The institutional context of rationality

In the last three decades, mainstream economics has been influenced by authors associated with new institutional economics and new behavioral economics. The dispute over rationality as an assumption of economic theories is becoming particularly evident and is taking new forms. The aim of this article is to examine the connections between the institutional and behavioral approaches as well as between researchers’ ideas as to what rationality is and their beliefs regarding an optimal economic system. It will demonstrate that so-called behavioral and institutional economists have more in common than not. Institutions play a key role in the arguments of behavioural economists, whereas the argument of institutional economists is almost always based on the issue of human cognitive abilities and emotions. What directly links the two trends is the attention given to the rationality of actions that an individual takes as a premise of economic choices and as an assumption of economic theories. Differences in views relate to the understanding of rationality and exist within the framework of behavioral economics itself. At the core of the dispute is the distinction between two concepts of rationality: constructivist and ecological. This distinction serves as a starting point for the second matter discussed in the article. The author argues that the concept of constructivist rationality is related to the vision of the top-down creation of social order, while the proponents of the ecological approach to rationality stress the importance of market institutions. Interestingly, from the perspective of cognitive psychology and the heuristics of Daniel Kahneman, it can be presumed that the convictions of a scholar about the “ideal system” can influence his or her arguments on the essence of human rationality.Publication of English-language versions of the volumes of the “Annales. Ethics in Economic Life” financed through contract no. 501/1/P-DUN/2017 from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education devoted to the promotion of scholarship

Organizational Ethnography and the Art of Judgment in-the-Moment

This paper responds to the conveners’ call on exploring and advancing Organizational Ethnography (OE) as a paradigm for the organizational sciences. This sub-theme is linked through my empirical study of senior managers in international development organizations and how they make sense of using their judgment ‘in-the-moment’ in the context of their leadership roles and work environments. I adopt an “ethnographic orientation” (Watson, 2011, p.216) and emphasize the need for a highly reflexive approach in an ethnographer’s role as making judgments throughout the challenging processes of doing “fieldwork, headwork and textwork” (Van Maanen, 2011, p.218). Theoretically, this study contributes to the existing judgment and decision making literature from a social constructionist perspective by drawing linkages to judgment as a co-constructed phenomenon. How senior managers understand their judgment-making in situations ‘in-the-moment’ is an understudied area thus far and even scarcer in the context of international development organizations. Methodologically, the ethnographic and radically reflexive approach taken addresses a gap in the literature, builds awareness and raises in importance examining the ‘multiple selves’ (Reinharz, 1997) of the ethnographer. How I influenced my research and was influenced by it as both subject and object were key to my findings. In addition to the sub-theme call, this paper also links to the overarching Colloquium theme, ‘Bridging Continents, Cultures and Worldviews’, by connecting the cultures and co- constructed views of the researcher and practitioners. The collaborative, ethnographic approach taken was a unique way to get ‘up close and personal’ in understanding what judgment meant to senior leaders in the two participating UK-headquartered organizations. With international development missions in African nations, the senior leaders continuously constructed their own bridges across borders in their financing, operations and communications between their team members and external stakeholders located in multiple countries, reliant on virtual offices and mobile and Internet technology to stay connected. My judgment as an ethnographer was necessary to determine how to best embrace this way of ‘working’ during fieldwork and become another type of stakeholder to them. I will begin with a brief theoretical and methodological background of my exploratory study, identifying the gap in the literature and how my study fills it. Then I will outline the methodology, methods, data collection and analysis and findings. Finally, I will conclude with the challenges of ‘doing organizational ethnography’ inside small international development organizations and the contributions made to advance OE as a unique way to study the social phenomenon of judgment ‘in-the moment’

Facilitating leadership decisions

This chapter illustrates that in order to reach a decision a leader must decide which persons should be involved in the process and when. A relatively common method of involving others is delegating the decision to a group. A main objective of this is often to generate as many innovative ideas as possible, and different techniques can be employed for this, including brainstorming. The proposal generated must then be validated by the group using different criteria on the basis of which it is then relatively easy to filter out proposals that do not reach the goals that have been set. However, a leader needs to collect additional information in order to reach a decision. By the use of information technology vast amounts of information may be accumulated. Thus, different kinds of filtering or weeding methods must be used in order to quickly obtain relevant information. This information can help leaders create forecasts and minimize risks. They must also be able to present their ideas in the most attractive way possible in order to be heard and arrive at decisions. The design of the presentation is therefore critical. Sometimes it is not enough for leaders just to present an idea, they are then obliged to negotiate in order to reach a decision

Spirituality and business: An interdisciplinary overview

The paper gives an interdisciplinary overview of the emerging field of spirituality and business. It uses insights from business ethics, theology, neuroscience, psychology, gender studies, and philosophy to economics, management, organizational science, and banking and refers to different religious convictions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, the Baha'i faith, and the North-American aboriginal worldview. The authors argue that the materialistic management paradigm has failed. They explore new values for post-materialistic management: frugality, deep ecology, trust, reciprocity, responsibility for future generations, and authenticity. Within this framework profit and growth are no longer ultimate aims but elements in a wider set of values. Similarly, cost-benefit calculations are no longer the essence of management but are part of a broader concept of wisdom in leadership. Spirit-driven businesses require intrinsic motivation for serving the common good and using holistic evaluation schemes for measuring success. The Palgrave Handbook of Business and Spirituality, edited by the authors, is a response to developments that simultaneously challenge the “business as usual” mindset

Four domains of complexity

In this short paper, which reflects on one of my contributions to the systems literature in 1992 (Pluralism and the Legitimation of Systems Science), I discuss the context at that time. Systems scientists were embroiled in a paradigm war, which threatened to fragment the systems research community. This is relevant, not only to understanding my 1992 contribution, but also because the same paradigms are evident in the complexity science community, and therefore it potentially faces the same risk of fragmentation. Having explained the context, I then go on to discuss my proposed solution to the paradigm war: that there are four domains of complexity, three of which reflect the competing paradigms. The problem comes when researchers say that inquiry into just one of these domains is valid. However, when we recognise all four as part of a new theory of complexity, we can view them as complementary. The four domains are natural world complexity, or “what is” (where the ideal of inquiry is truth); social world complexity, or the complexity of “what ought to be” in relation to actual or potential action (where the ideal of inquiry is rightness); subjective world complexity, or the complexity of what any individual (the self or another) is thinking, intending or feeling (where the ideal of inquiry is understanding subjectivity); and the complexity of interactions between elements of the other domains of complexity in the context of research and intervention practice. Following a discussion of the relevance of this theory for complexity scientists, I end the paper with a final critical reflection on my 1992 paper, pointing to some theoretical assumptions and terminology that I would, in retrospect, revise

Learning about learning as systemic practice in the context of environmental decision-making

This paper has been written as the author is beginning a new phase of researching learning, investigating what supports people in their environmental decision making. This process of inquiry has arisen partly as a result of the development and teaching of the UK Open University’s Masters ’ level course Environmental decision making – a systems approach. The implications of approaching an inquiry with a view of ‘learning as systemic practice ’ is considered, drawing on insights into practice, skilled behaviour and learning systems from Lave, Wenger, Schon, Varela, Ison and Russell, among others. The relevance of various action research approaches for learning about learning as systemic practice is discussed. The paper finishes by identifying and exploring three focuses, that seem both challenging and important to the author to take account of as the research progresses. They are the needs for (i) systemic praxis (ii) an awareness of distinctions made by those who participate in the process of inquiry and (iii) using an approach with an epistemological dimension