Tundub, et siinviidatu on üks tekstidest, mida tuleb lugeda neil, kes soovivad organisatsioonide valdkonnas kaasa mõelda ja/või rääkida. Niisiis, ei mingit pikka juttu sissejuhatuseks. Ainult üks sissejuhatav viide: ideed relatsioonilisest sotsioloogiast on organisatsioonide valdkonnas kanda kinnitanud ning substantsikeskselt suhetekeskseks organisatsiooni mõtestamiseks on juba mõndagi tehtud.
The fluidity of these organizational forms provides fertile ground for questioning the emergence of organizational phenomena. […] The “organizationality” (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015; Schoeneborn, Kuhn, & Kärreman, 2019) approach is particularly adept at theorizing loose social formations as it considers the communication/organization relationship not as a binary of forming organization vs. non-organization, but rather as accomplishing degrees of “organization-ness” (Wilhoit & Kisselburgh, 2015).
Ambitsioon ja keskne küsimus:
explanatory power of the organizationality framework could be strengthened by drawing upon a relational ontology. More specifically, taking a “communicative relationality” (Kuhn et al., 2017) approach allows for theorizing the multiplicity of hybrid agencies contributing to achieving organizationality. This study’s central question asks: How do things, beings, and feelings materialize themselves, and thus matter, for achieving organizationality?
Organisatsioonilisust selgitav näide:
For example, a group of friends helping each other move residences makes interconnected decisions (Cooren & Fairhurst, 2009), but they do not form an organizational entity because they do not achieve actorhood or organizational identity. The characteristic of actorhood distinguishes organizations from other forms of collective behavior, such as markets and communities.
Relational thinking rejects discrete pre-given boundaries of the Cartesian subject/object split and other dualisms. […] To illustrate, whereas a city can be represented through the creation of maps, aarial photographs, or histories, these would all provide only a partial glimpse into relationships forming the city (Cooper, 2005). […] The relational approach allows theorizing a multitude of “things” that run the gamut of perceptibility, and summarily constitute the organizationality of a fluid collective. This discussion explains the contributions to organizationality theorizing of: (1) decision-making, (2) identity, (3) intentionality, and (4) language-based explanations of organizationality.
Metoodikast – abduktsioon on kohal:
This project follows a logic of abduction (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007; Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008; Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) while employing aspects of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) during data collection and analysis.
I argue that a relational approach is fundamental to explaining this process.
A relational approach afforded conceptualizing the matter of various beings – in both senses of the word – while also recognizing they are staged alongside humans.
Smith, W. R. (2021). On Relationality and Organizationality: Degrees of durability, materiality, and communicatively constituting a fluid social collective. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211035497