Prepared for the
3rd International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management (ICSTM '04):
Transforming Organizations to Achieve Sustainable Success,

William E. Smith PhD, Director ODII
Elizabeth B. Davis PhD, Director Organizational Sciences GWU

This paper presents an organizing process that is based on a synthesis of sociology, systems, power and field theories. The basis for the approach was established as a PhD. thesis in the Social Systems Sciences Program at the Wharton Graduate School of Business., the University of Pennsylvania (Smith 1983). Its first use in 1985 on a World Bank project enabled the Colombians to transform their approach to solving complex multilevel cross-sector problems. For example, they were able to produce a design which involved representatives of the whole country in solving problems that caused the financial collapse of the electricity sector. The problems were very like those experienced by California in 2002. (Smith 1985)

Experience with implementing the process reveals that it is transformational in nature – it helps people and organizations to rise to new levels of understanding, engagement and performance. The process relies on a new understanding and a new formulation of actor environment relations.. The authors’ five dimensional model of organization changes current conceptions of actor environment relationships from one of control and adaptation to one of creation and engagement.

This conceptualization, called AIC, Appreciation, Influence and Control, after the three power relationships at its core, was given practical form through a ten year action research process within the World Bank. It was successfully implemented on a large scale in many parts of the world. More recently this approach (Smith, Davis 2002, 2003, 2004) has produced more holistic designs for education in Organizational Sciences, more effective ways of addressing Transformational Leadership for executives, and an expanded frame for strategic action in organizations. The AIC process stresses transformation from a three dimensional control-centered view of organization to one centered in a four dimensional influence centered model which is in turn is enabled by engagement with a fifth dimension level of appreciative centered organization.

The paper provides:

• A new basis on which to build organization theory – the assertion that "Purpose is the source of Power"
• A redefinition of actor/environment relationships as power relationships.
• A new model then enables us to better understand the process by which purpose is generated and translated into effective action.
• An understanding that enables us to design improved organizational processes that uses more of the potential power available to them than do more traditional models.
• A description of practice that enables organizations to achieve higher levels of purpose, at relatively less cost, in relatively shorter periods of time with much less emphasis on using expensive control mechanisms.

 

From sociology the AIC model builds on Parsons’ concepts (1937, 1951) which lead to treating the individual, the organization and the community as a single system. It builds on Parsons (1960) specific insight in "Structure and Process in Modern Society" that organizations consist of a hierarchical dimension of nested technical, managerial and institutional levels. It adds to this vertical level, the Social Systems Sciences contribution of Emery and Trist (1965), a horizontal dimension in which Emery and Trist saw organization as three concentric environments, internal, transactional and contextual. To this combined three dimensional (control-centered) view of organization the model adds two further dimensions - time and mind/spirit - to produce a five dimensional view of organization.

The authors believe that much of the current organizational literature is still drawing from and trying to make sense of this four dimensional perspective. The addition of mind/spirit, as the fifth spatial dimension (appreciative-centered level) enables the researchers to go even beyond the dynamics of four dimensions to access and reproduce the holonomic resonance that appears to be present at times of peak performance and transformation. This part of the work builds on the discoveries of the physicist David Bohm (2002) on the nature of dialogue and on the work of Karl Pribram (2004, 1994, 1991). Many of the principles of holonomic functioning of the brain, in particular, seem to mirror the authors’ findings on the nature of five-dimensional, appreciative-centered organization.

Much of the organizational theory of the last decade does focuses on four dimensional modeling. Inspired by Chaos Theory, the New Sciences and Organizational Learning it raises our perspective from the three dimensional modeling of control and command centered-organization, to understanding the dynamics of living in turbulent environments. The evolution, however, is not yet complete. Most organizations, for example, are not taking account of all their stakeholders in developing their strategies. Most focus on one or two – customers and competitors. Rafael Ramirez’s "Prime Movers" 2000, for example, points the way by showing how a few leading edge companies have gained their edge by reconfiguring their relationships with their stakeholders.

The authors believe that this evolution will not be complete till these dynamics are understood within the context of an additional fifth dimension, that of mind/spirit which will help us better design the meaning processes which provides ways to put turbulence in a safer context and as Russell Ackoff would say "dissolves" (solves in advance) problems of influence and control. Appreciative-centered processes, with their emphasis on the whole and ideals, we believe, will help create greater possibilities for understanding and trust system-wide and create a safer space to resolve the value difference inherent at the influence level, thereby heightening capacity for action.

The five dimensional concepts produce a new philosophy, model and process of organization that attempts to capture the full potential inherent in organizations relationships with their environments (Smith, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1983, 1980). The practical effect of implementing programs based on the AIC concept has been to enable organizations and communities in many parts of the worlds to achieve higher level purpose at low cost, in relatively short periods of time with a natural process for replication built-in. For example, the realization that it is purpose that is the central source of power enables communities to free themselves from images of powerlessness due to environmental resource dependency. In Thailand the process was used to train thirty people in rural development. The AIC process then self-multiplied around the country and into other sectors of the economy, urban, health, private sector and after five years was used by the Government to involve the whole country in the 1991 five year develop planning process. While the process has been very successful in practice it has not yet received systematic research or evaluation (McNeil 1999).

Recently, in partnership with the Organizational Science Department of George Washington University, the AIC model has been explored for application to Transformational Leadership, and to the design of Strategic Organizing Processes. Davis and Smith’s recent work (2004, 2003, 2002) on synthesizing the fields of strategy, systems and power has been successfully applied in the leadership development arena, the classroom for undergraduate and graduate students and presented in peer reviewed forums. Theoretically these applications have led us to the conclusion that actor/environmental relationships are at the heart of the strategic transformational process. This breakthrough has led to an understanding that strategic action must be re-conceptualized as an influence-centered activity in which the environment has been de-objectfied allowing strategic actors to be freed up from the traditional notions of adaptation, fit and dependence.

Chart #1

Philosophy – AIC, as a philosophy, holds that purpose, not for example, wealth, authority or knowledge, is the basic source of power. Every purpose creates a power field. Just as the field of gravity is proportional to mass, so the field of potential created by purpose is proportional to its "mass" - the larger the purpose, the larger is the potential power field.

The Model –AIC, as a model, explains how the potential of purpose is translated into action through the management of three fields of power relationships. The insight was triggered by Emery and Trist’s description of an organization as three environments. They saw the actor, organization or system as an internal environment; the system had two external environments, a transactional one that the organization could negotiate with, and a contextual environment that consisted of the environment that was beyond negotiation.

The AIC model recognized that these three distinctions are power distinctions. The external environment defines the area beyond the actors’ control. Actors’ relationships with their internal and external environment are power relationships.

• The system’s internal boundary is the boundary of what it controls.
• Its transactional boundary is the boundary of its influence and
• Its contextual boundary is the boundary of its appreciation. The concept of appreciation was drawn from Vickers (1966)

Considerable research and practice with these concepts since 1978, has demonstrated that the substance and laws of operation in each of these fields are quite distinct.

1. The substance of appreciation is mental and spiritual; the relationship between purpose and appreciation obeys laws that are akin to those of quantum science. They require at least five dimensional explanations.
   
2. The substance of the influence field is dynamic relationships. Its laws are more like those of Einstein’s relativity than quantum science. Dealing with dynamic relationships over time, the influence field requires at least four dimensional explanations.
   
3. The substance of Control is form and so obeys laws that are more akin to Newtonian Science. Such laws are capable of being explained with three-dimensional models.

The A, I and C represent the actors’ (individual, organizational or community) power relative to the environment. However, because power is a relationship (Nagel, 1975) there is a reciprocal power returning from the environment to the actor. The model adopts the convention of labeling this reciprocal power with a small a, i and c. So there are nine fundamentally different power relationships as indicated in Chart 2

The Large letters A, I, C represent the power of the Actor over the environment and the small letters a, i, c represent the reciprocal power relationship of the environment relative to the Actor. The colors are those that have been derived from the study of individual Power Maps

C The Process: As an organizing process AIC operates by:

Identifying the purpose to be served, and trying to operate at the highest level possible (i.e. increase its "mass")

Framing the power-field around that purpose -- those who have control, influence and appreciation relative to the purpose

Selecting those with the most influence relative to the purpose (stakeholders) from the three circles and designing a process of interaction between them and

Facilitating a self-organizing process which ensures that the stakeholders fully utilize their appreciative, influence and control power.

The process always operates at three levels of organization and does not proceed unless these are identified and incorporated, for example:

a group, an organization and community or

an organization, a community and a region.

In this hierarchy the lower level is the control- centered organization, the next the influence-centered organization, and the last the appreciative-centered organization.

The power fields of the model are generated by the actor’s purpose. "Purpose is the source of power" (Smith, 1980). This assertion means that every purpose creates a power field. From a post modernist perspective we now understand that, if we accept this assertion, that we do construct our own environments. The source of that constructed reality is purpose. Every purpose, no matter how big or small, creates a power field. Purpose in this sense operates very much like mass in physics- it creates a gravitational field that attracts in proportion to its size. Higher purposes have greater attractive power. It is interesting to note that gravity always attracts it never repels- there are no negative or positive gravitons. This insight is also in line with post modernist thinking as it reinforces the idea that there are no good, bad, negative, positive environments in the objective sense- there is only the social constructed reality of the actor who builds the picture - in other words the viewpoint is unique to the constructionist, the actor.

The power field created by purpose consists of the potential for achievement of the organization’s purpose. Whether the potential represented by the purpose can be realized or not depends on the external environment and on the holder(s) of the purpose (the actor). There must be some latency in the environment for the benefits that pursuit of the purpose offers. The actor must also take action to convert potential power into real (or kinetic) power. The higher the level of purpose, the more people it affects, the greater the latency and the greater the potential power.

Within each of the three fields, appreciation, influence and control, purpose is manifest in different ways:

In the appreciative field purpose is always "open" to new possibilities of expression from the "whole". We express purpose at this level as an "ideal" a purpose that can only be appreciated, it can successively approximated but never actually achieved. (Ackoff 1972)

At the influence level purpose is conceived "relative" to "other" purposes. We express these as "values" purposes that can be influenced but not controlled.

At the control level purpose is closed. We express purpose at this level as "goals" purposes whose outcome can be controlled or achieved with a great degree of certainty because we control all the resources necessary for their achievement.

 

In striving to model the relationship between purpose and power, Smith (1980, 1983) further discovered that one could not understand these power field dynamics in less than five spatial dimensions.

Three Dimensional, Control-Centered Level: Physical Space

Chart 1 shows the AIC model as a three dimensional construct. It shows the spatial distribution of the actor’s power through the three spheres of control, influence and appreciation. In this perspective the actor is located in the inner (blue) circle of control. He has, then, a control-centered perspective. He sees the world in terms of his own goals (the self), consideration of other (influence) and the whole (appreciation) is subordinate to the achievement of his own goals.

This view bridges the classical and early modernist theory. The organization does have an environment but it sees that environment entirely though the lens of its own goals. The purpose of the organization is to control as much as possible relative to its own goals, influence what it cannot and appreciate the rest. The actor, in some way, still sees himself as separate from the environment and is trying to control as much as possible. Such a perspective, even when entirely appropriate and ethical, distorts information from both the influence and appreciative environment. Chart 1 readily shows how this three-dimensional perspective is centered in control (Smith 2001). The three dimensional models work well in cases in which the variables and, as we have seen, the goals are relatively well known and definable.

 

A three dimensional perspective proves too rigid and confining for the dynamic probabilistic world of influence-centered organization In this context the three dimensions of an analytical approach no longer suffice because many different but related activities are taking place in different places and in different time frames. From experience we know that snapshot problem solving has little long term predictability because it operates as "only a slice in time" or static point – living systems are constantly moving through space and time. To account for this dynamism we add a fourth dimension of time to the model (Charts 3 and 4).

 

The Four-Dimensional, Influence-Centered Level: Time Space

The addition of the forth dimension converts appreciation, influence and control power relationships from descriptors of spatial power relationships into descriptors of power phases of a whole time cycle. Each sub-purpose, purpose and meta-purpose has its own time cycle. Appreciation, influence and control become phases of those cycles.

The appreciative phase provides the input, or more precisely, the "in-formation" from the "whole".

The influence phase provides the throughput, or more precisely, the "trans-formation" of information through the value systems of the parts (the stakeholders).

The control phase provides the output or "formation"- the ultimate expression of the purpose in action. It is this influence centered dimension that provides the core transformational process. Organizational transformation occurs as "in-formation’ from the five dimensional appreciated world is processed through the purposes (ideals, values, goals) of each of the organizational actors.

The three time phases of the feed forward half of the influence cycle convert purpose into form or action. They represent the actor’s power relative to the environment (indicated in Chart 4 with large letters A, I and C). The same three time phases apply equally to the feedback half of the influence cycle, but represent the environments feedback or power relative to the actor (represented as small letters a, i and c).

 

Chart #4

The environments feedback is equally transformed by the actors purposes (ideals, values and goals) to form new images of future action Every phase of organization, then, is characterized by a unique power relationship - A-a, A-i, A-c and I-a, I-i, I-c and C-a, C-i, C-c .

Notice that in Chart #4 it is the (red) lines of influence or transformation that cross in the center, while in Chart #3 the actor stands in the center of control, the smallest (blue) circle. Geometrically, then, we illustrate how this four-dimensional time-space conceptualization is influence-centered, and the three-dimensional world is control-centered.

Just as the appreciative field is analogous to the field of gravity so the influence-field is analogous to the electromagnetic field. The looping phase represents the magnetic field and the lines of feedback and feed forward the flow of the electric current. Just as the appreciative and the gravitational fields are beyond the positive and negative – they always attract and never repel, so both the influence and electromagnetic fields do produce positive and negative attractions and repulsions. The dynamics of the influence field are caused by these positive and negative relationships of repulsion and attraction.

This four-dimensional view provides a higher order of organization than the three dimensional control-centered view. It has one greater degree of freedom (time) and is able to deal with an exponentially larger set of variables. It does so by dealing with relationships, probabilities and process, rather than the elements, certainties and structures of the three-dimensional control-centered view of organization.

 

C. the Five-Dimensional, Appreciative Centered level: Mind Space

The fifth dimension adds a dimension beyond time. The easiest way to conceive of this is as "mind-space". Our minds have the capacity to move beyond "time-space", to add a degree of freedom not constrained by time. Our minds are able to mix past, present and future events together with products of our imagination to create images and ideas that have never existed before. This fifth dimension or "mind-space" is holographic. It allows the whole to be in every part and every part to be a whole. It is this characteristic that makes "mind-space" appreciative-centered. It allows each part to have a relationship to the whole so there is no center, or more accurately every part is a center that contains the whole

It is this holographic quality that carries the spiritual properties of the appreciative centered space. Spirit is infused in every part of the whole and makes every part of the whole feel whole.

The appreciative field is the place where elements of the whole can interact in all possible ways. It is beyond positive, negative or neutral judgments thus appreciative centered organization is the highest of the three levels of organization. It provides the purpose, the meaning, the spirit of the organization. It is capable of connecting anything within its field to anything else within its field without any time constraints. This should be no surprise to us. This is how our mind is organized. Holographic connections allow us to drive while listening to symphonies, which stimulate our memories of the past, link them to images of the future while being aware that the flies buzz inside the car appears to be in synch with the music. (Pribram 1991)

Power relationships in the appreciative field are the most democratic. Power potential is shared proportionately to the magnitude of the purpose. However, because of the five dimensional nature of the appreciative field every purpose is a reflection of the whole so the magnitude of a purpose is related to its resonance with the greater whole. This also fits with physics. Power is amplified when its frequency is in tune with environmental frequencies.

 

The outcome of the AIC philosophy and model is a process that consists of the nine power relationships that convert purpose into action. Each step of the process consists of a very specific actor/environment relationship For example the A-a phase means that the Actor is being open , appreciative, ( a large A) and the environment is also being open (small letter a)

The organizational function in which actors try to be open to their environments and expect the environment to be open to them can have many names according to the circumstances. In this case we chose Discovery although in planning settings, for example, we might choose the word "Evaluation". Similarly, the A-c power relationship means the actor is being open but he realizes that his or her understanding (appreciation) of the environment has to have form or closure (control). Hence, we translate A-c as Policy – the boundaries or form that we give to our appreciation of the whole. In other contexts we might use the word "Culture" as a more appropriate expression of A-c. Culture, in this case is seen as the container (c-ontrol) for the expression of the organization’s whole experience (A-ppreciation).

The nine organizing processes that emerge from the AIC model can be generically labeled as:

A-a Discovery: This is the phase in which the organization makes a conscious effort to step outside its current frame and to allow itself to form a new view of its whole relationship to itself and others.

A-i Diplomacy: The organization tests the new sense of possibility and reality diplomatically with as many different sources of influence as possible.

A-c Policy: The organization sets policy parameters around the new set of possibilities and realities.

I-a Strategic Appraisal: The organization identifies the major clusters of key factors, priority areas, which have to be brought to bear to achieve the purpose given the new potential and realities. It identifies the potential positive, negative and neutral effects of action on these priority areas. .

I-i Negotiation: The organization enters into a process of negotiation with each of the stakeholders affected and affecting these priorities.

I-c Strategy:. It narrows down the possible priorities and sets of relationships into a number of models or strategies.

C-a Monitoring: The organization engages those responsible for action in appreciation of the possibilities and realities for their area of action, and designs monitoring or learning systems to track results.

C-i Working Agreements: It creates working agreements between areas of responsibility for the cooperation necessary to carry out operations. And act on feedback.

C-c Operations: The organization carries out the operations and obtains feedback on the results.

Again we emphasize that the naming of the nine processes is relative and contextual. They depend on the purpose, on the situation and the style of the designers. We also have to caution that these nine relationships, while illustrated on paper as two-dimensions actually operate in five or more dimensions. The appreciative process operates in five or more dimensions, the influence in four dimensions and the control in three.

Applying the nine processes to a typical project, for example, to establish a policy, planning or evaluation or any complex program would look something like the following.

Appreciative Centered Phase (Fifth Dimension)

A-a A design workshop consisting of a meeting of representatives from "the whole" the appreciative, influence and control fields. Then frame the purpose and identify its three levels, (control, influence and appreciative – ideals, values, goals) Identify the major stakeholders set out the purpose and the initial scope of the project.

A-i The principals use their influence to attract the full range of stakeholders to a full workshop and create the conditions and expectations for success.

A-c Conduct a full workshop that contains representatives of all the major stakeholders who collectively have the power to accomplish the purpose.

Influence-Centered-Phase (Forth Dimension)

I-a Conduct series of smaller workshops, task forces formulating the major projects and tasks identified at the full workshop.

I-i Interact, negotiate and coordination the major tasks.

I-c Formulate the implementation strategy for each task. Form the overall coordinating strategy for the whole community.

Control -Centered Phase (Third Dimension)

C-a Develop the project research and monitoring system

C-i  Mid-term reviews and renegotiation of agreements

C-c Tabulate operational results.

To carry out such a process or a longer term improvement process within an organization e.g. culture change or strategic planning the process above is repeated with overlapping, cross-functional groupings. The process is implemented in abbreviated or elongated form at every level of purpose from individual, to group, to organizational and community levels. . Each field has its own time/space cycle and its own norms of organization drawn from its inherent nature. For example, using this philosophy in corporations, Boards become the center for organizing the firm’s appreciative field. The field would have a multi-year cycle based on the characteristics of it industry –say e 5-7 years. Such Boards consist of the firms major stakeholders and are responsible for appreciation of the whole at the highest level. The CEO and top executives provide the focal point for the influence centered field. Its cycle is likely to be annual. Lower level management operates at a control centered level with quarterly cycles. The equivalent of the shop floor operates on a weekly cycle. Within these fields there are many sub-fields. No matter what their function relative to the whole organization –appreciation, influence or control, each of these sub-fields treats itself as a whole with its own unique field of appreciation, influence and control. Each cycle is marked by a meeting of representatives of all members of the field in which they go through a process of:

• Appreciating their whole situation,
• Examining the parts they can influence and generating many strategic options, and
• Conducting a control phase in which each member of the whole commits to action and the whole group reflects on how those commitments will meet the purpose. This process is explained more fully in the paper.

Whereas the process at the Board level might take a whole week to deal with the 5-7 year cycle, the shop floor level might do their review over a brown bag lunch once per week.

Our experience suggests that by making the fullest possible use of all nine power relationships and applying them in appropriate, conditions, relationships and with appropriate methods, then, individuals, groups, organizations and whole communities are able to achieve higher level purpose and performance.

By placing the concept of organization in a much wider, five-dimensional space, the AIC process makes every member’s purpose a much more integral part of the every day process of achieving the organization’s purpose. The AIC organizing process gains its increased performance from drawing on a much wider field of power than traditional models.

1. By enlarging its appreciative field at every level it introduces new possibilities for influence and control. Successful appreciation also pre-solves or dissolves many problems that would not surface till the control phase in traditional models.
2. By enlarging its influence field it greatly increases the number of options considered at every level, improves its relationships with its stakeholders and produce much more robust strategies and a wider range of organizational competencies. Improved influence also re-solves many issues that would show up as costly problems in the control phase.
3. Expensive control costs are dramatically reduced as the use of control is substituted by the use of more appreciative and influence resources..

Traditional organizations focus primarily on the control field. Our better organizations are in the middle of a revolution in which they are more effectively coping with their influence fields, but very few have incorporated an integrative to the influence field and even less to the appreciative field. Our experience suggests that integrating all three fields equally at every level of purposes produce dramatically increases in performance while giving each participant greater degrees of freedom for creativity and productivity. While the kind of integrative concepts we advocate are not yet well known, there is much evidence that the principles involved are associated with exceptional performance.

Jim Collins’ "From Good to Great" 2001 provides one such popular example. Many of his insights from experience are consistent with the transformative process we have described. His top five characteristics of the 11 out of the top Fortune 500 corporations that he characterizes as moving from good to great are:

Good is the Enemy of Great; Merely good companies do not, like great companies, pursue the maximum "Good". This we translate as seeking the highest level of purpose possible in the situation, an ideal

Level 5 Leadership: Such leaders truly believe that their success is a result of the efforts of the whole. They are not egotistical; they are humble and reward themselves modestly. They have a fierce resolve for their organization to do well. These are all characteristics of "appreciative-centered leadership".

Confront the Brutal Facts: This corresponds to the part of the appreciative phase that asks everyone at every level for every purpose to confront the realties that prevent them from reaching their potential.

The Hedgehog Concept: consist of three questions presented as three overlapping circles.

What Can You Be The Best In The World At? - This corresponds to the pursuit of ideals at the appreciative level.

What Are You Deeply Passionate About? - translates this ideal into passionate work-relationships at the influence level and

What Drives Your Economic Engine? Translates that passion into economic results at the control level.

By focusing on purpose and the power fields created by purpose, we learn how to emphasize real power and real relationships to purpose rather than structural bureaucratic organizational relationships.

We understand better the process by which purpose is generated and translated into effective social action as determined by its effect on the purposes of all those affected (the whole field).

Broad implementation of the process helps overcome the phenomena of "stove piping". It is more motivating and democratic in that it places control in the hands of individuals. The ultimate source of control is individual purpose. The overriding glue is community or cultural purpose that has its roots in ideals. Ideals and individual goals are transformed through group or organizational values. What in traditional organization theory is the controlling purpose, the "bureau" or organizational division becomes a center of value and influence rather than the center of control.

The process re-centers individual, organizational and community organizing energy into the influence arena. It enlarges the power field that is evoked by traditional control-centered organization. From that center of influence actors reach out into the appreciative field. This connected field allows whole communities and whole organizations to develop much more cost efficient and less wasteful solutions to their problems. Less costly appreciative and influence power is substituted for the very expensive control energy.

By effectively re-conceptualizing organization as an influence centered activity, a process connected to the fifth dimensional "mind-spirit" level – organizational action is reconnected to purposeful relationships of all actors in the system where the limits of potential are determined by those involved and not simply governed by an "objectified reality" out there. Organizational activity becomes a four dimensional process, an ongoing transformation and not simply an exercise in adaptation, fit or re-adjustment. This deconstructs the notion of organizational dependence on environmental conditions and frees actors to "imagine, relate and do" according to ideals held, values expressed and goals to be realized. By raising the center of operation from the controlled, to the influenced arena individuals, groups, organizations and communities become more resilient, they gain a better appreciation of the positive and negative trends that affect their purpose, and they develop broader vision. They are given license to build longer term, broader relationships with their stakeholders, which increases their capacity to appreciate, influence and control. They can transform their 0perations to higher levels of purpose, at less cost, in shorter periods of time with less reliance on costly control mechanisms.

SELECTED BLIOGRAPHY

 

Ackoff RL. 1999. Ackoff’s Best: His Classic Writings on Management, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, NY.

Ackoff RL. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY.

Aldrich H. 2000. Organizations Evolving. Sage Publications: London, England.

Amabile T., Hadley CN, Kramer SJ. 2000. Creativity Under the Gun, Harvard Business Review (special issue), 52-61.

Badaracco JL. 2002. Leading Quietly. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Barney J. 2001. Is the Resource-Based View a Useful Perspective for Strategic management Research?, Academy of Management Review 26(1):41-56.

Berger P, Luckman, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise In the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday: Garden City: NY.

Bertalanffy L. 1949c. The concepts of systems in physics and biology, Bulletin of the British Society for the History of Science, 1:44-45.

1950a. The theory of open systems in physics and biology, Science, 111:23-29

1950b. An outline of General Systems Theory, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1:139-164

1951. (with C. G. Hempel, R. E. Bass, and H. Jonas) General System Theory: A new approach to unity of science, Human Biology, 23:302-361

1955. An essay on the relativity of categories, Philosophy of Science, 225:243- 263.

1960a. General System Theory and the behavorial sciences, in: Discussions on Child Development, vol. 4, J. M. Tanner and B. Inhelder (eds), pp. 155-175, London.

Bohm David, 2002. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge; Reissue edition.

Bowen DB. 1980. Experiential and traditional teaching of OB: A dubious distinction.

Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 5(2): 7-12.

Bowen DD, Lewicki RJ, Hall DT, Hall FS. 1997. Experiences in Management and Organizational Behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New York, NY.

 

Bower J, Bartlett C, Christensen CR, Pearson A, Andrews K. 1991. Business Policy:

Text and Cases. Irwin, Inc: Burr Ridge, IL.

Burns T, Stalker G. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock: London.

Cameron KS, Quinn RE. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Chattopadhyay P, Glick WH , Huber GP. 2001. Organizational Actions in Response to Threats and Opportunities, The Academy of Management Journal 44(5): 937-955.

Checkland P. 2000. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: West Sussex, England.

Clegg SR, Hardy C. (eds.) 1999. Studying Organization: Theory and Method. Sage Publications: London, England.

Cohen HB. 1998. The Performance Paradox, The Academy of Management Executive 12(3): 30- 40.

Collins J. 2001. Good to Great. Harper Business: New York, NY.

Collins J, Porras JI. 1994. Built to Last. Harper Business Essentials: New York, NY.

Costin H.(ed.). 1998. Readings in Strategy and Strategic Planning. Harcourt Brace & Company: Orlando, FL.

Crossan MM, Bedrow I. 2003 Organizational Learning and Strategic Renewal, Strategic Management Journal 24(11): 1087-1106.

Cummings S. 2002. Recreating Strategy. Sage Publications: London, England.

Cummings S, Wilson D. 2003. Images of Strategy. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK.

David F. 1999. Strategic Management. (7^th edition), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Davis EB, Smith WE. 2004. Convergence of Systems, Power and Strategic Management

Theories in Practice, accepted, The Academy of Management Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Davis EB, Smith WE. 2004. Expanding the Image of Strategy: A Five Dimensional Transformational Process. Working manuscript, for submission to the Strategic Management Journal., Spring.

Drucker P. 2002. The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, (special issue), August: 95-102.

Duncan WJ, Ginter PM , Swayne LE. 1998. Competitive Advantage and Internal Organizational Assessment. The Academy of Management Executive 12(3):6-16.

Durand R. 2003. Predicting a Firm’s Forecasting Ability: The Roles of Organizational Illusion of Control and Organizational Attention. Strategic Management Journal 24(9):821-838.

Eden C, Ackerman F. 1998. Making Strategy. Sage Publications: London, England.

Emerson R. 1962. Power Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review. ,27: 31-40.

 Emery F, Trist E. 1965. The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments. Human Relations 13(1):21-32.

Faulkner DO, Campbell A. (eds.) 2003. The Oxford Handbook of Strategy. (Volume 1& II). Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Fayol H. 1949 (original work 1916). General and Industrial Management. Trans. Constance Storrs Pittman Publishing Ltd. London, UK, 19-42.

.

Fisher R, Ury W. 1991. Getting to Yes. (2^nd edition), Penguin Books: New York, NY.

French W, Bell C, Zawacki R. 2000. Organization Development and Transformation: Managing Effective Change. Irwin-McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.

Fowler KL, Scott DM. 1996. Experiential learning in the capstone strategic management

course: Collaborative problem solving, the student live case, and modeling. Journal of Business and Management 3(3): 103-120.

Frooman J. 1999. Stakeholder Influence Strategies, The Academy of Management Review 24(2):191-205.

Goerner SJ. 1994. Chaos and the Evolving Ecological Universe. OPA (Amsterdam), Gordon and Breach Science Publishers: SA.

Habermas, J (1992) Postmetaphysical Thinking, Polity: Cambridge.

Habermas, J (1984) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Polity, Cambridge.

Habermas, J (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press: London.

Hall R. 1999. Organizations. (7^th edition), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hamel G, Prahalad CK. 1994. Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Hamel G. 2002. Leading the Revolution: How to Thrive in Turbulent Times by Making Innovation a Way of Life. Plume: New York, NY.

Hatch MJ. 1997. Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Post-Modern Perspectives. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Jaffee D. 2001. Organization Theory. McGraw-Hill Higher Education: Boston, MA.

Jauch LR , Glueck WF. 1998. Strategic Management and Business Policy. McGraw- Hill Series in Management: Boston, MA.

Johnson DW, Johnson FP. 1982. Joining together: Group theory and group skills. (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Joshi MJ, Davis EB, Kathuria R, Weidner K. 2003. Learning and Teaching Strategic Management through Experiential Methods. Academy of Management, judged

as Best Paper in MED Division, Nominated for best Paper Award at Conference : Seattle, Washington, 217.

Joshi MJ, Davis, EB, Kathuria R, Weidner K. 2002. Experiential Learning in Strategy: The Winter Survival Exercise Revisited , Proceedings, Annual Conference, Decision Sciences Institute ,submitted for Instructional Innovation Award Competition. San Diego, CA.: 22-27.

Kaplan RS, Norton DP. 2000. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Kathuria R, Davis, E. 2001. (Winter) Quality and Work Force Management Practices: The Managerial Performance Implication. Production and Operations Management, 10(4):1-18.

Kathuria R, Davis E. 2000. Quality and Workforce Management: From the Manufacturing Manager’s Perspective. Journal of Quality Management, 4(2):147-166.

Kostova T. 1999. Transnational Transfer of Strategic Organizational Practices: A Contextual Perspective. The Academy of Management Review 24(2):308-324.

Lippman SA., Rumelt RP. 2003. A Bargaining Perspective on Resource Advantage. Strategic Management Journal 24(11):1069-1086.

Lawrence PR., Lorsch JW. 1969. Organizations and Environment. Richard D. Irwin: Homewood, IL.

James McNeil, 1999 Generating Shared Visions for Community Development in Southeast Asia:  The AIC Process: http://www.odii.com/Papers/thai-McNeale.htm

Makhija M. 2003. Comparing the Resource-Based and Market-Based Views of the Firm: Empirical Evidence from Czech Privatization. Strategic Management Journal 24(5):433-452.

Michaelson G. 2001. Sun Tzu: The Art of War for Managers. Adams Media Corporation: Avon, MA.

Mintzberg H. 1993. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners. Free Press: New York, NY.

Mintzberg H, Lampel J. 1999. Reflecting on the Strategy Process. Sloan Management Review. 40 (3):21-30.

Mintzberg H, Lampel J, Quinn JB, Ghoshal S. 2003. The Strategy Process. (4^th edition), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Morgan G. 1986. Images of Organizations. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.

Nagel, JH. 1975. The Descriptive analysis of Power. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.

Parsons T. 1967. The Structure of Social Action. The Free Press: New York, NY.

Parsons, T, Shils EA. 1951. Toward a general theory of action. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, M.A.

Pearce JA, Robinson RB. 1999. Formulation, Implementation and Control of Competitive Strategy. (7th edition), McGraw-Hill/Irwin: Homewood, IL.

Pettigrew AM, Whittington R., Melin L., Sanchez-Runde C., Van Den Bosch FAJ., Ruigrok W., Numagami T. (eds.) 2003. Innovative Forms of Organizing. Sage Publications: London, UK.

Pfeffer J. , Salancik GR. 2003. External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford Business Books: CA.

Pfeffer J. 1992. Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Pribram K. 1991. Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing. (John m Maceachran Memorial Lecture Series), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pribram, KH. (2004) Consciousness Reassessed. forthcoming in Mind and Matter.

Pribram, KH. (ed.) (1994) Origins: Brain and Self-Organization

The Second Appalachian Conference on Behavioral Neurodynamics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale NJ.

Priem RL , Butler JE . 2001. Is the Resource-Based View a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research?. Academy of Management Review 26(1):22-40.

Priem RL, Butler JE. 2001. Tautology in the Resource-Based View and the Implications of Externally Determined Resource Value: further Comments. Academy of Management Review 26(1):57-66.

Porter ME. 1998. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitor. Free Press: New York, NY.

Quinn JB. 1980. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. (The Irwin Series in Management and the Behavioral Sciences) Richard D. Irwin: Homewood, IL.

Quinn JB. 1994. Logical Incrementalism: Managing Strategy Formation. in The Strategy Process, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ.

Ramirez R, Wallin J. 2000. Prime Movers: Define Your Business or Have Someone Define it Against You . ( 1st edition), John Wiley & Sons: London, England.

Rumelt RP, Teece DJ, Schendel DE.(Eds.), Fundamental Issues in Strategy. Harvard Business School Press : Boston, MA.

Schein, EH. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership. (2^nd edition), Jossey-Bass : San Francisco, CA.

Schendel DE., Hoffer C. (eds.) 1979. Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. Little Brown & Company: Boston, MA.

Selznick P. 1984. Leadership in Administration. University of California Press.

Schwartz P. 1996. Art of the Long View. Currency/Doubleday: New York, NY.

Scott R. 1998. Organizations. (4^th edition), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ.

Senge P. 1994. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. (1^st edition), Currency/Doubleday: New York, NY.

Shafritz J., Ott JS. 2001. Classics of Organization Theory. ( 5^th edition), Harcourt College Publishers: Orlando, FL.

Siciliano JI, Gopinath C. 2002. Strategize : Experiential exercises in strategic

management. South-Western Thomson Learning: Cincinnati, OH.

Smith, WE., 1976 The Smith Charmoz Model of Multinational Development in Strategy and Structure the Role of Process and Structure by Jay Galbraith and Daniel Nathanson. West Publishing Company,

Smith, WE. 1980, 2001. WHOLENESS: The  Development of a New Philosophy and Model and Process of Organization   Papers Section www.odii.com.

Smith, WE.. 1983. Organizing as a Power Process: The Creation and Testing of a Conceptual Framework and its Application to the Design of Development

Projects. Dissertation. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

Smith WE, Davis EB . 2003. Organizing the Revolution: A Five Dimensional Strategic Process. 23^rd International Conference of the Strategic Management Society: Baltimore, MD.

Streatfield PJ. 2001. The Paradox of Control in Organizations. Routledge: London, UK.

Taylor WT. December, 1916. The Principles of Scientific Management. An abstract of an address given by the late Dr. Taylor before the Cleveland Advertising Club, March 3,1915 two weeks prior to his death.

Thompson AA, Strickland AJ. 1999 & 2001. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. (11th edition), Irwin Professional Publishing: Irwin McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.

Tsoukas H, Knudsen C. (eds.) 2003. The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Vickers G. 1965. The Art of Judgment. Chapman & Hall: London, England.

Voices , 2002. Inspiring Innovation, The Innovative Enterprise: Turning Ideas into Profits. Harvard Business Review, (special issue):39-71.

Weber, M. 1946. Max Weber: Essays in Sociology edited and translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Oxford University Press Inc., renewed 1973 by H.H. Gerth.

Weick K. 1979 [1969]. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Wheelen TL, Hunger JD. 2001. Strategic Management and Business Policy. (8th edition), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Wren D. 1994. The Evolution of Management Thought. ( 4^th edition), John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY.

Zander R., Zander B. 2002. The Art of Possibility. Penguin Books: New York, NY.