This article was downloaded by: [169.230.243.

252] On: 28 January 2015, At: 05:28

Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA

Organization Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://pubsonline.informs.org

Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies

John Van Maanen,

To cite this article:

John Van Maanen, (1995) Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies. Organization Science 6(6):687-692. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.6.687

Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use
or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher
approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact [email protected].

The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness
for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or
inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or
support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.

© 1995 INFORMS

Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages

INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management
science, and analytics.
For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
 Fear and Loathing in
Organization Studies 1
Downloaded from informs.org by [169.230.243.252] on 28 January 2015, at 05:29 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

John Van Maanen

Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts lnstitute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Rhetoric is the master-word for this reply to a reply guage. We are told that Peter Frost's characterization
and my main point is simply that Iike it or not we live of my article as '" 'less restrained than we are used to'
in a rhetorical world. This is a conclusion that is was an understatement" (Pfeffer 1995, p. 681; emphasis
inevitable once we remove literal meaning as a re- mine). Guilty as charged. Yet the phrase "less re-
straint on what we say (or write) because this first-step strained,. is a sneaky one and when it is used as an
down the interpretive path contains all the others. This opprobrium to reasoned discourse and used as a
is not to say I put forth my reply without restraint-such hroadside to undercut arguments that are otherwise
a condition is unimaginable-but merely to signal that ignored, a reader must ~urely wonder why a "more
the restraints that are in place are not fixed but flexi- restrained" piece of writing is to be preferred? This is
ble, subject always to alteration through persuasive indeed an odd complaint sincc Jcffrey initiated this
appeals. skirmish in the first place in a pitch hardly dcsigned to
That said, let me turn to the prickly pages of Pfeffer's be placating. Are we not allowed to be annoyed-and
"Mortality, Reproducibility and the Persistence of show it? And, if annoyed, must we resort to the imper-
Styles of Theory." In this piece, I am portrayed as sonal, formulaic and dull discourse so Ioved by journal
something of a villain for refuting certain arguments in editors? My response was, after ali, published in a
Pfeffer (1993) that now appear to him to be "scarcely forum called Crossroads where sorne of the pinched
controversia! with respect to their empírica! founda- constraints of the "scientific articlc" are supposedly
tions and probably not even [controversial] in the logic lifted.
of the argument" (Pfeffer 1995, p. 682, emphasis and Perhaps the application of thc label "lcss restraincd"
parenthesis mine). Given his remarks about our "too- suggcsts just how impoverishcd, stiff, sanitized and
pluralistic" field and the advantages he attributes to humorless our scholarly discourse has becomc; in
paradigm consensus, such a statement strikes me as Perrow's (1985) memorable tcrm, "asphaltcd." Are only
either disingenuous or nai've. But, whatever the case, it terms associated with calm reason and cool calculation
does present an explicit and easily identifiable move in to be found in print? Must our passions be put forth
our respective Ianguage game and as such falls neatly impassionaiely, our interests displayed with disinterest,
into the argumentative web I spin here. our personal views given impersonally, our selective
This essay is my brief answer to why Jeffs position is use of facts cloaked by scientific ideals of a century
so very controversial (and so very wrong). 1 must admit long past?
however to feeling serious readers may very well anticí- On the surface then this is a most stilted critique.
pate my arguments for they are largely rehashings of For one thing, comedy, parody, satire. travesty, farce,
points I put forth in "Style as Theory" (Van Maanen jest and irreverence of ali kinds are regular attendants
1995). But, be that as it may, one always yearns for the in the service of persuasion and reality construction.
last word in the academic blood-sport called debate. 2 Unusual phrasings, word play, puns, fresh analogies
And, more to the point, 1 find the challenge issued in and metaphors, stylistic signatures of all sorts offer to
Jeffs reply to be as appealing as his scholarship is invert the order of thing~. to unsettle acccpted modes
appalling. So into rhetorical politics I again plunge. of thought, to render the taken-for-granted world a
little topsy-turvy, a point 1 made with respect to sorne
essays by Karl Weick though apparently a point missed
No Exit completely by Jeff. The work such writings accomplish
In the first few paragraphs of Jeffs response, I am can be corrosive of dogma and thus protect conscious-
taken to task for utilizing an emotionally Iaden, explic- ness and thought. The wholesale disparagemcnt (and
itly political, heated-up, purple and provocative lan- ban) of those genres and styles that seek to inform as

ÜRGANIZATION Sc1ENCE/Vol. 6, No. 6, November-December 1995 687

Copyright© 2001 All Rights Reserved

 JOHN VAN MAANEN Crossroads

well as to amuse, jibe, startle and otherwise stand apart rhetorical and non-rhetorical speech is to trade in our
from the taken-for-granted, technocratic language of late twentieth century understandings of language and
the field is perhaps the real threat presented by Jeffs language use for those of the seventeenth century.
cranky response that elevates reproducibility, consen- In brief, the contemporary argument-which can be
sus and dogged perseverance above insight, crcativity traced from the icy mountain tops of universal reason
Downloaded from informs.org by [169.230.243.252] on 28 January 2015, at 05:29 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

and principled tolerance for ideas not easily slipped and clear-eyed objectivity to the steamy valleys of so-
into a paradigm file. cially-embedded knowledge and negotiated meanings
Below the surface however lurks a more serious -is that one is never free from rhetoric. Even the
matter. Jeff implies that my speech is somehow in- most unpreposing, flat, minimalist, just-the-facts, Plain
fected with a rhetoric that is absent from his own. This Jane prose proclaims itself as rhetoric as clearly as
is a kind of argument much beloved by keepers of the charged, stylistically innovative, loud, colorful, Calamity
scientific flame. It is also apparently of great attraction Jane prose. The whole range of intended or unin-
to Jeff for a reader can almost hear him chortle as he tended ornament in speech-from zero to ten-is
plunks it down with an attitude that it is a point so equally rhetorical, equally deep, equally superficial.
irrefutable, so rock solid that no one can get around it. When anti-rhetorical types hear this argument they are
Despite Jeffs smugness and intellectual chutzpah, it is likely to regard it as another rhetorical trick designed
a point easily dislodged. In a nutshell, there is no form to take us down that slippery slope to anarchistic
of speech, argument, representation that is free from relativisim. And when the friends of rhetoric hear
rhetoric. Every scientist or scholar, regardless of field, claims of language transparency, they too suspect dis-
relies on common devices of rhetoric: On metaphors; honesty, though not necessarily a dishonesty marked by
on premises left unargued; on word games; on invoca- foresight and malice. 4 And so it goes, an endless round
tions of authority (Nelson et al. 1987, p. 32); on appeals of accusation and counteraccusation in which truth and
to the "good sense" of readers; on using forms of honesty are claimed by ali. There is no escape.
evidence that sometimes ignore the concerns, back- The question is of course what rhetoric will prevail?
grounds and resources available to readers; on política! Is path analysis always more persuasive than a moral
correctness (or its intentional violation); on purposely argument? Is a controlled experiment more persuasive
undefined or vague concepts; on strategic silences and than an ethnography? Do soft, vague theories invari-
the use of bland euphemisms; on tricks of writing ably lose out in the end to hard, precise ones? I doubt
masquerading as reason (e.g., "it is evident ... "); and it. While these are often audience-specific matters,
on and on (and on). competing truth claims come down to rhetorical con-
Standing behind an anti-rhetorical stance is often a tests as I demonstrate by moving to the contest at
powerful elitism associated with paradigmatic cer- han d.
tainty. For those in possession of such certainty (and 1 have three lines of criticism to open up. The first
the clout they assume their due), any break in the concerns the normative or moral grounds of Jeffs
institutionalized forms of discourse is seen as a regret- arguments. This is akin to a critical theorist's perspec-
table descent into rhetoric. The anti-rhetoric crowd tive and raises a few (of many) questions as to whether
would have it that they use a neutral, transparent or not our synthetic, rather rag-tag and multiple
language uncolored by any personal or partisan agen- paradigm field of organizational studies would be well
das. Language marked by personal reference and pref- served working toward (or in) paradigmatic consensus.
erence, for example, or language that calls attention to My second set of concerns requires a quick but close
itself via stylistic gesture is thus polluted by a treacher- look at a few of the meanings-intended or not-to be
ous subjectivity, by individual agendas and desires that extracted from Jeffs response and thus necessitates
distort whatever facts are communicated. This is the something of a literary or deconstructive tale of his
kind of language that makes one, in Jeffs phrase, a text. My third line of critique is to challenge and deny
"master rhetorician." By rejecting flourish, stylc, un- the reality of the so-called objective world Jeff tries to
conventional phrasing and formats for a "natural" lan- argue into existence. Here I challenge severa! proposi-
guage of temperance and studied indifference, a writer tional truths and validity claims put forth in his reply.
becomes a reliable, trustworthy and (more or less)
objective reporter of the way things are. An elegant
play to be sure. But, in these textually sophisticated Normative Implications
days, it is a ploy all too familiar and no longer carries Jeff seems to live in a Hobbsian world where power
great force. 3 To accept a sharp distinction between equals knowledge. Certainly success-as indicated by

688 ÜRGAN!ZAT!ON Sc1ENCE/Vol. 6, No. 6, November-December 1995

Copyright© 2001 All Rights Reserved

 JOHN VAN MAANEN Crossroads

journal space, recruitment of students, tenure slots and proselytize-is really a field in poor health. Such
so farth-is given most weight as the measure of a widespread professional activity apparently disperses
paradigm's worthiness. Matters of value, creativity, ap- the power and authority that would otherwise be cen-
peal, scope, paradigmatic change and innovation are tralized under a paradigmatic banner and needed to go
given short shrift. It is a most utilitarian perspective toe-to-toe, eyeball-to-eyeball with the economists and
and curiously mimics the very self-seeking premises of others of like ilk.
Downloaded from informs.org by [169.230.243.252] on 28 January 2015, at 05:29 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

approaches he otherwise claims to find limiting. In simple moral terms, the idea that we should
Paradigmatic consensus may provide blissful relief from somehow look toward paradigmatic consensus far our
the ambiguity and contentiousness of our field and salvation is wrong. Even if such a world were possible
(arguably) protect us from threatened take-over at- (which it is not, see below), it would be a most uncom-
tempts by the barbarians at our gates, but the costs in fortable place to reside. It would be a world with little
scholarly and human terms of achieving such a state emancipatory possibilities. a world with even tighter
are not much considered. restrictions on who can be published, promoted, fired,
We do get sorne hints at what a cozy but suffacating celebrated, reviled than we have now. Sturm und Drang
world paradigm consensus might be through the exam- und Tenure. The image of a large research community
ples Jeff provides of those organizational studies sub- characterized by the kinds of traits Jeff associates with
fields he considers fine-tuned, fit and successful: paradigm consensus is that of a clean California re-
behavioral decision theory, population ecology, net- search park where nothing is out of place and all is
work analysis and so farth. Here the words and phrases governed by a corporate logic focused on productivity,
he uses to describe these areas are most revealing of competitive advantage and the good old bottom line.
the kind of scholarly world that appears to exist behind This is not scholarship. On normative grounds alone,
paradigmatic consensus; a world Jeff would have us paradigm consensus can be rejected.
emulate. Consider just a few: "domination (of a field)"
(p. 682), "efficient in training graduate students"
(p. 683), "scholarship more predictable"(p. 683), "taken
over (majar journals)" (p. 683), "more efficient and Authorial Style
effective research programs" (p. 683), "theoretical Jeff seems to Iook out on our field as if he were on the
hegemony" (p. 683), "ability to readily reproduce" bridge of a battleship moving toward action at flank
(p. 684), "technology far analysis" (p. 685), and "repli- speed. However the enemies it seems are not those of
cable, teachable, transferable concepts and methods" rational choice persuasion or necessarily dreaded
(p. 685). This is a call far the industrialization of economists for their assumptions and approaches are
scholarship, not its advancement. It is a call to further hardly criticized at all (save one sentence on p. 682).
stratify our field by narrowing the legitimate research lndeed, rat choice as a paradigm is put farward to be
tapies, theories and methods as deemed appropriate by admired for its clockwork efficiencies and single-
those who build and articulate the chosen paradigm. minded aims and methods. It is ironic that we must
This of course begs the questions of how and why mimic the opposition in order to survive even though
such a consensus could be brought about in the first we are told the results of their grand theories are
place? How would we go about "enlisting others" to trivial. 5
the cause? Just how draconian the measures to be Across the severa! research fields (and subfields)
taken to achieve a paradigm consensus can he inferred that Jeff associates with paradigmatic consensus, cer-
by the sense of urgency Jeff introduces into his story: tain features are common: Formalism, operationalism,
The economists are coming! The economists are coming! methodological canons, deductive models, apparent
If we are to survive, any number of worlds and activi- theoretical coherence with a stress on theory testing,
ties will have to be curtailed or excluded and there is and a restricted range of topically legitimate issues.
apparently no time to waste. Thus it seems to Jeff that These features are presumably keys to a paradigmatic
what looks to me like a broad and healthy field-a consensus and ali the material and social benefits it
loosely-knit community that is not standing still but will provide. That it just so happens Jeffs own research
changing its shape through growing numbers of active work is Iargely of the same sort is apparently a mere
researchers who are exploring new territories, sharing coincidence and unworthy of mention. The call far
their findings and projects with one another in an paradigm consensus may be then a call for a Pfeffer-
expanding number of books and journals, meeting reg- digmatic research community so reduced in scope that
ularly in small and large groups to explain, debate, its borders are those of Palo Alto.

ÜRGANIZATION ScIENCE/Vol. 6, No. 6, November-December 1995 689

. _____________Copyright© 2001 All Rights Reserved

 JOHN VAN MAANEN Crossroads

Such a reading is possible because Jeff maintains a reading, interpretation and meaning. lt is not persua-
strategic silence on matters of critica! importance to bis sive.
program. Like consensus, the term paradigm is central
to bis concems but it is undefined and unmarked. 6 lt
stands as a glossed, generic and misty signifier. At best, Propositional Truths
Downloaded from informs.org by [169.230.243.252] on 28 January 2015, at 05:29 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

we can pick up clues as to what kind of paradigm he Consider now the evidence Jeff presents in support of
has in mind (and favors) only from the narrow range of his theories. Are his arguments backed up by data we
examples he presents. Nothing is said of course about can trust? All data are of course imperfect and selec-
other currently powerful intellectual movements such tive but here 1 think we have an extreme case that is
as the anti-theory of postmodemism which, as a move- easy to dismantle. Four points, made hastily, will suf-
ment, is far more important and visible as it sweeps fice.
through the social sciences, the humanities, the arts First, the matter of theoretical coherence. Eco-
than, say, conversational analysis or behavioral deci- nomics is presented as an exemplar of paradigmatic
sion theory. What of the interpretive or linguistic swings consensus. This, to adopt McCloskey's (1983, p. 494)
taking place in many fields including our own? What of tribal categories, should quickly be communicated to
the loose, eclectic and ramshackle character of institu- the Chicago modemists, the NYU Austrians, the Mas-
tionalization theory whose lack of heavy-handed theo- sachusetts Marxists, the Berkeley neoclassicists and the
retical discipline may be part of its appeal and, in the Texas institutionalists. If Jeff is worried about an agency
long run, the key to its success? Without definition or theory or transaction cost take-over in organizational
exemplary specification we are left holding the end of a studies, perhaps we should enlist a few economic purists
question mark like the handle of an umbrella. to whom such approaches are a hoot. Nor is it the case
We know of course that one of the most common that in-house squabbles and theoretical disputes lead
tactics of elite groups of all sorts is to refuse to discuss to a fall. Anthropology is a convenient example of a
-to label as uninteresting or vulgar-issues that are diffuse and multiparadigm field. lt has been in "crisis"
uncomfortable for them. 1 argued that theory makes its for more than a decade. lt lives contentiously with its
way in intellectual communities (and beyond) as much cultural, social, symbolic, material, political and eco-
by its style as by its theoretical claims, logic, sweep, nomic anthropologies as well as its anthropologies of
empirical evidence or methodological strictures. My religion, work, family, medicine and so forth. Yet it is
points are not countered by Jeff. Sorne of them are growing in both numbers and influence. The "disci-
incorporated into his story-sotto voce-through his pline" has a gaggle of celebrated names, is at the
linking of "styles of theory" (what we might call re- leading and bleeding edge of social science, and finds
search genres) to social influence. But, alas, Jeff fails to its ideas taken up in history, cognitive science, literary
consider both the reception of texts and the audience studies, philosophy as well as the applied arts of educa-
specificity of such reception(s). tion, social work, marketing, urban planning, even
Could it be that the very rhetoric of, say, organiza- nursing. Crisis it seems can be a cash cow.
tional econornics-with its familiar reductionism, ab- Second, the matter of citations rates and take-overs.
stract character, mathematical simplicity, worries about Several joumals, even leading ones, do not make a
self-seeking, guile and lack of trust-is what accounts field. Do we really believe that the increased number
for its appeal in this society? 7 Does rational choice of population ecology papers appearing in ASQ in
theory have appeal because it is individualistic, techni- 1992 and 1993 represents "disproportionate impact"
cally neat and apparently easy to grasp, use and pub- (p. 683) independent of joumal policy presumably in-
lish? Is this success or scandal? How well does such fluenced by the editor during this period, pop ecology
work travel? My point is simply that Jeffs analysis ends crusader John Freeman? Is the apparent "capture" of
at precisely the point where it should begin. Why (and a journal by behavioral decision theorists as suggestive
where) do certain "styles of theory" achieve promi- (and alarming) as Jeff indicates? Measuring disci-
nence (for a time)? Even if we were to accept Jeff's plinary or field "domination"by citation rates in one or
strange argument that "(Weick's) insight, richness, lu- two journals over a short period of time is imaginative
cidity, virtuosity, creativeness and style is inevitably but fanciful. Paradigms rise and fall and a move in
disadvantaged in the market place of ideas," (p. 684, either direction is not necessarily a measure of schol-
emphasis mine), what are we to make of it beyond its arly worth or value.
claimed inevitability? This is the rhetoric of naturaliza- Third, the issue of Karl Weick's influence. Jeff asks
tion and essentialism applied to the social world of "how easy would it be for others to employ Weick's

690 ÜRGANIZATION ScrnNCE/Vol. 6, No. 6, November-December 1995

Copyright© 2001 All Rights Reserved

 JOHN VAN MAANEN Crossroads

style or even to build on his work?" (p. 684). With no critical matte1. We cannot conjure up a paradigm of
data whatsoever, he answers in the negative. This is sufficient appeal to voluntarily unite the organization
bullshit! The Social Psychology of Organizing is one of studies community. Nor can we legislate or impress
the field's major works and in the 25 or so years since into existence the paradigmatic unity Jeff longs for. On
its publication, it has changed the language we use in the other hand, it is pernicious and beside the point to
Downloaded from informs.org by [169.230.243.252] on 28 January 2015, at 05:29 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

talking about organizations. An admiring book re- suggest we stick to our own claustrophobic ways with
viewer noted recently that the book remains his top each of us camped by our own totem pole. We need
candidate for ferocious, desert island reading: "a won- ways of talking across research programs and theoreti-
derful rattlebag of ideas ... that on rereading you see cal commitments. Weick's elevates style in his writings
things you haven't seen before" (Colville 1994, p. 222). through his almost Flaubertian obsession for le mot
Enactment, equivocality, interpretive systems, casual juste and, as a result, attracts readers from many
maps are concepts that are part of our working vocabu- paradigmatic camps. Less eloquently, this debate be-
lary. Sorne ideas may turn out to be loopy, others solid, tween Jeff and me provides another way of talking
but they attract attention and make us think. There is across paradigms (about paradigms). Other possibilities
no paradigm here but enormous influence. are open as well.
Finally, the matters of technology and method. Jeff Jeff thinks our fencing about form and discourse is a
argues that "for writing to be influential, it must not "sideshow." 1 think it a main event. Arguably, there
only suggest what to do in general terms but how to go may be a few short-run instrumental advantages associ-
about it in very specific terms" (p. 685). This perspec- ated with the paradigmatic unity of the sort that Jeff
tive would have it that Freed Bales (and his mechanical identifies. But to seek these ends is to admit that the
interaction counters) is more influential than Erving owl of Minerva has taken wing. To me the wager Jeff
Goffman or that the ubiquitous Gert Hofsteader (and puts to us is intuitively clear. We are offered a degree
his power distance scales) is more influential than of clout at the expense of open (and disorderly) in-
Clifford Geertz. Goffman and Geertz provide no quiry. Style, breadth, theoretical and methodological
method manuals, offer no technology but their writings innovation are impedance factors, not aims if we place
continue to mesmerize students. Jeff considers a very our bets with Jeff. This is not an attractive wager. It is
limited-within paradigm--kind of influence; a sort one we should energetically-with heat-refuse.
relatively unconcerned with creativity, insight, opening
up new ways to think and see. Even if technical refine-
ments increase the attractiveness of a research pro- Endnotes
1
gram, this hardly indicates substantive progress or The usual suspects helped me in drafting this response. The lineup
includes Peter Manning, Gideon Kunda, Bob Thomas, Colleen
knowledge accumulation. Matters of technical develop-
McCalhon, Lotk Bailyn. John Jerm1er, John Weeks and a number of
ment and method are embedded within paradigms and part1cípants m severa! seminars who were subjected to my take on
cannot, by definition, advance or change them. the issues raised in th1s debate. I am sure few if any would take the
same stance and spin as I do in this paper but they nonetheless
pushed me to posítion myself. I am grateful.
What Now? 2
As a genre of pubhc d1scoursc m an open community, debate 1s a
To bring this to a close, 1 think it highly unlikely any comerstone. AnJ it is in th1s genre of thrust and parry that Jeff and I
paradigm will trump or unite our field. Various re- write (and talk). Debate 1s often energized by the taste of victory of
search programs guided b)' adventurous theories both course and much postdebate conversat1on turns on JUSt who "won"
old and new will wax and wane and we should welcome and "lost." But. I would argue that a goal of equal if not greater
such programs (if only to combat them). These are importance is simply to enhance understanding of the issues under
deprovincialized times in social science (and else- contention m the commumty at large. In theory, readers or listeners
where) and, as a result, organizational analysis is con- (though not necessanly the part1c1pants to a debate who are often
smothered by cnnvict10ns not fully shared by others) should gam a
tentious and difficult. Paradigmatic competition has
better grasp of the issues at stake if ideas are tested. argued, refuted
been the norm for 50-odd years but it is becoming than íf they are left unchallenged.
more intense as schools of thought multiply and our 1
Had Jeff pursued Edclman (1964, 1971) m more depth he would
numbers grow. Put bluntly, we are quite likely to be in have discovered that even exphc1tly ant1-political language can be
each other's faces more than ever. The question is what and is used as a rhetoncal front to disguise highly political a1ms; a
to do about it? tactíc made much use of by so-called political outsíders who would
In Style as Theory, 1 suggested that learning to cope have us beheve that their agendas are above mere pohtics. To label
with and perhaps learn from one another is a most my language as ''pohtical" and h1s (by imphcation) as "reasoned and

ÜRGANIZATION ScIENCE/Vol. 6, No. 6, November-December 1995 691

Copyright© 2001 All Rights Reserved

 JOHN VAN MAANEN Crossroads

scientific" is simply a move in our argument and an appeal to the References

audience to swallow a false distinction without thinking. Both of us Colville, I. (1994), "Searching for Karl Weick and Reviewing the
are equally political in trying the persuade our readers. Gusfield Future," Organization, 1, 218-224.
(1976) is a must read in this regard. Edelman, M. (1964), The Symbolic Use of Politics, Urbana, IL: Uni-
4
The friends of rhetoric across severa! disciplmes who make the versity of Illmois Press.
Downloaded from informs.org by [169.230.243.252] on 28 January 2015, at 05:29 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

above argument far more eloquently than I include White (1973), __ (1971), Politics as Symbolic Actron, Chicago, IL: Markham.
Edmondson (1984), Nelson et al. (1987), Simmons (Ed.) (1988), and Edmondsun, R. (1984), Rhetoric m Sociology, London, UK:
Fish (1989). For an illuminating essay on the role of rhetoric in Macmillian.
organizat10n studies, see Gergen (1992). Fish, S. (1989), Domg What Comes Natural/y: Change, Rhetoric and
5 the Practice of Theory in Ltterary and Legal Studies, New York:
Could 1t be that the triviahty (of findings) is related to the structural
and d1sc1plinary features of those social sc1ence paradigms Jeff more Oxford University Press.
or less honors as having achieved consensus? Perhaps such a matter Gergen, K. J. (1992), "Orgamzation Theory in the Postmodern Era,"
is not explored in the original paper or m the response for good in M. Reed and H. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinkmg Orgamzation,
reason since it would be deadly as a rallymg cry for parad1gm London, UK: Sage, 207-226.
consensus. Guillen, M. (1994), Models of Management, Chicago, IL: University
6
Jeff is in good company on this matter. Kuhn (1964) uses the term of Chicago Press.
paradigm in a variety of ways. When pressed by critics on the issue, Gusfield, J. (1976), "The Literary Rhetoric of Science," American
he responded by saying in his 1970 postscript that there were three Socro/ogical Review, 41, 16-33.
broad ways the term could be defined in his work but he favored one Kuhn, T. (l 964), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL:
more than the others: paradigm as exemplar. Using the term Umvers1ty of Chicago Press, 2d ed. 1970.
paradigm to refer to shared examples suggests that 1t 1s a matter McCloskey, D. N. (1983), "The Rhetoric of Economics," Ioumal of
more likely to be insinuated than fiercely taught with lots of rules to Econormc L1terature, 21, 481-517.
obey and authorities to respect. My reading of Jeffs use of the term Nelson, J. S., A Megill and D. N. McCloskey (Eds.) (1987), The
is that he is more comfortable with the definitions Kuhn rejected: Rhetoric of the Human Sciences, Madison, WI: University of
paradigm as structure and/or paradigm as discipline. Wisconsin Press.
7
0n this matter, I have a theory. Many social scientists m the Perrow, C. (1985), "Journaling Careers," m L. L. Cummings and
U.S.-like the general population-are rather absolutist about P. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the Organizatwnal Sciences, San
American values and ideals; to somehow equate them with human Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 220-230.
nature and proper conduct and thus treat social theories that deviate Pfeffer, J (1993), "Bamers to the Advance of Organizat10nal Sci-
from individualistic, pragmatic, self-seeking, egalitarian assumptions ence: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable,"
as perverse. In the comparative context of world ethnology and Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.
history, such assumptions may well be uncommon, perhaps eccentnc __ (1995), "Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of
But, for us, they are part of the air we breathe. The appeal of certain Styles of Theory," Orgamzation Science, 6, 680-686.
econom1c theories, rational choice theory, behavioral decis1on theory Simmons, H. W. (Ed ) (1988), The Rhetoncal Tum, Chicago, IL:
and many others 1s then a highly contextual (and cultural or subcul- University of Chicago Press.
tura!) matter. Mauro Guillen (1994) has wonderful stories to tell Van Maanen, J. (1995), "Style as Theory," Organizatwn Science, 6, 1,
about the cross-cultural appeal-or lack thereof-carried by severa! 132-143.
highly visible and, for a time, widcly accepted (in th1s country) White, H. (1973), Metahtstory, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-
management theories. versity Press.

692 ÜRGANIZATION Sc1ENCE/VoL 6, No. 6, November-December 1995

Copyright© 2001 All Rights Reserved