Integrating instrumental and normative stakeholder theories: a systems theory approach

2019 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladislav Valentinov ◽  
Anna Hajdu
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Function System ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Economic Function

Purpose The stakeholder theory encompasses instrumental and normative varieties whose mutual relationship remains unclear and exhibits a classic tension between rational self-interest and moral motivation. The purpose of this paper is to develop a strategy for navigating this tension. Design/methodology/approach Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory is concerned with the limited ability of social systems to codify, and be receptive to, the complexity of the environment. Drawing on this theory, the paper juxtaposes the codification problems of two types of social systems: the for-profit firm and the economic function system. Findings This juxtaposition allows to identify four firm behavior patterns, two of which can be aligned with instrumental and normative stakeholder theories. If the codification capacity of the economic function system is assumed to be sufficient, the codification problems of the for-profit firm are shown to specify the range of applicability of the instrumental stakeholder theory. Dropping the above assumption is shown to specify the range of applicability of the normative stakeholder theory. Originality/value The argument offers a fresh way of understanding the institutional economics foundations of the stakeholder theory. Given that the systems-theoretic idea of codification reflects the functioning of the real-world institutions, the argument shows that both instrumental and normative stakeholder theories reflect the institutional texture of the modern society in distinct but equally legitimate ways.

Determinants of family meetings in private family businesses

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akif Cicek ◽  
Rüveyda Kelleci ◽  
Pieter Vandekerkhof
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
Family Firms ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Governance Mechanisms ◽  
Social Systems Theory ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Family Governance ◽  
Family Meetings ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Family

PurposeFamily governance mechanisms serve to govern and strengthen relations between the family and the business, as well as the relationships between the members of the business family itself. However, despite agreement on the importance of adopting family governance structures, explicit research on the determinants of family governance mechanisms is currently missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to uncover the determinants of family meetings. In order to do so, the social systems theory is used to unravel several determining factors of this crucial form of family governance mechanisms in private family firms.Design/methodology/approachThe authors perform a qualitative study by conducting semi-structured interviews in eight Belgian private family firms in order to discover the antecedents of the implementation of family meetings. The authors use a pattern-matching technique as an analytical strategy.FindingsThe findings of the study highlight the importance of “soft,” relational, qualitative issues as antecedents of family meetings as opposed to previous research on family governance, which predominantly focused on “hard,” quantitative measures (e.g. family ownership). The findings of the study also provide novel insights into the origins of the family component (i.e. family meetings) of family business governance.Originality/valueWhile the current literature has only focused on describing the different types of family governance and their positive consequences for the family firm, the authors take a step back to explain why family meetings, as a form of family governance, are adopted in the first place. Second, the authors demonstrate the instrumentality of the social systems theory in understanding the family's needs that necessitate the implementation of family governance mechanisms.

The demoralization of society and the proliferation of organization

Kybernetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Rachlitz ◽  
Benjamin Grossmann-Hensel ◽  
Ronja Friedl
Keyword(s):  
Social Systems ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Love Relationships ◽  
Social Forms ◽  
Or Organization ◽  
The Relationship

PurposeIn this paper, the authors aim to clarify the relationship between organization and society. They argue that the proliferation of organization in modernity has not yet been properly understood in light of the absence of organization in premodern times. The authors therefore ask: Why do organizations proliferate? Why do they proliferate in such manifold organizational forms? And how can these heterogeneous forms nevertheless be related to a common problem to which organizations provide a solution? A comparative historical analysis based on the theory of social systems reveals that organizations fill a gap which the decline of morality as an integrative success medium created.Design/methodology/approachThe paper develops a conceptual framework focusing on the theory of media within Luhmann’s theory of social systems as a point of departure. The authors discuss the concept of “interpenetration” to assess the relation between morality and organization. They raise several follow-up questions for future empirical research, most prominently pertaining to the relationship between organization and digitalization.FindingsThe main finding is that morality can be conceptualized as a specific success medium (alongside religion and symbolically generalized communication media) which used to structure premodern societies by means of social and interhuman interpenetration at once. Modern society instead employs two differentiated forms of interpenetration: Social interpretation through organizations and interhuman interpenetration through love relationships. These centripetal counterforces help to mediate the centrifugal forces unleashed by the full development of modern success media. Modern society critically depends on the proliferation of organizations.Originality/valueThis paper examines the relationship between morality and organization not from the perspective of interaction or organization, but from the perspective of society. This approach provides novel insights in that it opens up promising avenues of comparison between organization and other social forms. Understanding the distinctively modern “success story” of organization as a social form makes it possible to ask about corresponding potentials and limitations, but also alternative possibilities. In doing so, the authors depart from most studies of organizations grounded in social systems theory as the authors primarily focus on Luhmann’s theory of media (as opposed to the theory of differentiation).

Moral communication and legal uncertainty in small and medium enterprises

Kybernetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Winczorek
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Functional Differentiation ◽  
Theoretical Issue ◽  
Sociology Of Law ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Moral Communication ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

PurposeThe links between moral communication and legal communication have long been studied in sociology of law. Little has yet been said about moral communication invoking when communication in the legal system is impossible, ineffective or uncertain. The paper fills this gap to demonstrate that systems theory-based sociology of law can effectively recognise the role of moral communication in such situations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents an empirical study of moral communication in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It focused on situations when SMEs' interactions with function systems, particularly the legal system, result in irremovable legal uncertainty. The data depict strategies of managing such uncertainty and were obtained in a paths-to-justice survey of 7,292 owners and managers of SMEs and 101 in-depth interviews. The findings are interpreted using the author's concept of “uncertainty translation”, rooted in Luhmann's systems theory. It suggests that business organisations such as SMEs deal with the ubiquitous uncertainty in their operations by translating it into a convenient type.FindingsThe study distinguishes between formative and absorbing moral communication and finds that both types play a role in steering the uncertainty translation mechanism in SMEs. Six scenarios of invoking moral communication are identified in SMEs dealing with legal uncertainty. In such scenarios, moral communication facilitates the translation of business uncertainty “away from law”. Under some circumstances, this, in turn, leads to latent systematic results, reflexively affecting the legal system, the economic system and the SMEs.Research limitations/implicationsIn its core argument, the study is based on qualitative material. While it identifies empirical scenarios of invoking moral communication, it does not report the prevalence of these scenarios due to methodological limitations.Originality/valueThe study results pose questions related to the staple theoretical issue in post-Luhmannian social systems theory: functional differentiation. If moral communication–a type of communication not linked to any social system–can produce far-reaching, systematic results that affect function systems, then the functional differentiation thesis should be less pronounced than Luhmann typically stressed. This said, the paper argues that the contradiction between the findings and Luhmannian theory of morality is only apparent and may be reconciled.

Social Systems on the Cross

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marinos Diamantides ◽  
Anton Schütz
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Darwinism ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Individual Identity ◽  
Human Consciousness ◽  
The One

While early 20th century Social Darwinism has been discredited, post-WW2 theories have re-emphasized Darwin's notion of the environment. On this basis, and substituting social systems for natural species, society has been analyzed as a system-in-evolution, a machinery that, reflexively or self-referentially, produces itself at every moment anew. Modern society, according to social systems theory, continuously makes itself, thanks to countless simultaneous communications taking place at once. There are two equally disquieting lessons here. On the one hand, modern law, understood as the communicative system that applies the distinction lawful/unlawful to everything that gets in its way, is placed within an environment constituted by other communicative social systems (the economy, politics, religion, art etc) and the conditions created by those. On the other hand, social systems at large are separated from the realm of human consciousness, i.e. of collective or individual identity (the ‘psychic systems’). While ‘social' and ‘psychic’ systems never meet, they rely on absolute indifference with respect to their other side, as only this indifference enables especially social systems to assure their (superior) fact-creating potential. Our own project consists in spelling out the implications of this scissile sense of ‘meaning’, at once understood as a shorthand for what is actually happening (fragmented communications) and as consciousness-as-identity (imaginary unity).

Systems Theory and Journalism

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin Scholl ◽  
Maja Malik
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Systems Theory ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Functional Differentiation ◽  
Macro Level ◽  
Niklas Luhmann ◽  
External Observer

Observing, describing, and analyzing journalism as part of society requires theories on a macro level. Unlike normative theories, which criticize journalism with respect to its achievements and failures within society, systems theory operates with the concept of function in a non-normative sense. Based on the groundwork of Talcott Parsons’ theory of social systems, Niklas Luhmann developed systems theory further and radicalized it by strictly avoiding any kind of structural conservatism. His approach is built on the assumption that social systems operate autonomously on the basis of the functional differentiation to their environment. Macro-level systems, i.e., societal systems, fulfill unique functions for and within society. Functional autonomy and singularity make a modern society highly efficient but force each system to rely on the functional performances of all other societal systems. Hence, societal systems are structurally coupled and interdependent. Epistemologically, systems do not exist as ontological units but are strictly observer-related, be the observer the system itself or an external observer, such as the scientific community is. In journalism research, Luhmann’s systems theory has been applied to journalism as a societal system. Several competing approaches with different perspectives on the system observed (journalism, the mass media, or the public sphere) have been developed with respect to identifying the basic characteristics on which the system operates. Despite their differences they have this in common: journalism is not considered the sum of individual journalists and their (individual) way of working, instead, the systems-theoretical perspective is holistic. However, compared to theories of professionalism, which is also a holistic concept, systems theory neither identifies journalism with the profession of journalism, nor commits it to professional journalism. Instead, the structure of journalism is flexible, i.e., functionally equivalent, as long as its function is fulfilled. This function can be specified: journalism provides society periodically with current, independent, factual, and relevant information. Empirically, systems theory helps defining the population of journalists by deducing it from its function. Unlike mere empirical approaches, which arbitrarily draw samples from an unknown population, it is possible to clearly draw distinctions between journalism and other forms of public communication, such as public relations, advertising, propaganda, or lay communication. Still, it is challenging to operationalize such an abstract theory, as it is not specially made for hypothesis-driven research.

Leading change for success: embracing resistance

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 512-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abbas Nadim ◽  
Parbudyal Singh
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Change ◽  
Systems Theory ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Resistance To Change ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Organizational Survival ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Open Systems Theory ◽  
Systems Model ◽  
Scant Attention

Purpose Organizational change is one of the most researched issues in management and leadership. Change is generally viewed as necessary, with positive outcomes for all stakeholders. Resistance is consequently seen as a surprising outcome. However, much of the management literature focuses on change as organizational dynamics-driven, especially by those at the top, in the interests of those at the top, often with scant attention to the role of employees. The purpose of this paper is to take a different perspective, grounded in the systems theory. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper. The authors critically examine theoretical explanations of resistance to change in organizations and offer an alternative perspective. Findings Systems theorists have addressed change, and its necessity in organizational survival, using an open systems model. The open systems theory posits that organizations are social systems that have purposes of their own and is made of parts (employees) that are purposeful and operate within a purposeful larger system – the environment (stakeholders). Change that ignores a key part – employees – will be resisted. Originality/value Using the systems theory, the authors propose several suggestions for organizational leaders and managers to implement sustainable change. These include, among others, recommendations on circular organizational designs, the need for more democratic organizations, purposeful leadership styles and how to include employees in proactive organizational change processes.

Problematic customer behaviours and their triggers: the perspective of restaurant employees

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yakup Kemal Özekici ◽  
Kurban Ünlüönen
Keyword(s):  
Social Systems ◽  
Middle Level ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Frontline Employees ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fishbone Diagram ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Smart Technologies ◽  
Grounded Theory Approach

PurposeThe present work attempts to investigate how restaurant staff perceive problematic customer behaviours (PCBs), the causes for PCBs and the core reasons that trigger such behaviour in restaurants.Design/methodology/approachThe root causes were determined by systematic grading and then aggregated in a fishbone diagram to illustrate the real antecedents. First, the data obtained from in-depth interviews based on the grounded theory approach, conducted with 29 frontline employees in restaurants, were categorised using open, axial and selective coding. Then the 26 causes identified were graded and arranged into six levels, forming a chained hierarchy for each behaviour.FindingsEgo-derived faults are among the key factors stemming from the personality of the customer, and the use of money as power is evident in such behaviours. In terms of issues related to social systems, the main factors were the structure of the sector, the “customer is always right” philosophy, other factors resulting from the local culture and the occupational image.Research limitations/implicationsFirst, more frequent and effective addressing of the sector structure can help employees feel more comfortable. Second, the study uncovers emotional and psychological aspects as core factors causing PCBs, paving the way for future studies.Practical implicationsTo prevent PCBs, it may be necessary to provide relevant training for employees, empower leadership for middle-level managers and set up a customer crediting system as well as a customer blacklist based on smart technologies.Originality/valueThis research is the first attempt to reveal the root causes of the factors behind PCBs by forming graded-reason chains and representing integrated PCBs in a fishbone diagram. Using this instrument, the paper investigates the insights of employees to address a topic that few studies have dealt with thus far.

Social capital in disaster risk management; a case study of social capital mobilization following the 1934 Kathmandu Valley earthquake in Nepal

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roshan Bhakta Bhandari
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Social Networks ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Kathmandu Valley ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Disaster Victims ◽  
Linking Social Capital ◽  
Response And Recovery

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how social capital operated in the lives of 15 respondents from Lalitpur following the massive 1934 Kathmandu Valley earthquake. Based on experiences of the survivors, it attempts to understand how individuals and families utilized their social capital in the aftermath of the earthquake, and rebuild their lives and communities. Design/methodology/approach – This is a qualitative study based on non-structured interviews and discussions with disaster victims on their own locality. Following Padgett's (2008) grounded theory approach, flexible method of data collection is adopted through interactions with respondents and following up on important cues or patterns as additional data emerged. Findings – Participants described a process through which they relied on bonding, bridging and linking social capital in different stages of earthquake response and recovery. Close ties or bonding social capital were important for immediate support, but bridging and linking social capital offered pathways to longer term survival and wider neighbourhood and community revitalization. This paper also discusses how social capital inclusion in pre-disaster communities might be helpful to strengthen their response capacity. Research limitations/implications – As the study participants were less than ten years old when the earthquake happened, they might have omitted or overlooked some important details about the event. The findings are based not only on participant's own memories, but they also shared stories told by their parents which were the indirect experiences. Practical implications – This study indicates the potential value and need for including bonding, bridging and linking social capital and traditional social networks in disaster planning. A key outcome related to disaster policy would be what institutional condition or combinations of different dimensions of social capital may serve the public for better disaster response and recovery. Originality/value – This study has paid attention to how social capital might be useful in disaster risk reduction both in post-disaster phase and in pre-disaster condition which may be rare in disaster studies. It also provides an insight into how community-based disaster management can take into account pre-existing social systems and traditional social networks to build local capacities.

Stakeholder Theory: A Luhmannian Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 826-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladislav Valentinov ◽  
Steffen Roth ◽  
Matthias Georg Will
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Systems Theory ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Stakeholder Interests ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Cross Fertilization

We explore the cross-fertilization potential between stakeholder theory and Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Social systems, such as corporations or nonprofits, are defined by complexity reduction and operational closure, which may render them insensitive to their environment and undermine their sustainability. This vision resonates with stakeholder theory’s arguments on the importance of the corporate responsiveness to stakeholder interests. The suggested common ground between the theories yields novel insights into key concepts of stakeholder theory such as the contrast between the jointness of stakeholder interests and trade-off thinking, the normativity of the stakeholder idea, and the meaning of corporate social responsibility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document