizing
(Weick, 1979).In an elaboration of the structuration argument, Weaver and
Gioia
(1994) argued
that structuration
theory
not
only
creates
transition
zones,
but
also
resolves other
classic divides
in
addition
to
the
agency/
structure
and
interpretive/structural-functional dichotomies. These
re-
searchers claim that
paradigm
boundaries like
objective/subjective, cau-
sation/meaning,
and
description/prescription
either
disappear
or are re-
placed by alternative social
inquiry.
Within
transition zones,
paradigms
become
indistinguishable to the
researcher.
Thus,
the
bridging
strategy
emphasizes
similarities
between
paradigms rather than
differences.
We develop a
fourth
strategy-interplay-as a new way
of
conducting
paradigm
crossing.
Interplay
refers to the
simultaneous recognition
of
both
contrasts and
connections between
paradigms and,
thus, to both the
differences and
similarities between
paradigms that are
emphasized
by
the
parallel
and
bridging
strategies, respectively
(Figure 2).As we argue
at
length
in
following sections of the
article, what is
essential to an
interplay
strategy
is
the
maintenance of
tension between
contrasts and
connections.
FIGURE 2
Basic
Interplay Strategy
Paradigm A
Paradigm B
CONTRASTS
W<:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
CONNECTIONS
pt|
| | | |
1fI/
/
CONNECTIONSI
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 8/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
535
The
interplay
strategy
differs
from
both
sequential
and
parallel
strate-
gies (and is similar to the
bridging
strategy)
in that the
permeability
of
boundaries between
paradigms
is
assumed.
The
parallel strategy invites
researchers to
look but not
touch,
that
is,
paradigm
boundaries
are
considered
to be insurmountable barriers
to
paradigm
exchange.
Re-
searchers can
produce
findings
within
any
paradigm,
but
are
intolerant
of
any
notion of cross-fertilization between
them.
The
sequential
strategy
also
assumes
nonpermeability
of
paradigm
boundaries; however,
in
this
case,
a
specific
form of
cross-fertilization occurs.
Researchers
using
this
strategy
transpose
the
findings
from studies conducted
in one
paradigm
into the theoretical
frameworks offered
by
another. This
transposition
allows the
findings
of
one
paradigm
to be
recontextualized and
reinter-
preted in such a way that they inform the research conducted within a
different
paradigm.
Interplay
differs from the
sequential,
parallel,
and
bridging
strategies
in
the nature of the
relationship
it
constructs
between the
researcher and
the
multiple
paradigms
that
it
specifies. The
sequential
strategy positions
the
researcher to
move
unidirectionally
from
one
paradigm
to
another.
Because the
parallel
strategy
asserts
that
paradigms
are
independent
of
one
another,
researchers
are forced to
separate
between
paradigms,
which
leads to the
emphasis on
differences
noted
above. The
bridging
strategy
places
the
researcher in
a
grey area
between
paradigms
(Gioia &
Pitre,
1990), a
position that
necessarily blurs
paradigm
differences and
thus
focuses
discussion on
similarities.
In
interplay,
the
researcher
moves back and
forth
between
paradigms
so that
multiple views are
held
in
tension
(see
Figure 2).
Thus,
interplay
allows for
cross-fertilization
without
demanding
integration,
which
sug-
gests
a
criterion for
selecting
between
the
crossing
strategies: If
one
wants
to take
advantage of
cross-fertilization
between
the
ever-growing
number
of
paradigms, while
maintaining
diversity,
then
interplay is
the
preferred
strategy
for
paradigm
crossing.
However,
there may
be
situations in
which
cross-fertilization is not desired, in which case one of the other strategies
could
be
more
useful.
For
instance,
when
a
researcher first
develops
or
explores
a new
paradigm, the
parallel
strategy
offers
the
advantage of
complete
separation, which
minimizes the
chances of
confusion
between
paradigms
by
offering a
point
of
differentiation
with
respect to
other para-
digms.
If
maintaining
diversity is not
an
issue,
then the
sequential
strategy
may be a
less
demanding
route
to
crossing
paradigms.
We
believe
that
the
interplay
strategy
has not
been
proposed
before
because the
assumption of
impermeable
paradigm
boundaries
reinforces
and
is
reinforced
by
either-or
thinking.
We
believe
that
paradigm bound-
aries
are
permeable
and
claim that
when
paradigm
contrasts
are com-
bined
with
paradigm
connections,
interplay
becomes
possible.
The follow-
ing
discussion of
connections
explores
paradigm
permeability,
whereas
the
discussion of
contrasts is
a
reminder
that
paradigm
differences
are
important,
too.
This joint
emphasis
on
both
contrasts and
connections
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 9/30
536 Academy
of
Management
Review
April
positions the researcher
for
interplay, which is then accomplished by
moving back
and forth between
paradigms, keeping
the
paradigms
in
tension.
PARADIGM
INTERPLAY
As explained previously,
we
ground
our theoretical
development
of
the interplay strategy
in
culture studies.
In
this
section,
we
analyze organi-
zational culture studies
in
order to
present
the contrasts and connections
between
functionalism and
interpretivism (Figure 3) and,
on this
basis,
to
demonstrate
interplay.
Paradigm Contrasts
The functionalist
paradigm
was derived from
systems theory
in
sociol-
ogy and anthropology, as represented by the works of Durkheim (1949/1893),
Radcliffe-Brown
(1952),
Parsons
(1951),
and Merton
(1957).
The
interpretive
paradigm
can be traced to
interpretive ethnography, phenomenology, and
semiotic
and hermeneutic traditions within cultural
anthropology, sociol-
ogy, folklore,
and
literary
criticism
(e.g., Barthes, 1972; Berger & Luckmann,
1966; Garfinkel, 1967; Geertz, 1973; Schutz, 1967). Because many distinctions
FIGURE 3
Interplays Between Functionalism and Interpretivism in the Domain of
Organizational Culture Studies
Functionalism
Interpretivism
/~zg~mt
CONTRASTS
Predefined
-
Emergent
Categorical
-
Associative
Convergent
m
-
Divergent
COEssence T
CONNECTIONS
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 10/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
537
between
functionalist
and
interpretive
paradigms
have been
elaborated
already
(e.g.,
Burrell
&
Morgan,
1979;
Gioia &
Pitre, 1990;
Putnam
1983;
Schultz,
1995),
our discussion
of distinctions
in this article
complements
and
extends
these
previous
ideas
by
focusing
on
applications
of the
para-
digm
contrasts to
culture
studies
(see
Table
1).
Analytical
framework.
Within
organizational
culture
studies,
function-
alism and
interpretivism
differ
in the
extent to which
they
define
an
analyt-
ical framework
prior
to
entering
the
organization
to be
studied. For
in-
stance, Schein
(1985,
1992) argued
that
cultures
in all
organizations
develop
in
relation
to
the
task areas of internal
integration
and
external
adaptation
that are essential
for
organizational
survival.
Other
predefined
analytical
frameworks
include the distinction
between
strong
and
weak
cultures
(Deal &Kennedy, 1982;Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa, &Associates, 1985;Saffold,
1988),
which
was
further
developed by
Kotter
and Heskett
(1992)
into the
notion of
cultural
adaptability
as a
variable for
analyzing
organizational
cultures. Denison
(1990)
also focused
on
adaptability
along
with
mission,
involvement, and
consistency.
Although
these
contributions
emphasize
different
dimensions or
variables
of
culture,
they
all
advocate
using
a
predefined
analytical framework
that can be
generalized to
all
specific
organizations
studied.
In
contrast,
interpretivism
follows an
emergent
development,
in
which
the
constructs
most
useful to
describing culture are
suggested
by the
analysis. In Kunda's (1992)
ethnographic
study of
Tech, the
notions
of
role
distance
versus
role
embracement
emerge
from
descriptions
of
how the
members
of
Tech
coped with
management's
attempts at
cultural
control.
Czarniawska-Joerges
(1992) presented
another
example
focused
on lan-
guage
in
its
specific use in
proverbs,
platitudes,
and labels
(Czarniawska-
TABLE 1
Contrasts
Between
Functionalist
and
Interpretive
Assumptions
Dimension
Functionalism
Interpretivism
Analytical
Framework
Predefined
and
universal:
Emergent
and specific:
Similar
levels and
functions of
Opportunties for
creation of
culture
are
documented in
meaning
are unique
to each
all
organizations
cultural
context
Model
of
Analysis
Categorical:
Associative:
Identification of
cultural
Reading
meanings and
elements and
discovering
exploring
the
associations
the
causal
relations
between
them
between
them
Analytical
Processes
Convergent:
Divergent:
Condenses
and
brings
Expands and
enriches
cultural
elements of
cultural
analysis
analysis
together
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 11/30
538
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
Joerges &
Joerges,
1990).
Furthermore,
the
findings
within the
interpretive
paradigm
often are
expressed
in terms of
emergent
images
and
metaphors,
such as
the
organization
as fortress
(Gagliardi, 1990),monastery (Larsen &
Schultz, 1990), and
prison
(Hatch
&
Ehrlich,
1993).
Mode of
analysis.
Functionalist
analyses
operate
primarily
in
a
causal
mode,
whereas
interpretive
analyses
develop
more often
in
an
associative
mode. Functionalist
analysis
is
conducted
by
filling
in
predefined
vari-
ables
and
mapping
the causal relations
between them. In
functionalism,
culture
is
often added to
the
list of
explanatory organizational
variables
such as
strategy,
technology,
and environment. For
instance,
Schein
(1992)
claimed
culture
is
constituted
by
basic
assumptions
and
values that
pro-
duce
the
surface
level of
cultural artifacts. Kotter and
Heskett
(1992)
investi-
gated the causal relationship between culture and economic performance.
In his
cross-national
study,
Hofstede
(1991)
demonstrated
how
cultural
differences
explain
national
variety
in
organizational
configurations.
Al-
though these studies are
formulated at
different
levels of
analysis, they
all
depend
upon
causal
arguments.
In
contrast to the
causal mode of
functionalist
analysis,
interpretive
analysis is
associative.
Interpretivists
explore
the
active
creation of
mean-
ing and the
ways
in
which
meanings
are
associated in
organizations.
In
this
mode
of
analysis, particular cultural
themes,
images,
and
metaphors
emerge
(Lakoff
&
Johnson,
1980;
Spradley,
1979).
For
instance,
in
Hopfl's
(1995)
study
of
British
Airways, ruptures
in
service behavior
were
meta-
phorically associated with
the
dramatistic
concept of
corpsing,
which
describes how
actors
fall out
of role.
Similarly,
Meyerson
(1991)
and Feld-
man
(1991)explored
how
ambiguity
in
organizations is
expressed
through
numerous
symbolic
constructions, such
as
stories,
humor,
and
drawing.
Exploring and
describing the
rich
character of
cultural
themes,
images,
and
metaphors
depends
upon the
researcher's
ability
to
make and
use
associations.
Analytical
processes.
In
both
functionalist and
interpretive
para-
digms, convergent and divergent thinking shape basic analytical pro-
cesses, but
in
each
paradigm these
processes are
used
differently.
Users
of
the
convergent
process aim
at
condensing
and
bringing
elements of
the
cultural
analysis
together;
they move
from a
relatively
unpatterned
appreciation
of
culture
to a
more
ordered and
less
bulky
representation.
For
instance,
Schein
(1985)
presented the
concept of a
cultural
paradigm
where
basic
assumptions
form an
interrelated
cultural core.
Empirical
appreciation of
this
cultural core
derives
from
studies of
artifacts and
values
where
multifaceted and
confusing
observations
converge on a
more
orderly
understanding.
Hofstede's
(1980;
Hofstede &
Bond,
1988)
work
similarly converges data from numerous national cultures into the five
analytical
dimensions
of
power
distance,
uncertainty
avoidance,
individu-
alism,
masculinity,
and
time
horizon.
Interpretivism
also can
become
convergent
when rich
descriptive
analyses are
condensed into
statements
of
worldview or
ethos as,
for
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 12/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
539
example,
when
Geertz
(1973)
claimed
the
cockfighting
ritual
expresses
what it is
to be Balinese.
However,
interpretive
studies
are
largely
founded
on
divergent
analytical
processes.
Proponents
of
divergent processes
expand
and enrich
the
analysis
by
constantly
seeking
more
interpre-
tations and
making
new
associations.
Divergence
occurs
as one
associa-
tion
provokes
others
in
a
series
of
interpretive
acts.
Knights
and
Willmott
(1995)
presented
an
example
of
divergent
analytical
processes
in
their
study
of
organizational
change
within
a British insurance
company
where
they
moved from
studying
a
management
ritual to
interpreting
the
context
of cultural control
in
which the
ritual was embedded.
Kreiner
and
Schultz
(1995) also moved from a
specific
cross-national,
European,
high-technol-
ogy
project
to examination
of the
larger
symbolic
and collaborative
context
of the project. Functionalists, too, become divergent when they generalize
their
findings
beyond
their
case
examples.
Hofstede
(1980),
for
instance,
generalized
his
findings
from one
multinational
company
to the rest
of
the
organizational world.
Thus,
the
divergence
within
functionalism
is
based on
arguments
of
generalization,
whereas
divergence
within
inter-
pretivism
relies on the
emergence of
associative
relations.
However,
we
argue
that
the
functionalist
paradigm
is
dominated
by
convergent
think-
ing,
which
contrasts with
interpretivist tendencies
toward
divergent
thinking.
Paradigm Connections
Statements
made
by
people who
are
associated
with
postmodernism
help
researchers
recognize
the
connections
between
functionalism
and
interpretivism.
Seen
from
a
postmodern
point of
view,
both of
these
para-
digms
are
modernist as
opposed to
postmodernist.
Thus,
functionalism
and
interpretivism
may
have
a
number of
modernist
characteristics
in
common, which so far
have
been
neglected within
both
paradigms.
Draw-
ing
on
a
number
of
distinct
contributions
from
postmodern
thinking,
we
describe
several
modernist
connections
between
functionalist and
inter-
pretive paradigms that will serve in developing our paradigm-crossing,
interplay
strategy.
Postmodernism
represents a
recent
development
within
organiza-
tional
theory
(e.g.,
Cooper &
Burrell,
1988;
Hassard &
Parker,
1993;
Linstead,
1993b) via
architecture,
philosophy,
linguistics,
semiotics, and
literary
criti-
cism.
Among
the
key
contributors to
postmodern
thinking are
Jean
Baudril-
lard, Pierre
Bourdieau,
Jacques
Derrida,
Michel
Foucault,
Frederick
Jameson, Charles
Jencks, and
Jean-Francois
Lyotard. We
consider
post-
modernism
a
critical
movement
rather
than a
consistent
theoretical
framework or
paradigm
in its
own
right.
Within
organization
theory, post-
modernism challenges and questions theoretical and
methodological as-
sumptions and
points
to
the
connections
between
prior
paradigms
that
postmodernists
label
modern
(Hassard &
Parker,
1993;
Linstead,
1993a;
Linstead
&
Grafton-Small,
1990). In
counterposition
to the
above
contrasts
between
functionalism
and
symbolism,
we
argue
that
postmodernism
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 13/30
540
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
points to
significant
connections
between these
two
paradigms
as
it
high-
lights
their
shared
modernist characteristics
(see
Table
2).
Culture as
pattern.
Derrida,
Foucault,
and
Lyotard
assumed
that
hu-
man
experience
is
fragmented
and discontinuous.
Thus,
they
searched
out
discontinuity
and difference rather
than order
and
similarity. Because
there is no
pattern
of sense
to
be
found, general
theories,
which
Lyotard
and
others
labeled
grand
narratives,
are sentimental
illusions.
Lyotard
(1984)
described the
attack on the
grand
narrative
as an
argument
against
the
modernist
drive
toward
determinacy
and
consensus,
whereas
modern-
ist notions of order and
patterning neglect
discontinuity,
passion,
and
rupture.
Similarly,
in
his
work on
deconstruction, Derrida's
(1978)key
con-
cepts
are
difference and
deconstruction,
where
voice is
given
to the
si-
lences and absences of organizational life, such as suppressed disorder
in the
orchestration
of
order
or
suppressed
idiosyncrasy
in
the
construction
of
meaning
(Derrida, 1978,
1980).
In
opposition
to
postmodern
views,
proponents
of both
functionalist
and
interpretive
paradigms
assert
that
studying
culture
depends
upon
recognizing patterns and
order. Both
assume that
culture
involves
an
ordering
of
social
relations
(Cooper
&
Burrell,
1988:
96),
where
stable
and
repetitive
patterns
of
values
or
meanings
are
displayed.
Thus,
both
functionalist and
interpretive
paradigms
frame
culture
as
underlying pat-
terns of
assumptions
or
meanings
in
the
organization
that
form
cultural
configurations. These
configurations
are, for
example,
perceived either
as
the
cultural
core or
as the
root
metaphor
(or
inherent
theme) of
the
culture.
Thus, users
of both
paradigms
assume
that
culture binds
the
organization
together
by
offering
a
cultural
pattern
that
guides
organizational
action.
Within
the
functionalist
paradigm,
Schein
(1991, 1992)
defined organi-
zational
culture as
a
pattern of basic
assumptions and
stated
that
cul-
ture
implies
patterning
(Schein, 1991:
246).
However,
cultural
patterns
do
TABLE
2
Connections Between Functionalism and Interpretivism
Connecting
Assumptions
Functionalism
Interpretivism
Culture as
Pattern
A
pattern of
values
or basic
A
worldview or webs
of
assumptions
significance
Culture
as
Essence
Discovering
the deep
level of
Interpreting the
symbolic
culture
makes it
possible
expressions
and
to
decipher
visible and
representations of
deep
espoused
levels
of
culture
layers of
meaning
Culture as
Static
Predictable,
linear,
Interrelated, circular
deterministic
stages of
relations
between
development
interpretations
and
meaning
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 14/30
1996
Schultz
and
Hatch
541
not
necessarily
imply
consistent
and
harmonious
relations;
inconsistent
or conflictful
patterns
also
may occur,
as Schultz
(1995)
demonstrated
in
her
study
of
a
Danish
ministry.
Whether
consistent, harmonious, inconsis-
tent,
or
conflictual,
the
pattern
of cultural
assumptions
and/or
values
con-
stitutes the cultural core
according
to the functionalist
paradigm.
This
core must be discovered
in order to
explain
relationships
between
culture
and
organizational
task
performance
or economic
efficiency (Denison,
1990;
Kotter &
Heskett, 1992).
Within
the
interpretivist
paradigm,
culture
often has been
referred
to
as
a
worldview or as webs of
significance
(Geertz,
1973; Smircich,
1985).
The
idea of
a worldview is that
patterns
of
meaning
weave
human
experience
together into a
coherent whole. This
coherence can be
illustrated with
the
idea of a root metaphor for the organization. A root metaphor offers a
distinctive and
fundamental
way
of
seeing,
thinking,
and
talking.
It
cap-
tures the
pattern
of a
well-established
type
of
experience
that
organizes
all
other
experiences
of
the
world with a
singular,
overpowering
symbol,
even
though
the
symbol
may
be
interpreted
multiplicitously
with
great
divergence
of
meaning.
Culture as
essence. The
ongoing
modernist search
for
essence and
deeper
meaning
in
superficial
arrangements
was
opposed
by
Foucault
(1977)
and
other
postmodern
theorists
(e.g.,
Baudrillard, 1988).
They claimed
that what lies at the surface of our culture or our awareness is the only
possible
phenomenon of
interest. In
his
description
of
Foucault's
contribu-
tion,
Burrell
(1988:
225) stated
that
postmodernism is
interested
in
the
superficial and
the
unexpected.
Reality does
not cover
up
some
hidden
underlying essence. It is
as it
appears.
This is
given
special
elaboration
by Foucault
in
the
distinction
between
archeology
and
genealogy.
Geneal-
ogy,
Burrell
explained,
records[]
the
singularity of
surface
events [by]
looking
at the
meaning
of
small
details,
minor
shifts
and subtle
contours.
There
are no
fixed
essences
or
underlying
laws
(1988: 229).
In
opposition
to the
postmodern
celebration
of
surface,
proponents of
both
functionalist
and
interpretive
paradigms
conduct
a
search
for the
underlying
assumptions or
meanings
believed
to
order
human
experience.
According to
both
functionalist
and
interpretive
paradigms,
culture is an
essence
upon
which
surface or
outer
manifestations
or
forms
are
based;
that
is,
discovering
the pattern
of
basic
assumptions
or
worldview
makes
it
possible to
decipher
the
content of
values and
artifacts
(functionalism)
or
to
understand
which
cultural
meanings
are
ascribed
to
cultural
expres-
sions
(interpretivism).
Hence,
similar to the
stability
of the
cultural
pattern
itself,
users of
both
paradigms
conceive of
culture as
a set
of
ordered
and
continuous relations between the visible and audible cultural representa-
tions
and
underlying
patterns of
assumptions
or
meanings.
According
to
both
paradigms, the
organizational
surface is
never
what it
seems to be
but is
always
hiding
a
cultural
essence,
located at
the
invisible
depths
of
the
organization.
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 15/30
542
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
Schein
explicitly
described
the
pattern
of basic
assumptions
as
the
deeper
levels
of culture
(1991:
252)
and further
emphasized
the
distinction
between
cultural surface
and essence
in
his
hierarchial three-level
model
of
assumptions,
values,
and artifacts.
Here,
the cultural
surface
is
ex-
plained
by the cultural
paradigm
and cannot
be
decoded
before the
under-
lying essence is revealed.
Schein
(1992:27)
put
it this
way:
the
culture
will
manifest itself at the levels of
observable
artifacts
and
shared
espoused
values,
norms, and
rules
of behavior
. . .
[but]
to
understand
a
group's
culture,
one
must
attempt
to
get
at its
shared
basic
assumptions.
Similarly, proponents
of
the
interpretive
paradigm
study
webs
of
meaning,
organized
in
terms
of
symbols
and
representations
(Smircich,
1985:
63).
According
to
this
paradigm,
webs of
meaning
lie
behind
the
immediate expressions of culture, turning the study of culture into a search
for
expressions
of
such cultural
essence. For
instance,
Gagliardi
(1990:
27)
claimed that
interpretivist
researchers
seek to
interpret
the
cultural
order
on
the basis
of
a
dominant
drive
(Benedict,
1934)
or
an
integrating
theme
(Barley,
1983;
Opler,
1945)
which can be
stored
in
synthesizing
symbols
(Geertz,
1973).
Culture
as static.
Cooper
and Burrell
(1988:
100)
claimed that
postmod-
ernism is
focused on
the
processual,
as
opposed
to
structural
character
of
human
institutions.
Instead
of
searching
for the
origin
of
things,
one
must
realize that
there is
disparity, difference
and
indeterminacy (Coo-
per
&
Burrell,
1988:
101).
The
temporary
and
fragile character
of
organiza-
tional
life
in
consumer
society
also has
been
stressed
by
Baudrillard,
who
claimed that
any
fixed
meaning
is now
replaced
by
a
network of
floating
signifiers
that offer
momentary seduction
rather
than
the
ability to
store
and
transmit
meaning
(Poster, 1988:
3).
In
opposition to
these
postmodern
views,
proponents of
both
function-
alist and
interpretive
paradigms offer
more
or
less static
representations
that ignore
the flux
and
discontinuity that
Baudrillard and
Derrida
(among
many
others)
suggested
constitute
ordinary life in
organizations.
Although
both functionalists and interpretivists acknowledge historical origins,
both
paradigms
represent
organizational
culture by
static
formulations
such
as
patterns,
maps,
programs,
metaphors,
images,
and
themes.
Seen
from the
postmodernist
view,
functionalist
analysis
results in
a
static model
linking elements
of
organizational
culture
together.
The
static
characteristics of
functionalist
analysis
make
it
possible to
compare vari-
ous
cultures and
to show
differencs
and
similarities
between
them.
Con-
sider,
for
instance,
Schein's
(1992)
empirical
analyses
in
which he
com-
pared
and
contrasted the
basic
assumptions of
two
different
organizations
and
Hofstede's
(1980)
comparison
among 50
national
cultures in
three
regions. Denison (1990) made a similar comparison among a number of
cases that
demonstrates the
relationship
between culture
and
effective-
ness.
In
order
to
make
such
comparisons, the
researcher
needs to
freeze
the
culture
by
representing
its
characteristics in a
static
way.
Some
func-
tionalist
researchers
acknowledge
group
development
and
learning
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 16/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
543
stages;
however,
we
argue
that
this
development
follows
predictable
and
deterministic
phases,
as,
for
example,
the
three-stage
cultural
life
cycle
(birth,
midlife,
maturity)
described
by
Schein
(1992). Thus, functionalist
analysis
results
in a static model
linking
elements
of
organizational
cul-
ture
together,
even when the focus
is
on
transformation
through
cultural
stages
of
development.
Interpretivists
express
a
strong
interest in
the
ongoing processes
of
sense
making
and
meaning
creation.
However,
interpretive researchers
rarely
explore
the
ruptures,
discontinuity,
and
fragmentation
of
sense
making (cf.
Clifford
&
Marcus, 1986;
Rosaldo,
1989,
within
anthropology).
Instead,
they
focus on the
interrelated
cyclic
processes
of
interpretation,
sense
making,
understanding,
and
action,
seeking
to
understand
the
con-
struction of culture (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992; Hatch, 1993; Smircich &
Morgan,
1982;
Weick,
1979).
The
results
of
most
interpretive
analyses
are
case
studies
or
organizational
ethnographies
that
are at best
static
repre-
sentations of
dynamic
processes
(Clifford,
1986).
The
Move to
Interplay
We
claimed
that
postmodernism
clarifies
connections
between
func-
tionalism
and
interpretivism
by
imagining
them
to be
in
opposition
to
the
views
that
postmodernism offers.
When
postmodernism is
taken
up,
culture
becomes
fluid,
and no
fixed
pattern
can
be identified once and for
all; there
may be an
infinite
number
of
ways
that
culture
works,
depending
on
time,
place, and the
persons
involved.
From the
postmodern
perspec-
tive,
functionalism
and
interpretivism
appear to be
alike in
terms of
their
mutual
acknowledgement
of
culture as
pattern
and
essence,
and
their
static
formulation of
cultural
processes. On
this
basis,
we
have
established
connections
between
them,
arguing that when
both
contrasts
and
connec-
tions
are
considered
simultaneously,
paradigm
interplay
is
realized.
IMPLICATIONS OF
PARADIGM
INTERPLAY
Recognizing both
contrasts and
connections
between
functionalism
and
interpretivism
demands
that the
researcher
first shift
between
and
then
withdraw an
equal
distance
from
both
paradigms. We
proposed
adopting
postmodernism
as
a
means to
this
withdrawal,
and
we
argue
that
the
accomplishment of
our
project
(to
keep
both
contrasts
and
connec-
tions in
mind)
produces
a new
state of
awareness.
In
other
words,
simulta-
neously
acknowledging
both
contrasts
and
connections
between para-
digms
creates
intellectual
tension
that
many
researchers
will
equate
with
paradox but
that
we
argue
has
its own
unique
features.
As Quinn and Cameron stated (1988: 2): The key characteristic in
paradox is
the
simultaneous
presence of
contradictory,
even
mutually
exclusive
elements.
Thus,
the
literature on
paradox
employs
both-and
rather
than
either-or
thinking
(Quinn,
1988;
Quinn
&
Cameron,
1988;Wes-
tenholz,
1993).
Dualistic
thinking
has been
present in
the
social
sciences
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 17/30
544
Academy
of
Management Review
April
throughout their
histories,
as
Maybury-Lewis
(1989) demonstrated.
Whereas
Maybury-Lewis
sought
harmony
between dualistic
oppositions,
Barley and Kunda
(1992)
employed
either-or
thinking
in their
study of
historical
swings
between normative
versus rational
ideologies
of
control
in
organization studies.
Whereas
Barley
and Kunda focused
on how
one
element
of
the normative-rational
dualism dominates
the rhetoric
of
man-
agement
ideology
at a
given
point
in
its
history,
the
paradox
literature
focuses
on
dualism itself
by
invoking
both-and
thinking.
We
argue
that
interplay,
like
paradox,
involves both-and
thinking.
However,
in
the
paradox literature the
emphasis
has
been
on
contrasts
defined as simultaneous
oppositions (Poole
& Van de
Ven,
1989; Quinn
&
Cameron, 1988),
whereas the
interplay strategy
also
points
to
connections
as a noncontradictory foundation of interdependence between opposi-
tions. Authors
of
the
paradox
literature
also have
focused
on
accepting,
clarifying,
or
resolving paradoxes
(Poole
&
Van de
Ven,
1989;
Van de
Ven &
Poole, 1988),
whereas users of the
interplay
strategy insist on the
preservation
of tension. The
ability to
recognize
interdependence, while
maintaining
tension,
is
therefore the
distinguishing
feature of
interplay
in
relation to
paradox as it has been
treated
within
organization
theory.
Instead of
having to choose
between
paradigms
on
the
basis of their
commonly
accepted
contrasts,
proponents
of
the
interplay strategy follow
the
postmodern claim that in
order to
see the
ordinary
with a fresh
vision,
we have
to
make it
extraordinary; that
is, we
must break
the habits of
routine
thought and
see
the
world as
though for the
first
time (Cooper &
Burrell, 1988:
101).
We
claim that
recognition of
paradigm
interdependence
breaks
routine and
polarized
ways of
considering
paradigm
differences
by
pointing to
paradigm
connections.
Interplay 1:
Generality-Contextuality
Both
functionalists and
interpretivists
argue
that
culture can be con-
ceived
as an
ordered
pattern, whether
this
pattern is
predefined or emer-
gent. Because of this connection, we argue that it is possible to study
the
simultaneous
occurrence of
(a) culture as
generality,
inherent in a
TABLE
3
Implications of
Paradigm
Interplay
Interplay
1
Interplay 2
Interplay 3
Contrast:
Predefined
versus
Categorical versus
Convergent versus
emergent
associative
divergent
Connection:
Pattern
Essence
Static
Implication:
Generality
and
Clarity
and
Stability and
contextuality
ambiguity
instability
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 18/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
545
predefined
and
universal
framework and
(b)
culture
as
contextuality,
sug-
gested
by
the
emergent
construction
of
meaning.
Within
the
interplay
strategy,
culture is neither defined
in terms
of
generality
nor
contextuality;
instead,
we
argue
that culture researchers
must understand
and
describe
culture in both of these
ways.
Researchers often have used
generality
and
contextuality
as
opposing
tensions
in
the cultural
analysis
of
organizations
in that
each has
been
considered
separately
to
offer
guidelines
to culture
studies
(e.g., Smircich,
1983).
For
instance,
within
functionalist culture
studies,
the
pursuit
of
gen-
erality
has led to
descriptions
of values or
cultural
assumptions
that
are
shared
among
organizational
members
(e.g.,
Schein,
1985,
1992)
or to
mea-
sures such as
cultural
strength
that
allow
for
comparisons
across
organiza-
tions (e.g., Kilmann et al., 1985). In the search for shared characteristics,
researchers
frequently
discover
subcultures as
they
grapple
with
localized
meanings.
Rather then
switching
to a
contextual
orientation,
however,
their
preference
for
generality
has led to
conceptions
of
culture at
different
levels of
analysis
(e.g.,
overall
culture versus
subcultures
such as
hierar-
chy
or functional
subunits).
Thus,
functionalist
subculture
researchers fre-
quently question the
possibility
of
shared
meaning
at the
organization
level,
but
usually they
adapt
generality
to the
subunit level
rather
than
considering
contextuality.
Meanwhile,
interpretive
researchers have
emphasized
how
issues
like
time,
place,
situation,
participants,
and
agenda
combine
to
constitute
dif-
ferent
cultural
contexts
within
the
organization.
Researchers
who
are sen-
sitive to
contextuality
stress the
lack of a
general
frame of
reference
as
a
means
for
defining and
comparing
various
contexts.
Instead of
searching
for
an
overall, shared
culture,
interpretivists
focus on
the
ongoing
sense
making
that
takes
place within
specific local
contexts. For
example,
Kunda
(1992)
described
how the
same
group of
people uses
different
constructions
of
meaning within
formal
training
sessions
and
time-out
situations. A
contextual
approach
is
also
suggested
in
the
study of
occupational
com-
munities (e.g., Trice, 1993; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Van Maanen, 1991; Van
Maanen
&
Barley,
1984),
in
which
meaning
that
originates
outside
the
organization
contextualizes
meaning
within
the
organization.
The
interplay
strategy
simultaneously
emphasizes
both
generality
and
contextuality.
The
interdependence
assumed to
exist
between
them
implies that
researchers
need to
conceive
generality and
contextuality in
terms
of
one
another
in
order
to
analyze
organizational
culture. In
her
study
of
a
public
ministry,
Schultz
(1991)
provided an
example
of the
simul-
taneous
use of
generality and
contextuality in
the
study
of an
organiza-
tional
culture.
Schultz's
study
described the
use of
different
cultural
con-
texts defined by the interpretation and enactment of the relationship
between
managers
and
their
Minister.
These
contexts
differed in
time,
place,
and
situation.
Schultz
labeled
these
contexts
symbolic
domains
and
said
that
they
consist of
a
distinct
set of
social
definitions
and
meanings,
which
characterize
particular
work
settings
(1991:
489).
The
contexts
be-
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 19/30
546
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
came
apparent
when
the
managers
made
a transition between
one
context
and
another, for
example,
when
they
moved
from
hallway
discussions
to
ritualized
meetings.
Changes
in
demeanor,
behavior,
and
speech practices
indicated differences
in
the
symbolic
domains that
Schultz
described
in
metaphorical
terms,
such as the mundane
monastery,
the fire
station,
and the
sage
and
the
servants. The
metaphors
served
to
summarize
the
variety
of
contexts that the
managers
perceived
themselves
to
move
between. Schultz
concluded that the
managers
work within
different .
. .
symbolic
domains . .
.
[and
they]
must be
able to
keep
all
symbolic
do-
mains in
mind and switch back and
forth between
them
(1991:
503).
In
her
study,
Schultz focused on
contextuality
and
the
ways
in
which
managers
switched from one
context to
another,
but
the data
also
point
to generality. That is, the ability to recognize different contexts depended
upon
acknowledging
the
special
relationship
that
occurred between
Min-
isters
(roughly
similar to
U.S.
Cabinet
members,
such as
the
Secretary
of
State)
and their
managers
as
the
defining
characteristic
of the
overall
organizational culture. This
special
relationship
was
illustrated
by
the
number of
times
tasks,
events,
situations,
and
opportunities were
defined
in
relation to
the
wishes of the
Minister. Once
this
general
relationship
was
found,
it
became
possible to
understand each
context
in
terms of
distance,
spontaneous
interaction, and
ritualized
interaction
between
the
Minister
and the
managers.
According
to
interplay
strategy,
this
ongoing
tension
between
generality and
contextuality
implies
that
they are
defined
in
terms of
one
another.
This
interdependence can
be
explained in
two
ways.
First,
contextuality
can
be
recognized
only from
a
position of
general-
ity.
Recognizing that the
special
relationship
between
the
managers and
the
Minister
was
at the
heart of
the
culture
enabled
Schultz to
distinguish
between
the
multiple
contexts of the
culture.
Instead of
looking for
contexts
constituted
by
different
groups
of
employees
(i.e.,
economists
versus
law-
yers)
or
different
types of
relationships
between
managers and
employees
(i.e., paternalistic versus collegial), Schultz's awareness of the general
focus on
the
Minister
enabled
her
to
recognize
variations
in this
relation-
ship
based in
different
situations
confronted by
the
managers (e.g.,
ritual-
ized
joint
meetings
versus
spontaneous
face-to-face
talks).
When
she
worked from
a
position of
contextuality,
Schultz
began
to
appreciate
gener-
ality.
Her
ability
to
clearly
describe
the
three
symbolic
domains
(monas-
tery, fire
station,
and
sage/servant)
depended
upon
Schultz's
recognition
of the
special
relationship
between
Minister
and
managers. In
this
way,
the
researcher
discovered
how
cultural
generality
was
established
and
maintained
without
sacrificing
appreciation for
local
contexts of
meaning.
Interplay
2:
Clarity-Ambiguity
Both
functionalists
and
interpretivists
argue that
surface
manifesta-
tions
express or
represent
deeper
cultural
essence,
regardless of
whether
this
essence is
discovered
by a
categorical
route or an
associative route.
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 20/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
547
Because
of this
connection,
we
argue
that
it is
possible
to
study
the
simulta-
neous existence
of
clarity,
as
emphasized
by
categorical
analysis,
and
ambiguity,
which
is inherent in associative thinking (Cohen, 1985;Meyer-
son,
1991).
Because the
categorical
mode forces researchers
to
locate
cul-
tural
phenomena
in
one
category
or
another,
this mode
depends
upon
clear
distinctions.
The associative
mode,
in
contrast,
provides
a
mechanism
to
elude
distinctions,
thus
pushing
researchers
to
recognize
the
multiple
ways
in
which
symbols
may
be
used,
which
constitutes
ambiguity.
In
our
view, neither
clarity
nor
ambiguity
can
be
defined
as the essence
of
culture;
rather,
culture researchers need to understand
and
describe culture
in
both of these terms.
Interplay
between the two
paradigms
encourages
both
categorical
and
associative
thinking and,
thus, places
the
researcher
in the position of accepting both clarity and ambiguity.
In
culture
studies, the difference
between
clarity
and
ambiguity
has
been
addressed
as a
key
distinction
among
the
integration,
differentiation,
and
fragmentation
perspectives
(Martin
1992;
Martin &
Meyerson,
1988;
Meyerson
&
Martin,
1987).
According
to Martin
and
Meyerson
(1988),
the
integration
perspective denies
ambiguity,
the
differentiation
perspective
channels
ambiguity,
and
only
the
fragmentation
perspective
acknowl-
edges
ambiguity.
Similarly,
functionalist
researchers
have
focused
on
clarifying consistent
patterns
of
culture,
whereas
interpretive
researchers
have
emphasized the
multiplicity
of
meanings
that are
associated with
worldviews. This is
illustrated
by
functionalist
definitions
of
culture, such
as
Schein's
(1991:
248)
claim that if
things
are
ambiguous,
then, by
defini-
tion,
that
group
does
not
have
a
culture.
Meanwhile,
interpretive
research-
ers
have
made
a
strong
case
for
including
ambiguity
in
the
concept of
culture. For
instance, Frost
and his
colleagues
acknowledged
that the
consistent
patterns of
culture
emphasized by
the
functionalists
leave
no
room for
ambiguity
(Frost,
Moore,
Louis,
Lundberg,
&
Martin,
1991: 8),
whereas
Meyerson
(1991:
255)
accused
functionalists'
studies
of
ignoring
that
which
is
unclear,
unstable, and
'disorderly' (that
which is
more frag-
mented, intractable, and difficult to control). Eisenberg (1984)argued that
although
clarity is a
preferred
objective
among
researchers
and prac-
titioners of
organizational
communication,
ambiguity
can
be an
effective
communication
strategy.
Hatch
and
Ehrlich
(1993),
in
a
study of
managerial
discourse
conducted
over
an
18-month
period,
used both
clarity
and
ambiguity in
their study
of an
organizational
culture.
Their
focus
on
ambiguity
revealed that
at
one
point
in
time
the
managers
categorized
items
as
solutions
to the
problem of
securing
their
facility
against
theft
(e.g.,
posted
guards
at
entrances,
implemented
a
card-access
system),
whereas at a
later
time
they
categorized the
same
items as
problems
(e.g., the
guards
were surly,
the
card-access
system
made
employees
resentful
and
punished them
for
working
late,
Hatch &
Ehrlich,
1993:
515).
These
researchers
observed:
It
seems
that
there are
no
final
solutions
to
security
problems.
Rather,
the
way
the
security
issue was
discussed is
more
suggestive of a
stream
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 21/30
548
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
of
solutions
that become
problems
demanding
other
solutions,
which
then
create other
problems.
They
concluded that the
instability
between
the
categories
of
problem
and solution
is . . . an
expression
of
ambiguity.
In their
study,
Hatch and Ehrlich
(1993) pointed
to
the
ambiguity of
problem/solutions
thinking,
but the
concept
of
clarity
is also needed to
analyze
the
data. That
is,
at each
particular moment,
the
managers
knew
with clarity
whether to
categorize something
as a
problem
or
a
solution,
but
when a longitudinal
perspective
was
taken,
much of what the
managers
categorized
with
confidence as solutions
later seemed to
them,
with
equal
clarity,
to be
problems.
The characteristics of these elements
of the
security
issue thus
appear
to be
in
flux.
We believe that this
example
illustrates
the
ongoing
tension
between
clarity
and
ambiguity
that lies
at
the
heart
of the interplay strategy.
When researchers use the
interplay
strategy,
this tension
takes the
form of
interdependence
between
clarity
and
ambiguity.
This
interdepen-
dence can be described
in
two
ways. First,
ambiguity
can be
recognized
only
from a
position
of
clarity.
When Hatch and Ehrlich
noticed,
for exam-
ple,
that
security guards
shifted their status from
solutions to
problems
(and
finally
back to
solutions
again), they finally recognized
the
ambiguity
of
problem/solutions
thinking.
That
is,
because
the
guards
were
catego-
rized
by
the
managers
in
an
unambiguous
way
at
specific
times as
either
solutions
or
problems,
and
because of the
association between
guards
in
both instances
(i.e.,
they
were the same
guards),
ambiguity about the
status
of
the
guards
was
inferred
from
parallel
experiences
of
clarity
about them.
Second,
clarity
can be
recognized
only
from a
position of
ambiguity.
Rather than
perceiving the shift between
problems and
solutions as confu-
sion
and disorder
(Meyerson, 1991),the
study by Hatch and
Ehrlich shows
that
clarity
is
achieved
in
moments;
it is not a
permanent condition (i.e.,
each
solution and
problem
is
clearly defined in
the moment).
Finding the
ambiguity
in
redefinitions of
solutions as
problems
permitted the
research-
ers to discover how long clarity lasted; it also raises questions about how
ambiguity
is
created,
maintained,
and changed.
Interplay
3:
Stability-Instability
Both
functionalism
and
interpretivism produce
static views
of organi-
zational
culture, regardless of
whether the analytical
processes
that pro-
duce
these views
are
convergent or
divergent.
Although both
paradigms
produce
static
representations of
organizational
culture, we claim that the
interplay between them
makes it possible
for researchers to
study culture
as
both
stability and
instability.
Convergent
processes focus the re-
searcher on finding singular points of view that result in stable
representa-
tions of
organizational culture.
Divergent
processes, in
contrast, encourage
the
researcher to
keep generating
additional points of
view, a
process that
undermines the
stability of earlier
representations. As a result,
convergent
processes render a
stable
appreciation of culture,
whereas divergent pro-
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 22/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
549
cesses reveal
instability (which
is then described
in
a
static
way).
We
believe
that neither
stability
nor
instability
alone
adequately
describes
culture;
both
terms
are
needed.
Stability
has been
widely
emphasized
in functionalist
culture
studies
and
is
often
claimed
to be intrinsic to the definition
of culture itself.
Schein
(1991: 245), for
instance,
stated
flatly
that culture
implies
stability.
Also,
according
to Hofstede's
(1995)
definition
of culture
as mental
programming,
culture
is conceived
of
stable
patterns
that have established
themselves
within a
person's
mind
(Hofstede,
1991:
4).
Although
early
interpretive
researchers
did
not stress
instability
or
fluctuation
in
culture
research,
more
recent work
on
organizational
culture
points
in
this direction
(Gagli-
ardi, 1986;
Hatch,
1993;
Knights
&
Willmott,
1995;
Kreiner
&
Schultz,
1995;
Martin, 1992;Meyerson & Martin, 1987).
In
a
longitudinal
study
of
organizational
change
in
a
British
insurance
company,
Knights
and
Willmott
(1995) provided
an
example
of the
simulta-
neous use of
stability
and
instability
to
study
an
organizational
culture.
These authors
described how
senior
management
sought
to
replace
a
paternalistic,
consensus-oriented
philosophy
of
management
with a
cul-
ture that
emphasized 'commercial'
and
professional
criteria
for
.
. .
corpo-
rate
performance
(Knights &
Willmott, 1995:
30). Within
this
change
pro-
cess,
the
researchers,
on the
one
hand,
found
stability
in
the
way
top
management
imposed
planning systems
and
change
rituals
onto the
orga-
nizational
members,
especially middle
managers.
Although
top
manage-
ment
claimed
to
shift from
classic
strategic
management to
professional
teams, the
researchers
emphasized
that
they
communicated
and
enacted
these
new
times in
ways
similar
to the
paternalistic
past
(e.g., at
seminars,
in
vision
statements, in
new
evaluation
procedures, in
new
products).
On the
other
hand,
the
study also
showed
instability in
the
ways
senior
managers
interpreted
and
responded
to
the group
of
middle
manag-
ers
during
the
change
process.
Senior
management's
perception of
middle
management
shifted
radically from
an
engineering
attitude,
where they
treated middle management as neutral, technical units (Knights &Will-
mott,
1995:
42); to an
attitude of
shock
and
anger, as
middle
managers
resisted their
efforts;
and
further
to
symbolic
manipulation, as
the
pater-
nalistic
tradition
was
redefined
instead
of
replaced.
These
researchers
concluded
that
instead of
seeking to
understand
and
work
with the
culture
of
the
organization
as
they
found it,
senior
management
pursued a
'scorched
earth'
policy in
which
every
opportunity
was taken
to
expose
its
failings
and,
by
implication,
the
inadequacy of
those
constituted
within
it
(Knights
&
Willmott,
1995: 44).
Knights and
Willmott's
analysis of
the
organizational
processes
con-
tained elements of both stability and
instability,
although they
did not
address
the
interdependence
between
them.
However, we
argue that
the
ability
to
recognize the
stable
form of the
change
process
depends
upon
the
instability of
the
interaction
between
senior and
middle
management
(e.g., the shift
from
engineering
attitude
to
symbolic
manipulation).
Once
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 23/30
550
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
this
instability is
acknowledged, it
becomes
possible
for
researchers
to
understand the
stability
of senior
management's
control
despite
proclama-
tions
about
professional teams
and new
ways
of
collaborating. Thus, the
interplay
strategy
reveals
interdependent
tension between
stability
and
instability,
which
can be described
in
two
ways.
First,
instability
can be
recognized
only
from
a
position
of
stability.
Knights and Willmott's
(1995)
description
of the
stability
of the
company's
management practices
made
it
possible
for the
researchers to see
the
major shifts toward new times. The
instability
in
the
various
ways
that
these times were
interpreted
and enacted
occurred
at
different
moments
and
among
different
people
(e.g.,
the conflicts
among
senior
management,
middle
management,
and
employees).
Second,
it
was
possible
to
find
stability only from a position of instability. The awareness of senior man-
agement's
fluctuating
rhetoric and
discontinuous
ways
of
addressing
mid-
dle
management enabled
the
researchers to
recognize
that
senior
manage-
ment's
control was
orchestrated and
enacted
in
stable
ways
inherent in
top-down
strategic
planning.
Instead
of
being
shaken
by
middle
manage-
ment's
resistance and
obstruction,
Knights
and
Willmott
(1995) pointed
to
how
senior
management reconstructed and
maintained the
stability
of
management
control,
even when
it
introduced
change
within
the
organi-
zation.
Interplay and Paradigm Crossing
We
applied the
interplay
strategy
to
demonstrate how
the
simultane-
ous
recognition
of
contrasts
and
connections
between
functionalist
and
interpretive
paradigms
implies an
understanding of
organizational
cul-
ture
in
terms
of
generality/contextuality,
clarity/ambiguity,
and
stability/
instability. The
application
of
the
interplay
strategy to
culture
studies
involved the
following two
steps: (a)
recognition
of the
contrasts
and con-
nections
between
functionalist
and
interpretive
paradigms
(e.g., Figure
3)
and
(b) generation
and
application of
interdependence
and
tension
be-
tween the contrasts and connections through movement between the para-
digms.
The
interplay
strategy does not fix
itself
in
one
or another
para-
digm;
rather it
allows
the
argument to flow
between
them.
We
consider
this
use
of
interplay to
be a key
contribution
to
research-
ers who
are faced
with
multiple
paradigms
and
who value
the
diversity
of
these
paradigms. Of
course,
if
at some
point
paradigm
differences are
not
relevant,
the
interplay
strategy
will no
longer be
useful.
However,
we
believe
that
multiparadigm
thinking is both
likely
and
desirable, in
light of
predictions
about
diversity in
postindustrial
society.
Because the
interplay
strategy
takes
advantage
of
the
diversity
offered by
organizational
studies,
it matches the
diversity
experienced (or
constructed) by
members of its
primary
audiences.
We
believe
the
paradigm
interplay, and the
paradigm-crossing
posi-
tion it
takes,
are
superior
to
both
incommensurability
and
integration
for
defining
the
relations
between
paradigms. If
theorists
stay
within
para-
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 24/30
1996
Schultz
and Hatch
551
digm
incommensurability,
this leads
to
ongoing
paradigm
wars,
and
an
integrationist
position
would result
in
absolute
dominance
by
one
para-
digm.
For
example,
Martin
and Frost
(In press)
describe
paradigm wars
as the
ongoing
struggle
for dominance
they perceive
taking place within
the
organizational
culture
field,
whereas
Smircich
and
Calks
(1987)
claimed that dominance
by
the
functionalist
paradigm
has
already
taken
place
in
organizational
culture studies. The
interplay
strategy
offers
an
alternative to both
paradigm
wars and
hegemony
that celebrates
diversity
and provides orientation within a
complex
and
often
contradictory
body
of
knowledge.
We wish
to
emphasize that the
interplay
strategy
should not be
limited
to
applications
within
culture studies. The
contrasts and
connections
be-
tween functionalism and interpretivism also can be applied to other do-
mains within
organization
theory,
particularly
new
institutional
theory
and
studies of
organizational
identity,
learning,
and
cognition.
In
new
institutional
theory,
for
instance,
the
interplay
strategy might
be
applied
to
contrasts
and connections
between
applications
of
institutional
economics
(e.g.,
Williamson,
1975,
1985)
and
the
sociological
approach
(e.g.,
Dobbin,
1994;
Meyer
&
Rowan,
1977;
Selznick, 1949).
Similarly,
in
studies of
organiza-
tional
cognition,
the
interplay
strategy
could
clarify
contrasts
and
connec-
tions
between
mappers
(e.g.,
Huff,
1990)
and
interpreters
(e.g.,
Sims
&
Gioia,
1986).
By
applying the
interplay
strategy to
contrasts and
connections
associated
with
these
domains,
researchers
can
develop additional
paths
to
cross
between
functionalist
and
interpretive
paradigms
without
forsak-
ing the
orienting
qualities these
paradigms offer.
We also
claim
that
postmodernism
poses
critical
questions
that can
help
to
locate
connections
between
other
paradigms
than
functionalism
and
interpretivism. For
instance,
Burrell
and
Morgan
(1979)
described
the
boundary
between
functionalism
and
radical
structuralism in
terms
of a
shared
notion of
determinism. In
framing
his
critique
of
grand
narrative,
Lyotard
(1984)
argued
that the
use of
determinism in
the
prediction
of
history (e.g., Marx's historical materialism) is a modernist legitimating
device
rather
than a
scientific
explanation, an
argument that
could
also
be
applied,
for
instance, to
the use
of
determinism
in
behavioralist
theories
within
the
functionalist
paradigm
(e.g.,
Skinner, 1953).
A
study
of the
uses
of
determinism
represents
one
possibility
for
conducting
interplay
with
respect to
functionalism
and
radical
structuralism.
Some
readings of
postmodernism
suggest
that
distinctions,
such
as
those
between
paradigms,
should be
abandoned. We
believe
that
the
history
of
these
distinctions
within the
organizational
field
provides
neces-
sary
orientation
for
positioning
contemporary
thought
in
relation to
the
ongoing discourse and allows redefinitions
and
reconstructions
of
prior
arguments.
We
have
applied
postmodernism
to the
paradigm
debate by
identifying
important but
often
overlooked
connections
between
two para-
digms.
However, we
have
stayed
within a
modernist
framework,
because
interplay
serves to
question
well-established
paradigm
borders
rather
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 25/30
552
Academy
of
Management
Review
April
than
to question the usefulness
of
the
paradigm
construct
itself.
Rather
than
focusing
on
the
deconstructive
aspects
of
postmodernism,
we
have
emphasized
postmodernism's
ability
to break the habits
of
organized
routine and see the
world as
though
for the first
time
(Cooper
&
Burrell,
1988: 101).
Thus,
there
is some
irony
in our
position;
the view we
develop
using postmodernism
can itself
be laid
open
to
postmodern
critique.
We
accept
this
irony
as
another
case of
productive
tension and
an
illustration
of
interplay
at another
level.
CONCLUSION
In
this article, we
present
a
new
strategy
for
crossing
paradigms
that
was developed in terms of functionalism and interpretivism within the
domain
of
organizational
culture studies.
The
strategy-called
inter-
play-was
built on
simultaneous
appreciation
for
both the
contrasts and
the connections
between
two
paradigms.
We
argued
that
connections
between functionalist and
interpretive
paradigms
appear
when
research-
ers consider
postmodern
critiques.
These
critiques
show that
both
para-
digms focus on
pattern
and
essence and
involve
static
representations
of
culture.
We
claim that the
connections
are a
contribution of
this
study
as
is
our use of
postmodern
theory
to
inspire
interplay
between
these
para-
digms.
Based on the contrasts and connections we
identify
in
our
analysis
of
functionalism
and
interpretivism,
the
following
three
implications
of
interplay
were
identified:
generality/contextuality,
clarity/ambiguity,
and
stability/instability.
According
to the
interplay
strategy,
instead of
treating
these as
paradoxes
and
attempting
to
resolve
them, recognition of
their
interdependence enables
the
researcher to
maintain their
tensions and
thereby
reach
a more
subtle
and
complex
appreciation of
organiza-
tional culture.
The
interplay
strategy
involved two
steps:
(a)
empirical
recognition
of contrasts and connections and (b) examination of the implications of
recognizing both
contrasts
and
connections
by
moving
between the
two
paradigms.
Interplay
helps researchers
recognize that
oppositions
are
always defined
in
terms
of
one
another
(a point
made in the
structuralist
semantic
context
by
Saussure, 1959,
and
Greimas,
1966, among
others).
More
important,
interplay
maintains
the tension
between
contrasts and
connections
that
permits a
more
sophisticated
approach to the
analysis
and
interpretation
of
empirical
data, as we
illustrated with
three
cases.
Our
interplay
strategy
transforms
the
paradigm
debate
from war
be-
tween a
limited number
of
major
players
(e.g., the
four
grand
paradigms
of Burrell & Morgan, 1979) into a much more fluid or nomadic situation,
where a
shifting number
of
positions
and
researchers
interact,
depending
upon
the
domain
studied.
We
believe
that it is
impossible and
illusionary
to settle
the
paradigm issue
once
and for all (a
desire
that is
still
expressed
in
the
ongoing
debate (e.g.,
Jackson & Carter,
1993,
versus
Willmott,
1990,
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 26/30
1996 Schultz and Hatch
553
1993a,b; Pfeffer, 1993, versus Van Maanen,
1995; Weaver & Gioia, 1994,
versus De Cock & Rickards, 1995),
but it is
equally
naive to think
organiza-
tion
theorists are
ready
to
transcend
the need for
paradigms completely.
Rather, researchers
need
paradigms (or
some other orienting device) in
order
to
maintain
and make use of the
diversity
that
characterizes
the
field of organization studies.
If
they accept the
multiparadigm diversity,
the
interplay strategy
offers a means to take
advantage of the tensions
between paradigms and thereby generate new forms of understanding.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., &
Berg,
P.
0. 1992.
Corporate
culture
and
organizational
symbolism.
Berlin:
Walter de
Gruyter.
Barley,
S.
R. 1983.
Semiotics
and the
study
of
occupational
and
organizational
cultures.
Administrative Science
Quarterly,
28:
393-413.
Barley,
S.
R.,
&
Kunda,
G.
1992.
Design
and
devotion:
Surges
of
rational and
normative
ideologies
of control
in
managerial
discourse. Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
37:
363-399.
Barthes,
R. 1972.
Mythologies (A.
Lavers,
trans.).
New York: Hill
&
Wang.
Baudrillard,
J.
1988.
Selected
writings.
Stanford,
CA:
Stanford
University
Press.
Benedict, R.
1934. Patterns of
culture. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Berger, P., & Luckmann. 1966.
The social
construction of
reality.
Middlesex, England: Penguin.
Burrell, G.
1988.
Modernism,
postmodernism
and
organizational
analysis
2:
The
contribution
of
Michel
Foucault.
Organization
Studies,
9:
221-237.
Burrell, G., &
Morgan,
G. 1979.
Sociological
paradigms
and
organizational
analysis. Lon-
don:
Heinemann.
Calds, M., &
Smircich,
L.
1991.
Voicing
seduction to
silence
leadership. Organization
Studies,
12:
567-602.
Clifford,
J.
1986.
Introduction:
Partial
truths. In
J.
Clifford
&
G.
E.
Marcus
(Eds.),
Writing
culture.
The
poetics and
politics of
ethnography: 1-26.
Berkeley:
University of
California
Press.
Clifford,
J.,
&
Marcus,
G. E.
(Eds.).
1986.
Writing culture. The
poetics and
politics of
ethnography.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cohen,
A. P.
1985. The
symbolic
construction
of
community.
London:
Tavistock.
Cooper,
R.,
&
Burrell,
G.
1988.
Modernism,
postmodernism
and
organizational
analysis: An
introduction.
Organization
Studies, 9:
91-113.
Czarniawska-Joerges,
B.
1992.
Exploring
complex
organizations.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Czarniawska-Joerges,
B.,
&
Joerges,
B.
1990.
Linguistic
artifact
at
service of
organizational
control. In P.
Gagliardi
(Ed.),
Symbols
and
artifacts:
Views
of
the
corporate
landscape:
339-364.
Berlin:
Walter
de
Gruyter.
Deal,
T.
E., &
Kennedy, A. A.
1982.
Corporate
cultures.
Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
De Cock, C., & Rickards, T. 1995. Of Giddens, paradigms, and philosophical garb. Organiza-
tion
Studies, 16:
699-704.
Denison, D.
1990.
Corporate
culture and
organizational
effectiveness.
New
York:
Wiley.
Derrida,
J.
1978.
Writing and
difference.
London:
Routledge
&
Kegan Paul.
Derrida,
J.
1980. Of
grammatology.
Baltimore: John
Hopkins
University
Press.
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 27/30
554 Academy of Management Review April
Dobbin, F.
R.
1994.
Forging
industrial
policy:
The United
States,
Britain
and France in
the
railway age. New York:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Durkheim, E.
1949. Division of
labor
in
society.
Glencoe,
IL:Free Press.
(Original
was
published
in 1893)
Eisenberg,
E.
1984.
Ambiguity
as
strategy
in
organizational
communication.
Communication
Monographs,
51:
227-242.
Feldman,
M.
1991. The
meanings
of
ambiguity:
Learning
from
stories and
metaphors.
In
P.
Frost,
L.
Moore,
M.
R.
Louis,
C.
Lundberg,
&
J.
Martin,
(Eds.),
Reframing
organizational
culture:
145-156.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Foucault,
M.
1977. The
archaeology
of
knowledge.
London:
Tavistock.
Frost, P.,
Moore, L., Louis, M.
R.,
Lundberg,
C., &
Martin,
J.
(Eds.).
1991.
Reframing organizational
culture.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Gagliardi, P. 1986. The creation and change of organizational culture. Organization Studies,
7: 117-134.
Gagliardi,
P.
(Ed.).
1990.
Symbols
and
artifacts: Views of
the
corporate
landscape.
Berlin:
Walter de
Gruyter.
Garfinkel,
H.
1967. Studies
in
ethnomethodology.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Geertz,
C.
1973. The
interpretation
of culture. New
York: Basic
Books.
Giddens,
A.
1976. New
rules of
sociological
method:
A
positive
critique
of
interpretative
sociologies.
New York: Basic
Books.
Giddens,
A.
1979. Central
problems
in
social
theory.
Berkeley:
University
of
California Press.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of
Management Review,
15:
584-602.
Gioia,
D., Donellon,
A.,
&
Sims,
H.
1989.
Communication and
cognition
in
appraisal: A
tale
of two
paradigms.
Organization
Studies,
10:
503-529.
Greimas,
A.
1966.
Semantique
structurale. Paris:
Larousse.
Hassard,
J.
1988.
Overcoming hermeticism in
organization
theory: An
alternative to
paradigm
incommensurability.
Human
Relations,
41: 247-259.
Hassard,
J.
1991.
Multiple
paradigms
and
organizational
analysis: A
case study.
Organization
Studies,
12:
275-299.
Hassard,
J.,
&
Parker, M.
1993
(Eds.).
Postmodernism
and
organizations.
London: Sage.
Hatch, M.
J.
1993. The
dynamics
of
organization
culture. Academy
of
Management
Review,
18: 657-693.
Hatch,
M.
J.,
&
Ehrlich, S. 1993.
Spontaneous humor
as an
indicator of
paradox
and ambiguity,
Organization
Studies, 14:
505-527.
Hopfl,
H.
1995.
Counterfeit
of emotion:
The
professionalization of
contempt.
Studies in
Culture,
Organization and
Societies,
1:
47-63.
Hofstede, G.
1980.
Culture's
consequences.
Beverly
Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. 1991.
Culture
and
organization:
Software of the
mind.
Intercultural
cooperation
and
its
importance for
survival.
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic
growth.
Organizational
Dynamics,
16(spring):
5-21.
Huff,
A.
S.
(Ed.).
1990.
Mapping
strategic
thought.
Chichester,
England:
Wiley.
Jackson,
N.,
&
Carter,
P.
1991. In
defense of
paradigm
incommensurability.
Organization
Studies,
12:
109-128.
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 28/30
1996 Schultz and
Hatch
555
Jackson,
N.,
&
Carter,
P.
1993.
Paradigm
wars :
A
response
to
Hugh
Willmott.
Organization
Studies,
14:
721-727.
Kilduff,
M. 1993.
Deconstructing
organizations.
Academy
of
Management
Review,
18:
13-32.
Kilmann, R.,
Saxton,
M.
J.,
Serpa,
R.,
&
Associates
(Eds.).
1985.
Gaining
control of
the
corporate
culture. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Knights,
D., &
Willmott,
H.
1995. Culture and
control
in
a life
insurance
company.
Studies
in
Culture,
Organization and
Societies,
1:
29-47.
Kreiner,
K.,
&
Schultz,
M.
1995. Soft
cultures:
The
symbolism
of
cross-border
organizing.
Studies
in
Culture,
Organization
and
Societies,
1:
63-83.
Kotter,
J.
P., &
Heskett,
J.
L.
1992.
Corporate
culture and
performance.
New York:
Free
Press.
Kuhn, T.
1970. The
structure of
scientific
revolutions
(2nd
ed.).
Chicago:
University
of
Chi-
cago
Press.
Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering culture: Control and commitment in
a
high-tech
corporation.
Philadelphia:
Temple
University
Press.
Lakoff,
G.,
&
Johnson,
M.
1980.
Metaphors
we
live
by.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Larsen,
J., &
Schultz,
M.
1990.
Artifacts
in
a
bureaucratic
monastery.
In
P.
Gagliardi
(Eds.),
Symbols
and
artifacts:
Views of the
corporate
landscape:
281-302.
Berlin:
Walter
de
Gruyter.
Lee, A.
S. 1991.
Integrating positivist and
interpretive
approaches
to
organizational
research.
Organization
Science,
2:
342-365.
Linstead,
S. 1993a.
Deconstruction in
the
study
of
organizations.
In
J.
Hassard
&
M.
Parker
(Eds.),
Postmodernism
and
organizations:
49-70.
London:
Sage.
Linstead,
S.
1993b. From
postmodern
anthropology to
deconstructive
ethnography.
Human
Relations,
46:
97-119.
Linstead,
S., &
Graf
ton-Small, R.
1990.
Organizational
bricolage. In
B.
Turner
(Ed.),
Organiza-
tional
symbolism:
291-310. Berlin:
Walter
de
Gruyter.
Lyotard,
J.-F.
1984.
The
postmodern
condition: A
report
on
knowledge.
St
Paul:
University of
Minnesota Press.
Martin,
J.
1990.
Deconstructing
organizational
taboos: The
suppression of
gender
conflicts
in
organizations.
Organization
Science, 1:
339-359.
Martin,
J.
1992.
Cultures in
organization.
Oxford,
England:
Oxford
University
Press.
Martin,
J.,
&
Frost, P.
(In
press).
The
organizational
culture
war
games: A
struggle for
intellec-
tual
dominance. In
S.
Clegg,
C.
Hardy,
& W.
Nord
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
organization
studies.
London:
Sage.
Martin,
J.,
&
Meyerson, D.
1988.
Organizational
cultures
and
the
denial,
channeling
and
acknowledgement of
ambiguity.
In
L.
R.
Pondy, R.
J.
Boland, & H.
Thomas
(Eds.),
Managing
ambiguity
and
change:
93-126.
New
York:
Wiley.
Maybury-Lewis,
D.
1989. The
quest
for
harmony. In
D.
Maybury-Lewis
&
U.
Almagor
(Eds.),
The
attraction
of
opposites:
Thought
and
society
in a
dualistic
mode:
1-18. Ann
Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press.
Merton,
R.
1957.
Social
theory
and
social
structure
(2nd
ed.).
Glencoe,
IL:
Free
Press.
Meyer,
J.,
&
Rowan, B.
1977.
Institutionalized
organizations:
Formal
structure
as
myth
and
ceremony.
American
Journal
of
Sociology, 83:
340-363.
Meyerson,
D.
1991.
Acknowledging
and
uncovering
ambiguities
in
cultures.
In
P.
Frost,
L.
Moore, M.
R.
Louis,
C.
Lundberg,
&
J.
Martin
(Eds.),
Reframing
organizational
culture:
131-144.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 29/30
556
Academy
of
Management
Review April
Meyerson,
D.,
&
Martin,
J.
1987.
Cultural
change:
An
integration
of
three different
views.
Journal
of
Management
Studies, 24:
623-647.
Morgan,
G.,
&
Smircich,
L.
1980.
The case
for
qualitative
research.
Academy
of
Management
Review, 5: 491-500.
Opler,
M.
E. 1945.
Themes
as
dynamic
forces
in
culture.
American
Journal
of
Sociology,
3:
192-206.
Parker,
M.,
&
McHugh,
G. 1991. Five texts in search
of an author:
A
response
to
John
Hassard's
multiple
paradigms
and
organizational
analysis.
Organizational
Studies,
12:
451-457.
Parsons,
T.
1951. The social
system.
Glencoe,
IL: Free
Press.
Pfeffer,
J.
1993. Barriers to
the
advance of
organizational
science:
Paradigm
development
as
a
dependent variable.
Academy
of
Management
Review, 18: 599-621.
Pondy,
L.
R., Frost,
P.
J.,
Morgan,
G.,
&
Dandridge,
T. C.
(Eds.).
1983.
Organizational
symbolism.
Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.
Poole,
S.,
& Van de
Ven,
A.
1989.
Using
paradox
to build
management
and
organization
theories.
Academy
of
Management Review,
14:
562-578.
Poster,
M.
(Ed.). 1988. Introduction.
Baudrillard: Selected
writings:
1-9.
Stanford,
CA:
Stanford
University
Press.
Putnam,
L.
1983.
The
interpretative
perspective:
An
alternative to
functionalism.
In
L.
Put-
nam, &
M.
Pacanowsky
(Eds.),
Communication
and
organizations.
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Quinn,
R.,
&
Cameron,
K.
(Eds.).
1988. Paradox and
transformation:
Toward a
framework
of
change
in
organization and
management.
Cambridge,
MA:
Ballinger.
Quinn,
R. 1988.
Beyond rational
management:
Mastering
the
paradoxes
and
competing
de-
mands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Radcliffe-Brown,
A. R. 1952.
Structure and
function
in
primitive
society. Glencoe,
IL:
Free
Press.
Reed,
M.
1985. Redirections in
organizational
analysis.
London: Tavistock.
Rosaldo,
R.
1989. Culture and
truth. The
remaking
of
social
analysis.
Boston:
Beacon Press.
Saffold, G.
1988. Culture
traits,
strength, and
organizational
performance:
Moving
beyond
strong
culture.
Academy of
Management
Review, 13:
546-558.
Saussure,
F.
de. 1959. Course
in
general
linguistics. New
York:
Philosophical
Library.
Schein,
E.
H.
1985.
Organizational culture
and
leadership. San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein,
E.
H.
1991.
What
is
culture?
In
P.
Frost, L.
Moore,
M.
Louis,
C. Lundberg, & J. Martin
(Eds.),
Reframing
organizational
culture:
243-253.
Newbury Park,
CA:
Sage.
Schein,
E.
H.
1992.
Organizational culture and
leadership (2nd
ed.). San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schultz,
M.
1991.
Transitions
between
symbolic
domains
in
organizations.
Organization Stud-
ies,
12:
489-506.
Schultz,
M.
1995. On
studying organizational
cultures:
Diagnosis and
understanding.
Berlin:
Walter de
Gruyter.
Schutz,
A.
1967.
Collected
papers
I:
The
problem of
social
reality
(2nd ed.).
The Hague,
The
Netherlands:
Martinus
Nijhoff.
Selznick,
P.
1949. TVA
and
the
grass
roots.
Berkeley:
University
of
California Press.
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (Eds.). 1986.
The
thinking
organization.
San
Francisco:
Jossey-
Bass.
Skinner,
B. F.
1953. Science
and
human
behavior.
New York:
Macmillan.
Smircich,
L.
1983.
Concepts
of
culture and
organization
analysis.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly, 28:
339-358.
7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 30/30
1996
Schultz and Hatch
557
Smircich,
L. 1985. Is the
concept
of culture
a
paradigm
for
understanding
organizations
and
ourselves. In P.
Frost, L. Moore,
M. Louis, C.
Lundberg,
&
J.
Martin (Eds.).,
Organizational
culture:
55-72. Newbury
Park, CA:
Sage.
Smircich, L., & Calds, M. 1987. Post-culture: Is the organizational culture literature dominant
but
dead?
Paper presented
at the third
international conference
on
organizational
sym-
bolism and
corporate
culture,
Milan,
Italy.
Smircich,
L.,
&
Morgan,
G. 1982.
Leadership:
The
management
of
meaning.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavioral
Science, 18: 257-273.
Spradley,
J.
P. 1979. The
ethnographic
interview. New York:
Holt,
Rinehart
and
Winston.
Strauss,
A. L.
1978.
Negotiations.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Trice, H.
1993. Occupational
subcultures
in
the
workplace.
Ithaca,
NY:
ILR
Press.
Trice, H., &
Beyer,
J.
1993.
The
cultures of work
organizations.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Van
Maanen,
J.
1991. The
smile factory: Work at
Disneyland.
In P.
Frost,
L.
Moore,
M.
Louis,
C.
Lundberg,
&
J.
Martin
(Eds.),
Reframing organizational culture: 58-76.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Van
Maanen,
J.
1995. Style as
theory.
Organization Science, 6:
133-143.
Van
Maanen,
J.,
&
Barley, S. 1984.
Occupational
communities: Culture
and
control in
organiza-
tions.
In
B. M. Staw
& L.
L.
Cummings
(Eds.),
Research in
organizational
behavior, vol.
6: 287-366.
Greenwich,
CT:
JAI
Press.
Van de
Ven, A., &
Poole, M. S. 1988.
Paradoxical
requirements for a
theory
of
organizational
change.
In
R.
Quinn &
K.
Cameron
(Eds.), Paradox
and
transformation:
Toward a
frame-
work of change in organization and management: 19-64. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Weaver, G.
R., & Gioia, D.
1994.
Paradigms
lost:
Incommensurability,
structuration and
their
restructuring
of
organizational
inquiry.
Organization
Studies, 15:
565-591.
Weick, K.
1979.
The social
psychology of
organizing.
Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Westenholz, A.
1993.
Paradoxical thinking
and
change in the
frames of
reference. Organiza-
tion
Studies. 14:
37-59.
Williamson, 0. 1975.
Markets
and
hierarchies: Analysis
and
antitrust
implications. New
York:
Free
Press.
Williamson,
0.
1985. The
economic
institutions
of capitalism.
New York:
Free Press.
Willmott, H. 1990. Beyond paradigmatic closure in organizational enquiry. In J. Hassard &
D.
Pym
(Eds.), The
theory and
philosophy of
organization:
44-62. London:
Routledge.
Willmott, H.
1993a.
Breaking the
paradigm
mentality.
Organization
Studies,
14:
681-721.
Willmott,
H.
1993b.
Paradigm
gridlock.
Organization
Studies, 14:
727-731.
Majken
Schultz is
an
associate
professor
of
organization
theory at
Copenhagen Busi-
ness
School,
Denmark.
She
received
her Ph.D.
from
Copenhagen
Business
School.
Her
research
has
focused
on
organizational
symbolism
and
organizational
culture
studies
and
includes
interests in
the
relations
among
organizational
culture,
identity, and im-
age;
collaboration
within
cross-cultural
networks;
and
organizational
change.
Mary JoHatch is a professor of
organization
theory at
the
Cranfield
School
of
Manage-
ment,
Cranfield
University
(England). She
received
her
Ph.D.
from
Stanford
University.
Her
research
explores
the
symbolic
world
of
organizations
using
interpretive
approaches
and
includes
interests in
organizational
culture,
identity,
and
image;
managerial
humor;
and
narrative
and
metaphor
in
organizing.