Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Cybernetics and Organization Theory: Epistemology or Technique?

Gareth Morgan

York University, 4700 Keele Street, Downsview, Ontario, M3J IP3 Canada.

Based on the view that theorizing is metaphorical, this paper examines the impact of cybernetic imagery on the study of organizations. Imagery treating organizations as "black boxes," "thermostats," "decision-makers," "morphogenic systems," "learning systems," and the concept of "organizational ecology" is explored. Developing the distinction between "cybernetics as technique" and "cybernetics as epistemology, " it is suggested that organization theory has for the most part used cybernetics in the former sense. The paper develops the view that the major challenge cybernetics poses conventional organization theory rests in its epistemological implications. Systematically developed, these have fundamental consequences for the way we view organizations and their mode of operation.

Human Relations, Vol. 35, No. 7, 521-537 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/001872678203500702
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
D. Nicolini and M. B. Meznar
The Social Construction of Organizational Learning: Conceptual and Practical Issues in the Field
Human Relations, July 1, 1995; 48(7): 727 - 746.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
M. M. Harmon
What, if Anything, is Teleology? The Ambiguous History of "Purpose" in Organizational Thought
The American Review of Public Administration, September 1, 1988; 18(3): 217 - 244.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
G. Morgan and R. Ramirez
Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Social Change
Human Relations, January 1, 1984; 37(1): 1 - 27.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
R. Ramirez
Action Learning: A Strategic Approach for Organizations Facing Turbulent Conditions
Human Relations, August 1, 1983; 36(8): 725 - 742.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
G. Morgan
Rethinking Corporate Strategy: A Cybernetic Perspective
Human Relations, April 1, 1983; 36(4): 345 - 360.
[Abstract] [PDF]