Human agency and social structure: From the evolutionary perspective

Author(s):  
Shanyang Zhao
2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Arndt

A growing body of research in strategic management has focused on dynamic capabilities as a central source of firms' competitive advantage. The theoretical roots of dynamic capabilities can be found in many of the schools of thought identified by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1998). In this paper, we identify three aspects of dynamic capabilities that, we believe, require more detailed attention: Process, cognitive and decision-based micro-foundations, and human agency. We explore each of these areas from an evolutionary perspective to emphasize the fact that dynamic capability is essentially an evolutionary construct. By highlighting the evolutionary implications of these areas, we add important detail to the way “evolution” has been used in this field of research.


2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1159-1179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lewis ◽  
Malte Dold

Abstract Historians of economic thought are paying greater attention to issues of social ontology (i.e. to the assumptions that economists make about the nature of social reality). We contribute to this burgeoning literature by exploring the hitherto neglected way in which James Buchanan invoked ontological considerations, concerning in particular the nature of human choice, both in criticising neoclassical economics and also in setting out his own contributions to constitutional political economy. We focus on Buchanan’s account of man as an artifactual being who has the capacity to choose the kind of person he wishes to become, in particular by selecting the kind of preferences he wishes to have and the kinds of rules under which he wishes to live. We discuss how Buchanan’s thinking on this issue was shaped by Frank Knight and G. L. S. Shackle and explain why Buchanan explicitly described his argument as ontological in nature. Finally, we contend that Buchanan’s approach would have benefited from further ontological elaboration, in two ways: first, because his arguments would have been stronger had he said more about the attributes of the human agent that help to secure their engagement in thinking creatively about themselves and the rules of society (‘the constitutional moment’), and second because his account would benefit from a deeper discussion of the interplay between human agency and social structure, especially with regard to the question of which structures might constrain or facilitate creative choices of the kind by which he set such great store.


2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 102-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gill Hubbard

This paper discusses the usefulness of indepth life history interviews in illustrating the role of social structure and human agency in youth transitions. Drawing on sociological theory and youth transition research, the paper highlights how the role of structure and agency has been perceived by youth researchers. Whilst this literature acknowledges the interplay between structure and agency in transitional processes, the appropriateness of particular research methods for explicating structure and agency needs to be further elucidated. Using data from a study of youth transitions in rural areas of Scotland, a range of transitional experiences from two indepth life history interviews is presented here. This exploratory exercise suggests that life history interviews enable researchers to explore how far social structures provide opportunities and constraints for human agents at the same time as showing how individuals, with their own beliefs and desires, take actions despite the social structures that underlie the immediacy of their experiences.


2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Georg Weber ◽  
Hans Jeppe Jeppesen

Abstract. Connecting the social cognitive approach of human agency by Bandura (1997) and activity theory by Leontiev (1978) , this paper proposes a new theoretical framework for analyzing and understanding employee participation in organizational decision-making. Focusing on the social cognitive concepts of self-reactiveness, self-reflectiveness, intentionality, and forethought, commonalities, complementarities, and differences between both theories are explained. Efficacy in agency is conceived as a cognitive foundation of work motivation, whereas the mediation of societal requirements and resources through practical activity is conceptualized as an ecological approach to motivation. Additionally, we discuss to which degree collective objectifications can be understood as material indicators of employees’ collective efficacy. By way of example, we explore whether an integrated application of concepts from both theories promotes a clearer understanding of mechanisms connected to the practice of employee participation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document