Organizational Epistemology

The word ‘epistemology’ comes from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (theory). Epistemology has traditionally been conceived of as a branch of one of the grand divisions of philosophy,¹ methodology, or ways we as human beings come to know the world. As such, epistemology has been dealing with the extent ‘…the things and qualities of the world are dependent upon their being related as objects to a knower or subject’.² From this perspective, methodology encompasses both the ways of attaining and the ways of interpreting knowledge, thus encompassing both logic and epistemology. Logic is concerned with understanding propositions and their use in argumentation addressing, for instance, sources of beliefs and ideas, what constitutes valid arguments, theories of language, theories of modalities, paradoxes and logical fallacies. Epistemology is concerned with understanding the origin, nature and validity of knowledge: it seeks to provide knowledge about knowledge, and hence some refer to epistemology as theory of knowledge. Epistemology typically addresses issues like the role of reasoning in knowledge development, the role of sensory perception in knowledge development, types of knowledge, the difference between knowing and believing, the degree of certainty in knowledge, and so on.

We will begin this speculative enterprise by making a journey to another discipline, that of neurobiology. The objective of this chapter is to provide the reader with some ‘food for thought’ by visiting perspectives of cognition that are relatively unknown in the field of management and organizational studies, i.e. autopoiesis. Autopoiesis is, per se, distinct from the mainstream Weltanschauung of cognition discussed in Chapter 1. The beheaded, representation-based perspectives of management and organizations imply that business activities are contingent on external influences and respond to demands from the environment through internally representing a pre-given environment. The autopoietic perspective reflects the belief that cognitive activities in organizations are simultaneously open and closed. As will be seen throughout this book the autopoietic perspective not only sheds light on existing issues, it also opens up the management and organizational study realms for new probes into the unknown.

Knowledge is what brings forth a world, and the world is what brings forth knowledge; knowledge is a process brought forth by individuals, groups, departments, organizations, etc. We cannot say what is the chicken and what is the egg. They seem to be two sides of the same coin.¹ Dependent on our observational scheme, knowledge development is really knowledge development at various scales; autopoiesis at various scales. A theory of scaling may help us to understand the relations between individual and social knowledge development, the dynamics of individual and social autopoietic systems; in fact, it may help us unbracket (socialized organizational knowledge). The objective is not to uncover mathematical principles of scaling per se, i.e., taking a microscopic approach to scaling.² Rather, our intention is to uncover a phenomenological understanding of scaling without calculating it directly like in a scaling function.

Individualized organizational knowledge depends on a structural coupling between the individual and the world. This happens in observation, but, above all, in language. The coordination and cooperation between different organizational members, as seen by an observer, exists because of the language they use. This is not a new insight; for two single cells to form a single multicellular creature a ‘cellular language’ is required.¹

So far we have chosen to focus on conversations in organizations, as they unfold over time. Languaging provides a way for organizational members to realise their autopoiesis in a coordinated way, across scale. Another important knowledge-based activity of organizations is writing, which can be seen as a language system along with spoken language.

This book has dealt with the realm of organizational epistemology: how and why organizations know. In the organizational epistemology developed in this book, knowledge development is seen as an autopoietic process that is brought forth in organizations through languaging on all scales in a self-similar manner. By now the reader may ask himself: what can inhibit this knowledge development process? In this chapter we point at three sources of impediments to organizational knowledge development:

In this last chapter of the book we describe a management model used over the past thirteen years in the US-based firm SENCORP. The chapter is divided into three parts: first, a brief look at themes common to conventional management models and theories; second, a description of the model and its development; and third, a discussion of the model speculating on its implications for strategic management. But before this, it seems necessary to know a little about SENCORP and its reasons for creating a new management model.