Author

  • Ousanee Sawagvudcharee

    • School of Management, Shinawatra University, Thailand
    • Thailand

  • Maurice Yolles

    • Liverpool John Moore University, United of Kingdom
    • United Kingdom

  • Gerhard Fink

    • WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
    • Austria

  • Paul Iles

    • University of Salford, United of Kingdom
    • United Kingdom

  • Chanchai Bunchapattanasakda

    • School of Management, Shinawatra University, Thailand
    • Thailand

  • Buncha Limpabandhu

    • School of Management, Shinawatra University, Thailand
    • Thailand

Abstract

This paper considers the nature of the dominant corporate paradigm, its change, failures or successes, and its relationship with the homeostatic organization. There is a popular way of understanding the dynamics of organizational change and that is through the pre-configured sequence of stages in a corporate life-cycle. Through there are a number of competing models for this kind of analysis. In all of them, the sequence of stages is defined by that which configures the life-cycle deterministically. However, there is little discussion given for how these models of organizations shift between stages, and none appear to dominate in the literature. A major criticism of these models is that they do not represent complex organizational processes of change. Therefore, this paper represents an alternative model, called “the paradigm life-cycle”, which is connected to the homeostatic processes that maintain an organization, and which is, in principle, capable of generating corporate life-cycles under conditions of complexity.

Keywords

References

  • Adizes, I. (1999). Corporate Lifecycles, Prentice Hall New Jersey.
  • Adler, P. S. (1987). Culture-shock and the cross-cultural learning experience, Newbury, Cambridge.
  • Ashby, W. R. (1956) (reprinted 1961). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Methuen, London.
  • Bales, R. F. (1965). The equilibrium problem in small groups in A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta and R. F. Bales (eds.) Small Groups: Studies in social interaction, Knopf, New York.
  • Birch, D., Haggerty, A. & Parsons, W. (1995). Corporate evolution. Cambridge, MA.: Cognetics, Inc.
  • Budd, J. M. & Hill, H. (2007). The Cognitive and Social Lives of Paradigms in Information Science. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science, Ed. Clement Arsenault and Kimiz Dalkir, 11, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.
  • Casti, J. L. (1989). Paradigms Lost. Abacus, London.
  • Cheng, J. (2007). Critical issues in international management research: an agenda for future advancement. European Journal of International Management, 1(1/2), 23-38.
  • Daft, R. L. (2008). Organization Theory and Design . 10th edition, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH, USA.
  • Dahl, S. (2000). Communications and Culture Transformation: Cultural Diversity, Globalization and Cultural Convergence, ECE, London. Also see www.stephweb.com/capstone/1.htm
  • Drazin, R. & Kazanjian, R. K. (1990). A reanalysis of Miller and Friesen's life cycle data. Strategic Management Journal , 11, 319-325.
  • Earley, P. C. & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: individual interactions across cultures, Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA.
  • Espejo, R., (1993). Management of Complexity in Problem Solving in Espejo, R., Schwaninger, M., Organizational Fitness: corporate effectiveness through management cybernetics. Campus/Verlag, Frankfurt/New York.
  • Fischer, K. (1992). The Social and Cognitive Dynamics of Paradigmatic Change: A Scientometric Approach Science in Context , 5: 51-96, Cambridge University Press.
  • FuntowiczS, O. & Ravetz, R. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures : 739–755.
  • Hessels, L. K. & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy , 37, 740–760.
  • Iles, P., Feng, Y. & Hao, B. (2011). Re-conceptualizing Distributed Leadership: Knowledge Management, Information Integration and the Leader-Task-Context Framework, BAM Conference Aston September 2011.
  • Jung, C. G. (1936). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Collected Works , 9, 99-104.
  • Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1991). Organizations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on Organizational Behaviour and Change, Jossey-Bass Inc (a Wiley publication), NY, USA.
  • Kihlstrom, J. F. & Cantor, N. (2000). Social Intelligence, R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence, 2nd ed. (pp. 359-379). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Also see http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/social_intelligence.htm, accessed November 2011.
  • Kluver, J., Stoica, C. & Schimdt, J. (2003). Formal Models, Social Theory and Computer Simulations: Some Methodical Reflections. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2).
  • Kuhn, S. T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review , 24(4), 691710.
  • Lester, D. L., Parnell, J. A. & Carraher, S. (2003). Organizational Life Cycle: A Five-Stage Empirical Scale. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 11(4), 339 – 354.
  • Levie, J. & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2008). From “Stages” of Business Growth to a Dynamic States Model of Entrepreneurial Growth and Change, Working paper, University of Strathclyde Hunter Centre.
  • Massey, C., Lewis, K., Warriner, V., Harris, C., Tweed, D., Cheyene, J. & Cameron, A. (2006). Exploring firm development in the context of New Zealand SMEs. Small Enterprise Research: The Journal of SEAANZ , 14(1), 1 – 13.
  • Maturana, H. R. (1975). The Organization of the Living: A Theory of the Living Organization. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 7, 313-332.
  • McCann, J. E. (1991). Patterns of growth, competitive technology, and financial strategies in young ventures. Journal of Business Venturing , 6, 189-208.
  • McMahon, R. G. P. (2001). Deriving an Empirical Development Taxonomy for Manufacturing SMEs using data from Australia's Business Longitudinal Survey. Small Business Economics , 17,197 – 212.
  • Meehl, P. E. (1997). The problem is epistemology, not statistics: Replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numeral predictions. In: Harlow, Lisa, Ed; Mulaik, Stanley, Ed; & Steiger, James, ED. What if there were no significance tests? 393 – 425.
  • Miller, D. & Friesen-Peter, H. (1984). A Longitudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle. Management Science , 30(10), 1161-1183.
  • Montangero, J. & Maurice-Naville, D. (1997). Piaget, or The Advance of Knowledge: An Overview and Glossary. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
  • Parsons, T. (1937). Structure of Social Action. McGraw Hill.
  • Perényi, Á., Selvarajah, C. & Muthaly, S. (2011). Investigating the Applicability of the Firm Life-Cycle Model to SMEs in the Hungarian ICT Sector, Conference on Emerging Forms of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, held at the Small Business Advancement National Center, Sweden.
  • Phelps, R., Adams, R. & Bessant, J. (2007). Life cycles of growing organizations: A review with implications for knowledge and learning. International Journal of Management Reviews , 9(1), 1-30.
  • Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence . New York: Harcourt and Brace.
  • Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child . New York: Basic Books.
  • Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. London: Flamingo.
  • Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence. Management Science, 29, 33-51
  • Raffa, M., Zollo, G. & Caponi, R. (1996). The development process of small firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 8, 359-371.
  • Rauterberg, G. W. M. (2000). How to characterize a research line for user-system interaction. IPO Annual Progress Report , 35, 66-75.
  • Ravetz, J. R. (1999). What is Post-Normal Science. Futures , 31(7), 647-653.
  • Rickards, T. & Moger, S. (2000). Creative leadership processes in project team development: An alternative to Tuckman’s stage model. British Journal of Management , 11(4),273-283.
  • Rink, D. R. & Swan, J. E. (1979). Product life-cycle research: A literature Review. Journal of Business Research , 7(3),219 -247.
  • Rummel, R. (1979). Understanding Conflict and War. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Also see www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CIP.CHAP8.HTM, accessed February 2009.
  • Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Cultural values in organizations: insights for Europe. European Journal of International Management , 1(3), 176–190.
  • Schwarz, E. (2009). Values: Cultural and Individual. Chapter to appear in S. M. Breugelmans, A. Chasiotis, & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology, Cambridge University Press.
  • Schwarz, E. (1997). Summary of The Main Features of a Holistic Metamodel to Interpret the Emergence, The Evolution and The Functioning of Viable Self-Organizing Systems, www.autogenesis.ch/Res1997.html, accessed January 2009.
  • Stone, W. R. & Heany, D. F. (1984). Dealing with a corporate identity crisis. Long Range Planning , 17(1), 10-18.
  • Stubbart, C. & Smalley, R. (1999). The deceptive allure of stage models of strategic processes. Journal of Management Inquiry , 8(3), 273-286.
  • Sørnes, J. O., Stephens, K. K., Sætre, A. S. & Browning, L. D. (2004). The Reflexivity between ICTs and Business Culture: Applying Hofstede’s Theory to Compare Norway and the United States. Informing Science Journal, 7, originally presented in 2003 at the Informing Science and IT Education Conference in Pori, Finland http://2003.insite.nu.
  • Sorokin, P. A. (1939-1942). Social and Cultural Dynamics (in 4 volumes). N.Y.: Amer. Book. Co. Re-published in 1962 by Bedminster Press.
  • Smith, A. M. J. (2011). Exploring the farm enterprise through a business life cycle, The9th Rural Entrepreneurship Conference, 3rd – 24th June, 2011, Nottingham Business School, UK.
  • Stacey, R. (1993). Managing Chaos. Kogan Page Ltd., London.
  • Staw, B. M. (1991). Dressing Up Like an Organization: When Psychological Theories can Explain Organizational Action. Journal of Management , 17(4), 805-819.
  • Sundarasaradula, D. & Hasan, H. (2004). A unified open systems model for explaining organizational change, Conference paper presented at the Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising Workshop at The Australian National University, 16-17 July. Accessed November 2011, from http://epress.anu.edu.au/info_systems/mobile_devices/ch11.html.
  • Tofler, A. (1980). The Third Wave , Bantam Book published in association with William Morrow & Co., Inc.
  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). 'Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin , 63(6), 384-399.
  • Yolles, M. I. (1999). Management Systems: A Viable Approach. London: Financial Times Pitman.
  • Yolles, M. I. (2000). Organizations, Complexity, and Viable Knowledge Management. Kybernetes , 29(9/10), 1202-1222.
  • Yolles, M., Fink, G. & Dauber, D. (2011a). Organizations as emergent normative personalities: part 1, the concepts. Kybernetes, (5/6), 635 – 669.
  • Yolles, M., Fink, G. & Dauber, D. (2011). Understanding Normative Personality. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal , 42(6)447 – 480.
  • Yolles, M. & Sawagvudcharee, O. (2017). Conceptual Development on Strategic Management for Organizational Improvement. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts , 17(3) 17-26.
  • Yolles, M., Sawagvudcharee, O. & Fink, G. (2010). Understanding Corporate Paradigm Change, International Association of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management (IACCM). University of Lancashire, Preston.
  • Yolles, M. I., Frieden, R. & Kemp, G. (2008). Toward a formal theory of socioculture: A yin-yang informationbased theory of social change. Kybernetes , 37(7), 850-909.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Sawagvudcharee, O., Yolles, M., Fink, G., Iles, P., Bunchapattanasakda, C., & Limpabandhu, B. (2018). Understanding Corporate Life-Cycles. Journal of Education and Vocational Research, 8(4), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.22610/jevr.v8i4.2157

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2018 Ousanee Sawagvudcharee, Maurice Yolles, Gerhard Fink, Paul Iles, Chanchai Bunchapattanasakda, Buncha Limpabandhu (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 8 No. 4 (2017) Service Quality, Organisations & Skill Development View issue contents

Published

2018-04-16

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Education and Vocational Research welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission