WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:02.220
Robert Jungmann: Hello, everybody!

2
00:00:02.690 --> 00:00:06.639
Robert Jungmann:  I think. I

3
00:00:06.650 --> 00:00:32.479
Robert Jungmann: can welcome all of you. not just in the name of Tiago and me, but in the name of our C. 17 as well. thanks to all the presenters, for handing in such valuable proposals. we will have 5 presentations on Meta, theorizing

4
00:00:32.750 --> 00:00:36.160
Robert Jungmann: in organizational sociology.

5
00:00:37.490 --> 00:00:48.350
Robert Jungmann: We will have 15 min of presentation and 5 min of discussion directly after the presentations.

6
00:00:48.920 --> 00:01:01.189
Robert Jungmann: The basic idea behind this session, was to discuss new ways of meta, theorizing fruitful perspectives

7
00:01:01.230 --> 00:01:26.890
Robert Jungmann: for organizational sociology and the fact presentations selected present a plurality of such valuable and new perspectives, and we start with by sa offering a site. Since this is science thesis of new institutionalist, and

8
00:01:26.970 --> 00:01:35.900
Robert Jungmann: the second presentation will be by run out staples. presenting translation theory.

9
00:01:35.920 --> 00:01:38.280
Robert Jungmann: as a perspective.

10
00:01:38.410 --> 00:01:56.509
Robert Jungmann: Hmm, we will have a third presentation by Takus Yaakov, who tries to explore the potential of a rhythmetic organization. Theory grounded in Dylas and Khutari.

11
00:01:56.540 --> 00:02:09.360
Robert Jungmann: for us. Presentation will be by amend that gross discussing Delus and Gutari as well in combination with actor network, the rising.

12
00:02:09.480 --> 00:02:14.860
Robert Jungmann: and we will have a fifth presentation by Lynnie Barua.

13
00:02:14.870 --> 00:02:17.959
Robert Jungmann: and she will pretend. And

14
00:02:18.130 --> 00:02:22.140
Robert Jungmann: into yeah and injured

15
00:02:23.110 --> 00:02:26.070
Robert Jungmann: approach

16
00:02:27.240 --> 00:02:29.929
Robert Jungmann: to organization theory.

17
00:02:30.700 --> 00:02:31.760
Robert Jungmann: So

18
00:02:33.320 --> 00:02:36.650
Robert Jungmann: I think we can start with the first

19
00:02:36.930 --> 00:02:42.260
Robert Jungmann: presenter.

20
00:02:42.750 --> 00:02:44.370
Robert Jungmann: the floor is

21
00:02:44.670 --> 00:02:50.450
Robert Jungmann: yours, and I will try to give you signs to not do the same.

22
00:02:50.580 --> 00:02:53.629
Robert Jungmann: I think so. Yeah.

23
00:02:53.770 --> 00:02:59.650
Robert Jungmann: 5 min. 2 min. and

24
00:03:00.660 --> 00:03:03.060
Robert Jungmann: yeah. then time. Step.

25
00:03:05.020 --> 00:03:09.680
Ok. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone for coming.

26
00:03:13.200 --> 00:03:15.010
So

27
00:03:16.570 --> 00:03:17.309
here we go.

28
00:03:28.900 --> 00:03:30.069
And you, if

29
00:03:30.720 --> 00:03:56.850
if I don't see the sign, just let me know, please. And my mates with Jo. I'm from the University of California Riverside, and today is my reply to present my work. But I like to mention that I had the impression that each of us only had the 10 min, and to give our presentation. So I turned my title a little bit. I don't want to give all the audience the high expectation.

30
00:03:56.940 --> 00:04:05.380
And also I like to mention, since submitting our paper to this conference, and it has been accepted and also published

31
00:04:05.390 --> 00:04:07.770
in the British Journal of Society.

32
00:04:07.990 --> 00:04:11.539
So if you actually have more details on.

33
00:04:11.870 --> 00:04:13.079
please feel free.

34
00:04:13.370 --> 00:04:17.860
I go to that publisher article.

35
00:04:19.150 --> 00:04:25.299
So. What motivated us to write this article

36
00:04:25.790 --> 00:04:28.900
is, we have a quite some positive question.

37
00:04:28.910 --> 00:04:37.319
and the one question is, we all know organizations are very similar to each other and in terms of organizational structures and the practices.

38
00:04:37.660 --> 00:04:44.670
But based on the observations we are, we also notice, organizations are very different.

39
00:04:45.070 --> 00:04:52.779
particularly in terms of differential status. such as among universities, hotels, restaurants, and so forth.

40
00:04:53.750 --> 00:05:02.950
So our organization's different and the similar at the same time. And if so, and how can we explain that

41
00:05:08.860 --> 00:05:12.969
then they lead to another part of the classroom from a theoretical perspective.

42
00:05:13.090 --> 00:05:28.709
We do have an existing theory to explain organizational similarities, or also isomorphism. We all know the new institutional theory has to provide a very influential explanation. Organizational isomorphism

43
00:05:29.580 --> 00:05:31.319
in the organizational field

44
00:05:31.600 --> 00:05:39.360
which was represented by myron rowans in the 1,977 classical piece, and the Dimadjo and the Powers.

45
00:05:39.440 --> 00:05:41.289
1983 classical piece.

46
00:05:41.500 --> 00:05:45.939
and, for example, in Dimadjuan Powell's 1,983 classical piece.

47
00:05:46.080 --> 00:05:52.570
They explicitly ask this important question, what makes organizations so similar?

48
00:05:53.690 --> 00:06:01.940
And they articulated the 3 institutional mechanisms to highlight, the coercive normative, and the mimatic isomorphism.

49
00:06:02.130 --> 00:06:04.289
It has been very influential.

50
00:06:04.310 --> 00:06:15.150
So in this paper we we mainly pursue a dialogue with the modern Powers classical piece, and particularly the 3 institutional mechanisms.

51
00:06:16.380 --> 00:06:26.290
But interestingly, and we don't have an existing theoretical framework to explain a differential organizational status in a field.

52
00:06:27.230 --> 00:06:35.680
However, in this aspect, we think, produce a field theory is really promising. and because of the theory

53
00:06:36.050 --> 00:06:42.170
emphasizes hierarchical structure and stratified positions along a vertical dimension.

54
00:06:43.360 --> 00:06:45.090
Then this little

55
00:06:45.630 --> 00:07:00.190
a theoretical challenge. How can we reconcile these 2 field theories with very different views? And how can we develop an institutional framework to explain both organizational similarities and the differences in the field. Simultaneously

56
00:07:00.830 --> 00:07:09.379
to address these questions, we develop a theoretical framework on the dual institutional process in an institutional field.

57
00:07:10.170 --> 00:07:16.889
We argue that institutions consisting of regulations, norms, rules and classifications.

58
00:07:17.140 --> 00:07:19.560
generate the integration process

59
00:07:20.610 --> 00:07:22.170
leading to

60
00:07:23.180 --> 00:07:29.629
isomorphism in basic structure and reform and identity. Yeah, an organizational field

61
00:07:29.740 --> 00:07:33.830
as emphasized by the new institutional theory. But we further

62
00:07:34.070 --> 00:07:45.709
argue that at the same time institutions in gender, the differentiation process resulting in differential status and the status hierarchy among organizations.

63
00:07:46.530 --> 00:07:54.739
and the integration and the differentiation process. They are interdependent and intertwined, which are sustained by

64
00:07:54.820 --> 00:08:03.300
the regulative norm team and the cognitive forces which are conceptualized by Richard Scott and those 3 institutional appealers

65
00:08:05.920 --> 00:08:14.330
so based on this theoretical framework, we like to pursue a dialogue with a dimension, and the pulse class of piece. Particularly.

66
00:08:14.690 --> 00:08:17.310
they're famous

67
00:08:17.850 --> 00:08:24.870
theoretic theorization of 3 institutional mechanisms leading to

68
00:08:26.670 --> 00:08:31.470
coercive, normative and the mimatic isomorphism.

69
00:08:32.270 --> 00:08:37.960
And then we first articulated the corresponding institutional mechanisms

70
00:08:38.740 --> 00:08:43.549
leading to differential organizational status

71
00:08:43.880 --> 00:08:53.640
as the other side of the coin in this dual institutional process. so we developed a series of propositions

72
00:08:54.740 --> 00:09:05.379
on the differential status as an organizational level first. And here. first, we pursue a dialogue with the madr in the powers.

73
00:09:05.890 --> 00:09:09.669
coercive isomorphism and based on the regulative

74
00:09:09.730 --> 00:09:10.810
power.

75
00:09:10.940 --> 00:09:21.350
and we highlight the regulative differentiation process. We argue that institutions further provide the regulative framework and the governance structure to differentiate

76
00:09:21.360 --> 00:09:27.340
organizational status through authority. formality, and the status computation.

77
00:09:27.820 --> 00:09:38.130
we draw insights from produced emphasis on capital, which is very important in developing the authority of formality in a field, and also affects

78
00:09:38.580 --> 00:09:41.699
the status computation.

79
00:09:42.780 --> 00:09:52.389
So our proposition, a one associated with authority to formality, states a higher organizational status is associated with and certified by our

80
00:09:52.440 --> 00:10:01.629
a highly ranked category, a higher standard, a higher-ranking reading and ranking, or an institutional accolade such as a war

81
00:10:02.690 --> 00:10:13.720
proposition, a 2 associated with the status competition states an organization possessing a higher amount of capital is more likely to acquire a higher organization status through status computation.

82
00:10:22.910 --> 00:10:28.740
Next, we pursue a dialogue with the major in the power's normative isomorphism based on professionalization.

83
00:10:28.850 --> 00:10:40.149
We highlight the normative differentiation process. We argue that the professionalization further involves a differentiation process through cultivation of different norms and values

84
00:10:40.190 --> 00:10:47.239
and status positions are often clustered through training and networking in the professionalization process.

85
00:10:47.920 --> 00:10:51.339
Withdraw the insight from Bodhill's emphasis on homology.

86
00:10:51.610 --> 00:10:59.110
i. E. The structural similarities in the distribution of positions between spaces within our cross fields.

87
00:10:59.640 --> 00:11:10.039
Our proposition is 3 related to training stays that the higher the proportion of employees receiving professional training, credentials and licenses.

88
00:11:10.060 --> 00:11:17.590
particularly from elite educational institutions. The higher the status of a professional organization

89
00:11:17.920 --> 00:11:19.710
proposition, a 4

90
00:11:19.890 --> 00:11:23.839
sorted with the networking States association with

91
00:11:24.380 --> 00:11:26.050
are the high status.

92
00:11:26.470 --> 00:11:34.379
Professional groups, organizational partners or clients helps a professional organization gain a higher status in the field.

93
00:11:36.080 --> 00:11:51.490
Finally, we pursue the dialogue with and dimadju in the power. Cinematic isomorphism derived or driven by the uncertainty and the Simmons and Frank Dobbin's conceptualization on emulation in

94
00:11:51.490 --> 00:12:11.370
leading to organizational isomorphism, we highlighted the cognitive differentiation process. We argue that the cognitive mechanism generates a status differentiation through classified identification and selective emulation which are mediated by actors. Various habitats in the field. Again, drawing inside from Buddhist

95
00:12:11.550 --> 00:12:15.890
proposition, a 5 was sorted with with classified identification states.

96
00:12:15.910 --> 00:12:37.900
The more distinct and exclusive the identification is, the more likely the organization will secure a higher status proposition. A 6 associated with the selective mimulation states an organization emulating the prominent model with an aligned cognitive orientation habitus is more likely to establish a higher organizational status.

97
00:12:39.130 --> 00:12:42.470
After dividing these 6 propositions

98
00:12:42.570 --> 00:12:54.189
and on differential differential status at the organizational level, we further develop a set of propositions on how field

99
00:12:55.040 --> 00:12:56.330
characteristics.

100
00:12:57.030 --> 00:13:00.680
In fact, the overall status of differentiation patterns

101
00:13:01.310 --> 00:13:13.110
a general proposition is the more integrated a field is. How many minutes? Oh, file. Okay, thank you.

102
00:13:13.150 --> 00:13:19.230
Thank you very much. The more integrated field is, the clearer the status. Hierarchy is among organizations.

103
00:13:20.470 --> 00:13:23.790
So again, we develop a

104
00:13:24.090 --> 00:13:31.259
 2 hypothesis and a regulative normative.

105
00:13:31.720 --> 00:13:33.990
and the cognitive differentiation

106
00:13:34.110 --> 00:13:56.449
at the field level. So regulative differentiation. The proposition B one states the more refined institutional formality imposed by a more centralized regulative power in a field. The clearer the status hierarchy among organizations. Proposition B, 2 stays, the more restricted to the status competition in the field. The clearer the status hierarchy among organizations.

107
00:14:00.170 --> 00:14:05.489
normative differentiation at the field level, I mean proposition p. 3. Stays.

108
00:14:05.570 --> 00:14:07.240
the greater they extend

109
00:14:07.290 --> 00:14:23.370
of professional education and the training in the field, the clear and the status hierarchy. Among organization's proposition before is, there is a more refined status. Differentiation among elite organizations at the upper level of of of a field.

110
00:14:23.800 --> 00:14:35.790
Finally, cognitive differentiation at the field level proposition B. 5 States the more codified the knowledge in the field, the clearer the status hierarchy of an organization's proposition. B. 6

111
00:14:35.950 --> 00:14:42.790
is the few of the legitimate models in the field, the clearer the status hierarchy among organizations.

112
00:14:44.150 --> 00:14:46.250
and finally.

113
00:14:47.920 --> 00:14:58.180
discussions. We believe what we're a theoretical framework advance is the new institutionalism, because the new institutionalism has been criticized

114
00:14:58.280 --> 00:15:01.790
for having a lot of weaknesses

115
00:15:02.040 --> 00:15:05.410
from that perspective. We think our framework.

116
00:15:06.460 --> 00:15:11.239
Can you reach the explanations on heterogeneous organizational practices?

117
00:15:11.490 --> 00:15:25.409
It can highlight the political process and the constant power of struggles based on the interest in the agency is emphasis's status computation as a crucial mechanism, driving organizational and institutional changes.

118
00:15:26.080 --> 00:15:32.390
We also believe it can advances the research of status in organizational and economic sociology.

119
00:15:32.860 --> 00:15:54.280
In particular, we pursue the dialogue with Plutonia's an influential network perspective on the economic signaling argument. In studying organizational status and in our framework we offered a macro-level experimentation, a systematic differential status among large number of organizations in a field.

120
00:15:54.490 --> 00:15:59.990
but we still think our institutional approach is complementary with the Podoni's network approach.

121
00:16:00.270 --> 00:16:14.210
So we call the institutional institution and the category-based status as a first-order status, where the so the network basis set us as a second order status. We also emphasize the symbolic value of status in an organizational context.

122
00:16:16.170 --> 00:16:20.860
And finally, when we think our study in reaches.

123
00:16:21.030 --> 00:16:23.020
But it's

124
00:16:23.490 --> 00:16:31.810
the theory, because Bhudill has mainly focus on individuals as a social actors while paying little attention to organizations

125
00:16:32.040 --> 00:16:37.770
by connecting Bradil's work with the new institutionalism and the research of organizational status

126
00:16:37.860 --> 00:16:44.870
in economic and organizational sociology, we hope to further

127
00:16:45.150 --> 00:16:49.310
the integration videos work with Anglo-saxon sociology

128
00:16:49.500 --> 00:17:05.169
finally overall. While most of the extent studies focus on status, differentiation at the individual group, occupational or society level or institutional analysis from a Buddhistian perspective as a crucial piece on organizational status.

129
00:17:05.700 --> 00:17:16.409
So we hope overall it can help develop a holistic framework to appreciate the status differentiation and the social hierarchy across multiple levels.

130
00:17:16.980 --> 00:17:20.400
So I will stop here and thank you all very much.

131
00:17:22.550 --> 00:17:23.760
Really.

132
00:17:24.660 --> 00:17:29.619
So any any questions.

133
00:17:30.630 --> 00:17:36.709
Yeah, let's see, let's bring them back so that we can see the oops.

134
00:17:37.310 --> 00:17:39.140
online.

135
00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:46.539
Robert Jungmann: Yeah, I yeah. So I have a microphone over it and can offer it.

136
00:17:46.590 --> 00:17:57.220
Robert Jungmann: that is 9. So you take questions now or at the end, yeah, yeah, no. Okay. So we have about 5 min for questions.

137
00:17:58.510 --> 00:17:59.990
Number one.

138
00:18:00.180 --> 00:18:03.140
Robert Jungmann: Robert and Ronnett.

139
00:18:09.590 --> 00:18:12.319
like,

140
00:18:14.470 --> 00:18:33.270
 okay.

141
00:18:33.500 --> 00:18:34.250
Skype.

142
00:18:36.860 --> 00:18:39.030
that say University of

143
00:18:44.520 --> 00:18:53.489
 or it's not on

144
00:18:53.600 --> 00:19:16.819
this one. Yeah, but you you heard him? Right? Yeah, I heard you. But did you mention the one scholar? And then he's right. Did you mention one scholar. No, no, no. You mentioned this. you all focus on the status competition. Yeah. I think the how to say, I like to mention these. because in this paper we'll mainly pursue dialogue with the margin, the Powell and their classical piece in 1,983. Actually in there

145
00:19:16.820 --> 00:19:34.420
they kind of downplay the competition. They say the competition has been theorized by Max Weber in the marketplace. They emphasize the so-called institutional forces leading to isomorphism, so they can dumply that. But we think.

146
00:19:34.480 --> 00:19:58.459
if you look around as you mentioned, the status, competition is a problem. It is everywhere in the field. So I think that that's very important to incorporate that. And and we put this under the regulative differentiation, because and some competition seem to be voluntary. But if you look closely, they are all regulated. They are all based on institutional rules

147
00:19:58.860 --> 00:20:26.400
regulations, right standards, criteria, and so on. So forth. And the certification you name it. So that's why there. So we think it's very important to to put it there. And I know. And that we do. Can we draw the insight from. But you do. You emphasize the the capital? So what it will how to say, what we will determine, what factors will determine the outcome of. That's computation. One crucial factor is the

148
00:20:26.780 --> 00:20:27.780
A,

149
00:20:28.040 --> 00:20:31.490
the capital different amount of capital organizations

150
00:20:32.490 --> 00:20:39.119
possessed. You know. You name it economic. cultural right.

151
00:20:39.620 --> 00:20:48.840
the the capital and even social capital. So I think that is important. I don't know if I I address your question. Yeah, but but a very important question. Thank you very much.

152
00:20:51.230 --> 00:21:01.610
Thank you. Thank you for your very convincing argumentation. And I really appreciate adopting budget for organization studies.

153
00:21:02.060 --> 00:21:15.499
I think I have 1 one. I'm struggling with 1 point. As you mentioned, Bodier is more focused on actors and structure, and he doesn't talk much about organizations

154
00:21:15.920 --> 00:21:43.270
more or less in a sense of institutions, so to say, and but for, in my sense of reading of what you, the crucial point for body in his praxeology, is that structure. goes through the body so, and the embodiment of habitus is the crucial point where society shows up in in in the, in the personal actor, and I'm not quite sure if

155
00:21:43.470 --> 00:21:54.170
we can talk about organizations as maybe we can as as bodies in the sense of audio. So how do you tackle this. So is this for another paper?

156
00:21:54.810 --> 00:22:04.090
Oh, Ok, so you say the embodiment you mean. So because a phone somebody has the main focus on individuals as the social actors. Then to what extent this can be

157
00:22:04.110 --> 00:22:33.109
applicable to organizations? Right? I think that this is a great question. Actually, in recent years, in our paper, we we've revealed some study. In recent years there have been quite some organizational Socialists. They call on incorporating what deals field theory to organizational studies. And they they they try and from different perspective. And and I think that is a that is a good. It is a good question. But I I do think, for example.

158
00:22:33.110 --> 00:22:52.000
for example, habitats help as individuals and possess the habitats. But if you look around the organizations, different types of organizations based on their status, so based on their age, they also they behave differently. In a sense, they also have kind of

159
00:22:52.540 --> 00:22:53.540
different

160
00:22:54.180 --> 00:23:00.399
habiters. If we borrow the same term, actually in 1,980 or not in 1,983, but 1,991.

161
00:23:00.560 --> 00:23:20.689
You know the module, and how, on the modulus to add it? A very influential book in new institutionalism they have very important, they actually in that in their introduction that is often called the Orange Book. It's very influential, Eerly added. The book is volume. Is not that influential? But they they discuss about Bodieu.

162
00:23:20.690 --> 00:23:36.019
and they they also have a full note. Talk about, you know, habitats is very important. We can incorporate that into the organizational studies, for example. So in recent years quite some organized societies to wouldn't argue that it. But there was a field series

163
00:23:36.180 --> 00:24:05.070
comparable compatible with organizational studies. And also, I want to say in the, in, the, in the figure I showed here. And we call this as an institutional field. And actually, we we try to. We don't use the term the organizational field. That much because we try to how to say. I think personally, this framework integration differentiation can be, you know, applicable to both.

164
00:24:05.830 --> 00:24:06.850
You know.

165
00:24:07.040 --> 00:24:11.869
arenas, the actors can be individuals.

166
00:24:11.900 --> 00:24:13.650
All can be organizations.

167
00:24:13.660 --> 00:24:17.790
So that's what would be my my point. But but thank you, that's very important.

168
00:24:17.900 --> 00:24:19.060
and absolutely

169
00:24:19.790 --> 00:24:21.260
the I,

170
00:24:21.700 --> 00:24:26.220
Robert Jungmann: maybe. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I last question.

171
00:24:26.530 --> 00:24:41.110
okay, then, very briefly, okay. first of all, for this is really insightful. So my question is, the one of the strongest criticism on the new institutional theory is they underestimate

172
00:24:41.110 --> 00:25:07.079
mit Ctl and the 18 stage role. That's one the second, they many contribute to talking about organizational stability. I think you cover the the organizational actors, the discussion there. So I focus on the second criticism. So the new institutional theory contribute to the organizational stability and don't touch. Talk about a lot about the organizational dynamics. One.

173
00:25:07.080 --> 00:25:21.649
it looks like, your the new addition here. How do you address the organizational stability? And also so organizational dynamics in your new addition to the new institutional theory?

174
00:25:21.770 --> 00:25:26.200
Do you think the differentiation also contributed to the stability?

175
00:25:27.720 --> 00:25:45.529
first of all, thank you very much for for your question, I I think that you you mentioned that maybe 2 weaknesses right? One is the agency and the interest. Actually, I mentioned that towards the end, actually, let's go back to the other scholars. The question now, the status competition, you know. That's

176
00:25:45.530 --> 00:26:07.280
If we talk about. If you only focus on the asymptotism, then it's very hard to talk about the agency in the interest to power, political process, so on and so forth. It's very hard to talk about the the changes. Our organization will change the institutional changes. However, if we we say that the organizations are not only similar to each other, but also different.

177
00:26:07.290 --> 00:26:08.679
they competed with each other

178
00:26:08.710 --> 00:26:14.210
to gain the status, then the interest and the agency that is inherent in there.

179
00:26:14.210 --> 00:26:42.480
And also the it's not just, it's really dynamic. Now, it's not just like a stable, never change right? But rather is A is A is a Floyd, for example, because of the status computation. The senses hierarchy can change right over time. So that's why I would say, we highlight. One thing is the the status. Computation is, the problem is everywhere. So that's this is a key driving force to understand organizational changes, and then also institutional changes in the field, one

180
00:26:42.480 --> 00:26:48.080
right? And sometimes, for example, the

181
00:26:48.260 --> 00:27:18.970
 the reshuffled. For for example, organizational status in the field. There's a harbinger of the changes or overhaul the field, you know. So that's why I'm thinking, by incorporating this a a different view. The field theory is, it's be much easier to incorporate those things, to address and address the weaknesses in the new institutionalism. You know. I don't know if that's answer your question or not. But yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Why

182
00:27:19.030 --> 00:27:22.230
awesome? Thank you.

183
00:27:25.650 --> 00:27:26.500
Robert Jungmann: This

184
00:27:27.240 --> 00:27:29.940
Robert Jungmann: great. Okay. Good night.

185
00:27:30.680 --> 00:27:35.029
Robert Jungmann: Next. Presentation. Sorry the Floss. Yours

186
00:27:36.310 --> 00:27:39.120
moment I have to start my own timer.

187
00:27:42.310 --> 00:27:43.040
Thank you.

188
00:27:43.190 --> 00:27:44.910
You're in the role, aren't you?

189
00:27:45.020 --> 00:27:53.289
Hmm. You're in the room. Yeah, we we were told to ensure that someone in the room assists a little bit. So

190
00:27:55.000 --> 00:27:56.939
kind of me, most of

191
00:27:57.220 --> 00:27:57.980
fix.

192
00:27:59.250 --> 00:28:03.300
So good morning, everybody once again.

193
00:28:03.410 --> 00:28:08.360
 thank you very much for having me

194
00:28:08.450 --> 00:28:13.060
and thanks for taking your time. And this morning, on the on the last day of the Congress.

195
00:28:13.160 --> 00:28:18.819
Just a short disclaimer. Before I'm starting.

196
00:28:19.130 --> 00:28:41.959
I'm using some kind of terms that are actually not published in English, only in German. So I've tried to translate them. So it's all about, mostly about translation. So But we'll see how it works out so, and if there is a term you you don't know just I raised an eyebrow. And yeah, you know what to do. So

197
00:28:42.660 --> 00:29:06.999
During the last few days. we heard a lot about inspiring presentations. And following this common F of new entanglements, as some conference title says, and I don't want to talk about new in time elements. So I want to discuss in my presentation how organization is knit into society.

198
00:29:12.710 --> 00:29:13.510
So

199
00:29:13.830 --> 00:29:25.630
 and theoretically, we can reformulate this into organization solves what kind of societal problems or challenges

200
00:29:25.960 --> 00:29:55.019
depending on a sociological background or traditional tradition. Organizational theory was very productive working on this question, and I assumed that most sociological thought on organization wouldn't doubt that it is a sort of in the middle phenomenon. But to which problem organization is the answer, and how organizations operationalize answering the problem there we agree to disagree.

201
00:29:55.250 --> 00:30:08.560
Is it about institutions, systems, coordinating actors, actions, just processes? You name it? Well, it's is it necessary to have a homogeneous, archetypal theory of organization?

202
00:30:08.590 --> 00:30:09.779
I guess not.

203
00:30:10.850 --> 00:30:22.479
 but we should find consent on the answer that organization gives for society. It's for its societal function.

204
00:30:22.670 --> 00:30:23.720
and

205
00:30:23.850 --> 00:30:38.660
following the works of Yah hemrin! I understand organization as a sort of societal, he he calls it. It's the first term for Tyler Cup for a, so to say, distributors or converters? things

206
00:30:38.740 --> 00:30:40.879
like. When could it?

207
00:30:40.900 --> 00:30:50.729
And its function of these distributors is to handle work on meaning produced on other levels of society.

208
00:30:51.620 --> 00:31:11.810
Here I have to make a brief exclusive on this underlying theory. I'm utilizing the theory of translational relations. Originally it was published in 2,006 by him! Rena and German sociological theorist. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, it's not translated into English

209
00:31:11.920 --> 00:31:37.009
at the moment. His explicit objective is to overcome the micro microphone and develop a social theory and theory of society that integrates structure and social practice. So his main focus is on integration. He uses translation, process, or the translational term as a question of How do social and entities integrate to one another? One

210
00:31:37.350 --> 00:31:52.760
 And therefore his theory is built on social systems theory on the one hand, and American new pragmatism on the other. So some, some very easy theories in the background.

211
00:31:52.940 --> 00:31:56.780
The heart of the theory is the problem of translation

212
00:31:56.830 --> 00:32:03.350
in a nutshell. Every social entity produces works on meaning.

213
00:32:03.370 --> 00:32:23.789
and as these entities, like function functional systems, organizations, min use or subjects are practically intertwined meaning moves around. But that's the problem. It cannot be transferred directly. It cannot be handed over like some box with some content to your seatmate.

214
00:32:24.230 --> 00:32:32.239
Every social entity has to translate meaning from any other into its own realm of meaning.

215
00:32:32.360 --> 00:32:43.670
This is extremely simplified, but hopefully it will help to imagine what I mean when I'm talking of translations. In the further course of my presentation.

216
00:32:44.090 --> 00:33:00.489
Mark Mullers, another German scholar recently discusses the specific mode of handling meaning by organization as re-specification and explication. So it's 2 different directions.

217
00:33:00.550 --> 00:33:03.400
And this assumes

218
00:33:03.610 --> 00:33:23.599
that organisation, and especially modern organisation as a result of in societal evolution is capable of translating meaning in a specific way. In the one direction, re-specification indicates that the organization is able to translate generalized societal imperatives

219
00:33:23.650 --> 00:33:39.280
like values, for example, into concrete modes of action or procedures and explication points to the ability of organization to generalize meaning, especially, turn tacit knowledge into explicit rules or procedures, for example.

220
00:33:41.880 --> 00:33:44.350
and historically

221
00:33:44.540 --> 00:34:00.799
modern organization unfolded a new level of transnational translational potential. In my sense of view, when the processes of re-specification explication were institutionalized within a specific rational concept we call bureaucracy.

222
00:34:01.350 --> 00:34:09.280
and most prominently described by Max Weaver, as you all know, and widely renowned as Via I. The in famous iron cage

223
00:34:09.690 --> 00:34:25.749
 Modern organization adopted this corset and it dispersed throughout public services economically. Organizations also Ngos and other honorary organizational charities would be an interesting question to discuss about. If there is any type of

224
00:34:25.930 --> 00:34:32.209
organization nowadays, this works without any kind of bureaucratic principles.

225
00:34:32.410 --> 00:34:49.400
I doubt not neo-institutionalism, as we all know, showed very comprehensively how isomorphisms as such shape, organization, and fields, and this may also explain why the bureaucratic layout, so to say, was such an overwhelming success

226
00:34:49.470 --> 00:34:59.770
and so bureaucratic organization provides a mechanism of translating complex meaning for and in and differentiating society, does it?

227
00:35:00.910 --> 00:35:03.290
Obviously. yes.

228
00:35:03.480 --> 00:35:11.940
but that is not the end. It is more or less the beginning of the problems of modern organizations and organizational theory has to deal with it.

229
00:35:12.210 --> 00:35:21.330
As Robert Merton was among the first scholars in the paper, of course himself, who showed which non-intended effects or side effects bureaucratization can have.

230
00:35:22.220 --> 00:35:37.100
and the characteristics that are decisive for the success of bureaucracy, have as well the potential to totally in cross organizations as you as every one of you knows what I'm speaking about. If you ever tried to

231
00:35:37.440 --> 00:35:42.349
get a new car, a license, or something like this. especially if you're from Germany.

232
00:35:42.400 --> 00:35:44.969
And this leads.

233
00:35:45.130 --> 00:36:01.489
to say the least, to a dramatic loss of efficiency and mistrust in organizations or 2 organizations. And Kal, like pointed out that mistrust as an effect of false management, leads to the avoidance of making decisions.

234
00:36:01.510 --> 00:36:09.270
And if you decide not to decide, organization is on on a path to raging, stand still and introspection.

235
00:36:09.600 --> 00:36:16.480
So, and this is what we see very often in larger organizations or corporations.

236
00:36:17.190 --> 00:36:18.420
So

237
00:36:18.600 --> 00:36:22.559
this would be the last German scholar I'm citing.

238
00:36:23.980 --> 00:36:45.890
Dick Becker. summarized his misery of bureaucracy here, pointing out the role of internal communication. So this is some kind of recidivism, and this internal communication seems to be, as I said, at a residual that cannot be rationalized or translated into procedures, rules, or orders.

239
00:36:46.120 --> 00:36:55.579
And maybe we see here the crucial problem of bureaucracy. That is, that its translational capacity is not evenly spread

240
00:36:55.910 --> 00:37:03.589
the bureaucratic. That bureaucratic organization is maybe a too simple translational technique for a society

241
00:37:03.820 --> 00:37:08.020
that has to deal with uncertainty as

242
00:37:08.110 --> 00:37:12.260
modern organizations or late modern organizations do have

243
00:37:12.810 --> 00:37:25.830
 cal like come to back him coined for this aforementioned internal communication to processes, enactment and sense making

244
00:37:26.240 --> 00:37:55.540
this point to the fact that apparently communication with which is always about meaning always has to deal with long, termterminable, residual of meaning, and that is why these 2 modes of communication are necessary and like conceptualizes these modes with actors in organizations in mind, and less the organization as a social social system itself within complex environments.

245
00:38:01.210 --> 00:38:02.130
But

246
00:38:02.650 --> 00:38:09.879
we can switch back to in terms re-specification application as 2 modes of translating meaning

247
00:38:10.190 --> 00:38:17.500
 suggested before, is the special feature of organizational operations.

248
00:38:17.560 --> 00:38:31.460
And this in mind, we can think of the term uncertainty I used in order to highlight that the bureaucratic mode of translation is maybe too simple, as I said before, for the requirements of a modern society

249
00:38:32.110 --> 00:38:36.290
 and

250
00:38:36.500 --> 00:38:51.660
getting back to backer again. an organization has to be able to make good decisions in Germany called this Kluger decisions because of the translated as like smart decisions. But it's not smart, so good is better.

251
00:38:51.700 --> 00:38:59.989
It's not normative, characteristic, a characterized rava. It is a necessity for decision making. And

252
00:39:00.280 --> 00:39:07.089
within this necessity this good decisions there has to be the chance of realizability built in

253
00:39:07.150 --> 00:39:16.499
in the formal organization a decision making to be prepared for an unknown, uncertain future. And this is something very modern

254
00:39:16.590 --> 00:39:33.189
and bureaucratic. Decisions of bureaucratic decision making usually relies on routine, making things predictable, building on a stable world. I would to say this what it was, it the modern function of bureaucracy, cracking down problems.

255
00:39:33.820 --> 00:39:57.520
But and I propose that in society, where a communication of uncertainty is a constituent part of organizational decision making in order to open up the chance of innovation, so to do something different, and not not to do something. In a way we always knew. The bureaucratic mode of translation may lead us to a dead end.

256
00:40:00.970 --> 00:40:19.019
but empirically. We are still confronted with a lot of bureaucratic behavior and organizations, and all proposed fashionable post-bureaucratic organizations do not have proven yet that they have the translational capacity necessary

257
00:40:19.090 --> 00:40:24.160
to tackle the shallow waters of modern decision making.

258
00:40:25.310 --> 00:40:30.109
So I'd like to finish my presentation with some

259
00:40:30.230 --> 00:40:35.730
 propositions would be too much to say, or some some questions

260
00:40:35.830 --> 00:40:47.159
that shall foster the further discussion in a way. It could be fruitful to think of organization as a demand of modern society to translate meaning

261
00:40:47.360 --> 00:41:06.019
and translational relations get visible in society or in organizations as results, of translational and processes, and as there are effects like bureaucracy, and several else, as written in the propositions above.

262
00:41:07.430 --> 00:41:21.799
 similar to new institutional thinking. Translational relations take strongly into account values and practices, affect translation

263
00:41:22.070 --> 00:41:43.409
in contrast to it. The theory of translational relations conceptualizes translational processes as complex ones. But the outcome is quite unpredictable, and the sociologic, sociologically interesting thing is how different social entities do practically make sense of meaning, of different types of meaning.

264
00:41:43.480 --> 00:41:54.730
and how society or societal systems develop strategies in order to ensure certain understandings of meaning, like using bureaucracy with with bureaucracy.

265
00:41:55.930 --> 00:42:18.039
and I suggest to reflect on translations as simultaneous nonlinear processes of sense making and enactment and organizations as before, distributors. have to translate opposing types of meaning. This is the problem of re-specification and explication.

266
00:42:18.060 --> 00:42:31.200
but some problems remain. The most puzzling. One, as mentioned before can is, how can reversibility be built into decisions?

267
00:42:31.410 --> 00:42:54.409
whose core function is to provide unambiguous connectivity? And if you follow the path of organizing within the rearms of uncertainty, as also mentioned before. Then the concept of shoulds called it the moodle. For truly exactly acting into and future gains more relevance respectively, the temporal dimension of organization.

268
00:42:54.910 --> 00:43:04.909
But how can we conceptualize an organization like that at the temporal organization? And what would this mean? Empirically? What would an organization like this

269
00:43:05.120 --> 00:43:06.200
look like?

270
00:43:08.020 --> 00:43:12.749
So thank you very much for your attention.

271
00:43:12.880 --> 00:43:22.200
and If interested in further discussion, I'd like to take your questions as well. let's get in touch with you via email. Thank you very much.

272
00:43:22.230 --> 00:43:23.340
Thank you.

273
00:43:27.850 --> 00:43:29.320
Robert Jungmann: Thank you all night.

274
00:43:31.400 --> 00:43:33.379
Robert Jungmann: Any questions.

275
00:43:35.340 --> 00:43:36.190
And

276
00:43:36.330 --> 00:43:47.799
another, I really appreciate the talk. one question I have is in your talk. You have many focus on bureaucratic organizations. It seems to me right.

277
00:43:47.840 --> 00:43:59.529
You have only, for example. bureaucracy, or that a certain type of organizations. But if you look around in recent decades, for example.

278
00:44:00.650 --> 00:44:15.550
there are other types of organizations such as Google, apple Amazon uber. You know they do not necessarily feature the bureaucratic structure, but rather they.

279
00:44:16.130 --> 00:44:22.799
you know their strengths are kind of racist in different aspects, such as a team-based work.

280
00:44:22.940 --> 00:44:31.240
flattened structure or algorithms, so on so forth. So I'm just wondering for other types of organizations

281
00:44:31.260 --> 00:44:36.610
to what extent you can apply your framework.

282
00:44:36.860 --> 00:44:40.369
you know, to to different kinds of organizations. Thank you.

283
00:44:41.250 --> 00:44:43.540
Thank you very much for your question.

284
00:44:43.630 --> 00:45:08.709
well, the framework would apply as well, for if if there is some some sort of a post for what to say, post-bureaucratic organization, I doubt this. So And in a sense of way to say. What I'm trying to unfold was that I understand bureaucracy or the bureaucratic organization is a sort of underlying

285
00:45:08.710 --> 00:45:14.570
layout or layer, so and so to say, the principle of

286
00:45:14.570 --> 00:45:30.440
Erez agmoni, of bureaucracy, deep personalization, and sticking to rules. This is something that forms the modern organization for itself, and if you pointed out some examples for very modern organizations, 150,

287
00:45:30.830 --> 00:45:44.020
they are usually like something like platforms of discussing a platforms, networks, and so on and so forth. But if you take a deeper look in the organization, I would

288
00:45:44.690 --> 00:46:09.120
erez agmoni postulate at the moment that there are always some sort of bureaucratic principles within, so no organization, what? What we social entity we would. address this organization can work at the moment, in my sense of you without these bureaucratic principles. So, and this is in the, in the framework, so to say, 150,

289
00:46:09.480 --> 00:46:15.210
a a sort of the relic of

290
00:46:15.300 --> 00:46:25.759
of the development of modern organizations and an answer to our narrative. historic translational processes. And

291
00:46:25.840 --> 00:46:29.610
maybe we are. There are on a

292
00:46:29.690 --> 00:46:42.089
we are in changing times, and something new really, really new is on the horizon, but I don't know how it looks like at the moment. We will have something on blockchain afterwards. I guess

293
00:46:43.660 --> 00:46:46.579
maybe this is on a specific perspective.

294
00:46:47.010 --> 00:46:54.059
Robert Jungmann: Yeah. Robert, we have 2 more questions in the room. Is that okay? Yeah. But briefly, maybe.

295
00:46:54.350 --> 00:47:23.059
Yeah. I try. So I have a question or 2. yeah, you know me too well. so I I will keep some comments for the break. But like one comment, I really want to make, because we talked about bureaucracy in the past days a couple of times, and it it really strikes me that sometimes I have the feeling that we are in a vacuum because

296
00:47:23.060 --> 00:47:42.309
we had this discussion internationally for 2025 years. Now, how bureaucracies are extremely flexible, extremely adaptive, and even empirically. It's so obvious to me. The most bureaucratic organisations you can find are police military fire services.

297
00:47:42.310 --> 00:48:00.159
the most bureaucratic organisations you can find are usually the most flexible organisations you can find. And we have this discussion also in the international literature that points that out and really points out exactly what you're stressing. So this was

298
00:48:00.160 --> 00:48:20.909
a comment that I fully agree with that. I it it's it just doesn't surprise me. That's the the point. And the other comment, if if I may. I wanted to make, is about the translation. I I find this very interesting. But looking at the translation literature internationally especially

299
00:48:20.950 --> 00:48:45.950
for example, like what what you can find. It seems a way more detailed because there's a lot about the context, for example, like the context, realization and deconstruct textualization, because, like it, it depends so much on the context. So, for example, if you are a university, and you take like something from another university or from the academic.

300
00:48:45.950 --> 00:49:02.079
I feel like the the, the transferability, the translatability, the first a lot compared to oh, you want to take something from a firefighting. So, for example, yeah, so I will leave it at that. Sorry

301
00:49:02.080 --> 00:49:15.389
not to get me wrong. I'm a fan of bureaucracy. And that's the kind of thing I'm of puzzling and really interesting that these principles for the success of bureaucracy, depersonalisation, sticking to rules

302
00:49:15.390 --> 00:49:28.499
can be a success, or you named it now, military fire services, police, and so on. But it has also the potential. And this we can also see empirically. It's

303
00:49:28.530 --> 00:49:39.009
to totally stop the organization in drawing decisions or just drawing decisions for some introspectual reasons.

304
00:49:39.030 --> 00:49:47.070
And yes, the translational theory. You're right. It's also about context. But

305
00:49:47.780 --> 00:49:56.559
I have to apologize. I said it at the beginning. It's I'm very. It was very simplified in a way. So so the

306
00:49:56.580 --> 00:49:59.380
and

307
00:50:00.340 --> 00:50:06.830
the original in the book from from you are him. And yeah, context is always a

308
00:50:06.970 --> 00:50:16.910
translational processes are always oriented to context. But for for the translational relations in this book or in this theory.

309
00:50:17.070 --> 00:50:19.209
it's more.

310
00:50:19.410 --> 00:50:35.309
It's integrated. Really, you have something like that. Social practice, in a sense of American new pragmatism and phenomenal phenomenological strand like this is the one tradition and the other tradition is social systems.

311
00:50:35.310 --> 00:50:59.030
all the poetic social systems. And that's where it's getting kind of puzzling. So if you have on the one you think. On the one side we have an auto poetic system that produces its own meaning, being self-referential. But on the other side. You have also something practical and how it's getting intertwined. And that's where this type of translation of process is.

312
00:50:59.180 --> 00:51:01.470
Start to try to.

313
00:51:01.580 --> 00:51:06.359
Robert Jungmann: We really need to to be quick.

314
00:51:06.450 --> 00:51:22.299
okay, I'll be you. You can do it, I'm sure I I can do it. Bang to start with. It'd be interesting to connect your account with pulled to guys work, because, of course, his book is in price of bureaucracy.

315
00:51:22.360 --> 00:51:41.810
 the the name Lumen, of course, comes to mind again, and you use the term self-referential you yourself to just then. But that also relates to another point about how we understand what organizations are about as though I understood that you're emphasizing the idea of responding to societal demands. Right?

316
00:51:42.010 --> 00:52:03.959
But the thing is that organisations are themselves a demand. Right? So I mean, the whole point about self-referentiality is, that is, that is, that organisations are responding to what they themselves need or demand right? So that, and that becomes an independent kind of concern as well as responding to society to

317
00:52:03.960 --> 00:52:13.229
yeah. And that's the point where it's getting theoretically and empirically really interesting. So if you think of organization as a a concept.

318
00:52:13.230 --> 00:52:37.269
so a a specific analytical concept of social entity on the one side, and then you have an empirically, or you have an an organization and organizations evolved, and for sure they are having their own demands and their own interest in something like this, and how this works out and is intertwined in society. This is the the interesting point.

319
00:52:38.070 --> 00:52:40.209
Robert Jungmann: Okay, thank you. Good night.

320
00:52:45.370 --> 00:52:48.350
Robert Jungmann: And then we go on with

321
00:52:48.470 --> 00:52:49.820
Robert Jungmann: Tacos.

322
00:52:50.010 --> 00:52:51.930
Takis Jakob: Your presentation?

323
00:52:52.280 --> 00:52:55.229
Takis Jakob: Yes, I will share it just a second.

324
00:53:04.730 --> 00:53:08.699
Takis Jakob: I'm as my as my sound fine is everything fine?

325
00:53:09.190 --> 00:53:10.100
Robert Jungmann: Yes.

326
00:53:10.430 --> 00:53:12.979
Takis Jakob: okay. Great.

327
00:53:13.140 --> 00:53:17.660
Takis Jakob: yeah, Hello, everyone. I'm I'm very glad to be here today. I'm

328
00:53:17.700 --> 00:53:37.369
Takis Jakob: from the University of here when currently I'm writing. My master's thesis. Under under the guidance of Robert Yuman. on the topic of the potentials of a rhythmetic Theory of the organization. delus Katari, and the decentralized autonomous organization

329
00:53:37.440 --> 00:53:47.559
Takis Jakob:  Which is my The the decentralized autonomous organization is kind of my empirical example on which to develop this rhizomatic theory.

330
00:53:47.860 --> 00:53:52.629
Takis Jakob: Here's the contents of my presentation. First I will talk about the

331
00:53:52.680 --> 00:54:03.979
Takis Jakob: theory itself, then a little bit about what the decentralized autonomous organization actually is, how we can grasp it using a delus and Qatari and my conclusion.

332
00:54:04.090 --> 00:54:23.709
Takis Jakob: for those who don't know these theorists and the Liz and Katari to a French philosophers. Katie was mainly up psychoanalyst. But they engaged together philosophically, and the historical context of the work were the May 1,968 protests in Paris, which were kind of

333
00:54:23.760 --> 00:54:27.039
Takis Jakob: a new form of protests which fell out of the

334
00:54:27.270 --> 00:54:44.519
Takis Jakob: usual paradigm, and it was kind of a spirit of revolution, of something new. And that's the theoretical context was kind of a disillusionment with both, so to say, bourgeois positivism, and also orthodox Marxism and Freudianism, which was hip at the time

335
00:54:44.780 --> 00:54:59.249
Takis Jakob: and the collect. The collaboration culminated in the collective work, capitalism and schizophrenia, which is a two-part work, as you can see here, anti-edip. This is the first part. The second part is a thousand plateaus

336
00:54:59.380 --> 00:55:11.269
Takis Jakob: and The point of departure in this project is way at the beginning of anti-adipose, the kind of critique of traditional psychoanalysis. But through these 2 works at

337
00:55:11.410 --> 00:55:24.640
Takis Jakob: in a thousand plateaus, and I think they do achieve that. They develop a kind of new philosophy of the world, of society, of the subject, and then present in, so say, entirely new view.

338
00:55:24.970 --> 00:55:48.599
Takis Jakob:  erez agmoni. And this view is, and characterized by They characterize the world, also society and everything in the world as a material plane of imminence, eminence meaning. It is fully self-sufficient in its being, and it's materiality. Thus, being flat and mono substantial. There is no one

339
00:55:48.700 --> 00:56:09.459
Takis Jakob: dualism of, for example, in mind and matter, or subject and object or culture and nature, it's all one field of materiality. And thus there's also no truly transcendent entities. For example, language, minds, and spirit knowledge, or especially the subject or the social subject that sociology is concerned with

340
00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:29.059
Takis Jakob: and they see this plane as populated by fluid and unstable material forces, which is this one substance of the work model substantial, for example, physical forces like gravity or electromagnetism, but also the effects between living beings or living beings and objects.

341
00:56:29.120 --> 00:56:33.590
Takis Jakob: and these forces in their interactions and constellations

342
00:56:33.600 --> 00:56:54.390
Takis Jakob: are that which produce that which we perceive as something transcendent to holistic or stable. For example, the subject society, or the state, or a similar things, and thus the primary focus of the losing got to use on non subjective fluid and material processes and constellations.

343
00:56:54.610 --> 00:57:02.740
Takis Jakob: very famous ideas of theirs is the dualism between the tree and the resume

344
00:57:02.790 --> 00:57:18.249
Takis Jakob: which is, they are both kind of botanical symbols for 2 kinds of order on the one side the arborescent order, which is yes, as you can see here, it's tree like it has a central branch with other branches

345
00:57:18.360 --> 00:57:29.609
Takis Jakob: branching off from it and and then centrally organized, while the rezone is kind of a network structure where there might be some knots that are a tree like. But mostly it's

346
00:57:29.670 --> 00:57:34.059
Takis Jakob: decentralized, and all kinds of connections can happen in the rezone.

347
00:57:34.070 --> 00:57:36.980
Takis Jakob: yeah, the this is kind of the

348
00:57:37.010 --> 00:57:44.529
Takis Jakob: one of the main ideas, and and which will also characterize my idea of the organization.

349
00:57:44.910 --> 00:57:57.410
Takis Jakob: so, to get to the empirical example, the decentralized autonomous organization is a new kind of organization which has arisen in the last few years in the online space, the blockchain space, and this

350
00:57:57.460 --> 00:58:17.059
Takis Jakob: not yet the really coherent definition of it. And because it's so new. But Hassan and the Philippi try to summarize 6 characteristics of the decentralized autonomous organization which is, that is an organization that is characterized by online self coordination and governance of people.

351
00:58:17.100 --> 00:58:20.479
Takis Jakob: It is based on the blockchain and smart contracts.

352
00:58:20.690 --> 00:58:32.409
Takis Jakob: The code of the blockchain defines the roots of interaction within the organization. The blockchain also makes possible the automatic self execution of these rules or this code.

353
00:58:32.490 --> 00:58:39.050
Takis Jakob: the governance of the organization does remains free from central control because the

354
00:58:39.080 --> 00:58:48.319
Takis Jakob: your execution and the rules are based within the code. and it also inherits the transparency and the cryptographic security from the blockchain.

355
00:58:48.610 --> 00:59:01.739
Takis Jakob: Quick, refreshing, maybe about the blockchain. It's in its most basic forum kind of digital ledger, which is, start decentrally on all the involved computers and service

356
00:59:01.800 --> 00:59:14.789
Takis Jakob: and cryptographic mechanisms of consensus, a guarantee within the blockchain that no change to the ledger takes place that is not verified by all participants, and thus

357
00:59:15.530 --> 00:59:30.259
Takis Jakob: guaranteeing a reasonable amount of safety, safety of data and well circumventing the need for a central authority, because it's a network like. And it's all rooted by these cryptographic mechanisms of consensus

358
00:59:30.330 --> 00:59:51.740
Takis Jakob: this, these ledges can be used to store data, but it can also be used to store a code in the case of smart contracts which are computer programs which can be deposited on the blockchain and are being automatically executed by the participating computers. When certain conditions within the blockchain are met, and thus a new

359
00:59:52.290 --> 00:59:58.489
Takis Jakob: new things can happen with with this code that also have an effect on the data within the blockchain.

360
00:59:58.540 --> 01:00:21.319
Takis Jakob: An example of the decentralized autonomous organization. The was the first Dow ever fittingly also named the Dull which was an alternative investment platform, or it was at least conceived as an alternative investment platform with the goal of democratizing finance, and users were able to buy tokens, which is a

361
01:00:21.840 --> 01:00:27.409
Takis Jakob: dow internal cryptocurrency with real money, which was then pooled.

362
01:00:27.510 --> 01:00:39.050
Takis Jakob: and the Dow, through the smart contracts, automatically recognized ownership of the token blowing owners of the token to cast a vote on how the money that was made by selling the tokens

363
01:00:39.090 --> 01:00:56.030
Takis Jakob: should be collectively reinvested, and this investment was also automatically carried out, or at least it was supposed to be automatically carried out. But some things went wrong with this. first idea. First version of dial. yes, but this is the idea.

364
01:00:56.800 --> 01:00:58.200
Takis Jakob: So to

365
01:00:58.220 --> 01:01:14.499
Takis Jakob: press the dow with the use of delus and katari, we can see that the dow was basically an organization without a tree like hierarchy, because there is no really transcendent point or even chain of command, be it even a flat hierarchy.

366
01:01:14.670 --> 01:01:18.600
Takis Jakob: it's just not there, because the the code is the

367
01:01:18.660 --> 01:01:25.310
Takis Jakob: the the aspect that commands what happens within the organization, and the code is transparent and non manipulable.

368
01:01:25.360 --> 01:01:50.559
Takis Jakob: There is not a necessarily a need for subjects within this or for actors within the organization. Obviously these organizations organizations are laid out to be used by humans, but they don't depend on them. They are not based on the rationally predictable actions of human actors or human staff. The or work of the organizations happens within the code and within the blockchain automatically. Even.

369
01:01:50.730 --> 01:01:54.990
Takis Jakob: It's an organization without fixed positions and responsibilities. There is

370
01:01:55.250 --> 01:02:10.350
Takis Jakob: no also no need for long-term human engagement. People can engage with it in any way they want. They can enter the organization by buying this token they can. 5 min later they can leave again. There is no need for fixed engagement.

371
01:02:11.260 --> 01:02:16.069
Takis Jakob: so we can see that this download is not and really fit the

372
01:02:16.370 --> 01:02:41.719
Takis Jakob: traditional view of the organization. In my case, I'm comparing it to the rebellion bureaucratic view as defined by these 5 points. 2 of these points do fit to the dollar. Firstly, the rule-boundedness and the impersonal administration, which I would say, is even brought to new extreme. Because of this administration by code. There is no way to go outside of the rules, and it's the

373
01:02:41.800 --> 01:02:58.680
Takis Jakob: can you? High point of in personality, so to say. And there's obviously a documentation of administrative processes that because everything is documented within the blockchain. But, as said before, there are no fixed positions which could be the building blocks of the organizations.

374
01:02:58.680 --> 01:03:14.650
Takis Jakob: There are no fixed competencies, no hierarchy of positions, and there is not a need for qualified and loyal stuff staff, obviously, and there need to be developers which are in some way qualified. But once the dial was running, there is no need for

375
01:03:14.870 --> 01:03:20.480
Takis Jakob: for for staff. That is a fixed and in a fixed engagement with the organization.

376
01:03:21.490 --> 01:03:38.079
Takis Jakob: So instead, we can see we can conceptualize the dow as kind of a rhythmatically structured organization that is not a hierarchical, but extends itself equally and flat over a decentralized network. which is in this case.

377
01:03:38.200 --> 01:03:47.079
Takis Jakob: there was many times the pro, the promise of non-hierarchical organizations. But in this case it's actually possible through this technology of the blockchain.

378
01:03:47.190 --> 01:04:10.200
Takis Jakob: and they have a character of being non-subjective and material, so to say, because they are not based on the work of the actors, but based on the material forces of service computers and code linking back to the focus on materiality of delays and category, and they can be in grasp as a kind of fluid organization

379
01:04:10.200 --> 01:04:27.810
Takis Jakob: in which both the human actors, as well as computers and service, can enter and exit this resume at whatever point they want, at whatever point in time they want without compromising its functioning, and they can leave whenever they want to enter whenever they want.

380
01:04:27.870 --> 01:04:29.530
Takis Jakob: yes,

381
01:04:30.650 --> 01:04:46.830
Takis Jakob: And in this table I have kind of worked upon what dillers and category but what I call would call an analysis by analogy, because the delays in caterpillar pretty and clearly say that similar structures can be found on

382
01:04:46.840 --> 01:04:49.819
Takis Jakob: different levels of the world. For example, the

383
01:04:49.850 --> 01:05:05.869
Takis Jakob: tree and the resome can be used to describe societies, but they can also be used to describe the forms of knowledge. the forms of subjectivity. So in this case. And I'm also using a concept of theirs that is normally, and

384
01:05:06.600 --> 01:05:34.570
Takis Jakob: they use it kind of on the level of political formations, the stage versus the nomadic machine. But I am. I'm trying to make an analogy, and see that similar structures are also happening on the level of organizations. Where and I would compare the I, their idea of the State to the bureaucratic organization, and their idea of the nomadic machine to the to the dow and nomadic in the census

385
01:05:34.600 --> 01:06:03.710
Takis Jakob: kind of just meant as pretty much the the political formations of nomadic people's kind of and the State is kind of referring more to the the ancient state, not so much to the modern nation State. The State is characterized, characterized by centralization and sedentary well, the nomadic machine or the dow in this case is characterized by being decentralized and also dynamic.

386
01:06:03.800 --> 01:06:19.510
Takis Jakob: The state is characterized by a transcendent and hierarchical regime with 2 poles of transcendent transcendence, one being the religious poll, and the other being the legal bureaucratic poll which connects back to the bureaucratic organization obviously, and

387
01:06:19.690 --> 01:06:23.620
Takis Jakob: is, in their view, also, the one that dominates in the State

388
01:06:23.800 --> 01:06:36.099
Takis Jakob: what the nomadic machine is characterized by anti-hierarchical flatness and and what they call material imminence being involved with the materiality of the organization in the world.

389
01:06:36.250 --> 01:06:49.120
Takis Jakob:  then there's the question of space, the state, and in this case the bureaucracy develops a kind of striated space in which everything is ordered according to

390
01:06:49.330 --> 01:06:59.310
Takis Jakob: redefined norm. While the nomadic machine develops a smooth space in which people actors and things can move freely in and out of results.

391
01:06:59.570 --> 01:07:19.690
Takis Jakob: the question of resources, the state or the bureaucracy. In this case kind of try always tries to capture all kinds of resources, labor, money, and people in service of a. We defined normal goal, while the nomadic machine allows for free, free flow of resources, and more so following even the flows of resources.

392
01:07:19.810 --> 01:07:26.730
Takis Jakob: and yes. so this is kind of the

393
01:07:26.750 --> 01:07:32.440
Takis Jakob: analogy between the the political level and the level of organizations.

394
01:07:32.660 --> 01:07:53.240
Takis Jakob: And yes. Does I come to my conclusion? I believe that the Liz and Gaterie offer quite a large toolbox, and not not necessarily already made comprehensive view, but quite a large toolbox to understand phenomena, phenomena that are maybe structured non-traditionally in tentorous or rhythmetic form.

395
01:07:53.350 --> 01:08:07.350
Takis Jakob: and thus they can also help with understanding the dow and also similar new types of organizations. Some of organizations that tend towards maybe flat hierarchies. And

396
01:08:07.510 --> 01:08:13.280
Takis Jakob: they didn't develop this view of the organization. But the ideas are definitely there to

397
01:08:13.340 --> 01:08:14.580
Takis Jakob: to.

398
01:08:15.170 --> 01:08:30.260
Takis Jakob: to develop an in theory of the organization from their work, and additionally they were, could not all only be used to understand the these new organizations, but also to maybe understand the traditional or the more bureaucratic organizations in a new light.

399
01:08:30.280 --> 01:08:44.970
Takis Jakob: as could be seen. For example, on the previous slide. the idea of the this the state of the bureaucratic formation? it. It could shed a new light also on a traditional forms of organization.

400
01:08:45.200 --> 01:08:53.030
Takis Jakob:  these are my sources, and I'm open to any kinds of questions and comments. Thank you very much.

401
01:08:53.360 --> 01:08:54.700
Robert Jungmann: Thank you very much.

402
01:09:00.060 --> 01:09:01.720
Robert Jungmann: Thank you. Tacos.

403
01:09:01.830 --> 01:09:05.070
Robert Jungmann:  yeah. Questions.

404
01:09:12.760 --> 01:09:14.959
Robert Jungmann: So I have. A question

405
01:09:15.230 --> 01:09:17.949
Robert Jungmann: is is just a sharp one.

406
01:09:18.180 --> 01:09:29.619
Robert Jungmann:  I ask myself. when you describe the dials. I mean these these codes. They are

407
01:09:29.760 --> 01:09:39.830
Robert Jungmann: a rational legal order in the classical Bavarian sense, right? And and do that this kind of rule boundedness? And

408
01:09:40.550 --> 01:09:47.640
Robert Jungmann: does it make possible the more hierarchical or semantic elements and structure to some

409
01:09:47.680 --> 01:09:48.770
Robert Jungmann: degree.

410
01:09:49.240 --> 01:09:52.360
Robert Jungmann: and the strict rule-boundedness of the

411
01:09:52.540 --> 01:09:55.010
Robert Jungmann: agrit my coat.

412
01:09:57.460 --> 01:10:00.120
Takis Jakob: Well, I I would say that

413
01:10:01.020 --> 01:10:09.999
Takis Jakob: If if I understood your question right, I would think that maybe the the strict rationality of the code is

414
01:10:11.320 --> 01:10:26.959
Takis Jakob: because it's a it's a kind of rationality that takes out every human element. It's it's the rationality of of the code of the computer. so it takes away the need for some kind of

415
01:10:27.580 --> 01:10:34.500
Takis Jakob: transcendent actor to decide and in the end maybe bring in again some

416
01:10:34.560 --> 01:10:44.659
Takis Jakob: interest, some not so rational motives or some failure in the rationalities. So it's kind of a perfected form of of rationality. There the

417
01:10:45.580 --> 01:10:53.590
Takis Jakob: gets rid of kind of An actor that has to execute this rationality. I would say.

418
01:10:54.050 --> 01:10:54.900
Robert Jungmann: Hmm.

419
01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:12.220
okay, thank you very much for your presentation. And I really like the metaphor of the resume. for yeah, how how social relations can also be understood, and

420
01:11:12.220 --> 01:11:32.090
as you pointed out the dow so, and I was to be a bit provocative at at this. You pointed out that The the Bidau is organized around the blockchain as it is organized around code. So as a certain type of code

421
01:11:32.250 --> 01:11:47.949
and in my sense of you, I would say, this is the dream come true for bureaucracy, because everything is very it with clear everyization is clearly made. Yeah, you you don't have the option to

422
01:11:47.950 --> 01:12:17.560
to do something else, because everyone has to stick to the code. Yeah, you have to have the option you can leave whenever you want as an actor, of course, but the core structure of the Dao is around, and but the total form of the personalization no human is needed. This is also a dream come true for bureaucracy. And the rule is clear for everyone. So why shouldn't this be bureaucratic?

423
01:12:20.220 --> 01:12:26.359
Takis Jakob:  yes, I think it's

424
01:12:26.400 --> 01:12:32.149
Takis Jakob: It's it's true, when it comes to the, to the rule boundedness, that this is kind of a

425
01:12:32.240 --> 01:12:36.860
Takis Jakob: bureaucrats stream come true. But I would say that.

426
01:12:37.650 --> 01:12:46.639
Takis Jakob: it's kind of maybe a perfection of the of the principle of bureaucracy, but it still gets rid of all the

427
01:12:47.000 --> 01:13:00.340
Takis Jakob: weight of what we would associate with a bureaucratic organization. So maybe you could even say it's a it's a perfected form of bureaucracy, that is

428
01:13:00.940 --> 01:13:16.899
Takis Jakob: goes beyond what we understand as b bureaucracy in the sense of a pure critical organization, and thus also opening again the question, is this even still bureaucracy? Is, is it? Or is it Just a perfected form of rationality? So to say.

429
01:13:17.110 --> 01:13:19.219
Takis Jakob: that's what I would say. Yes.

430
01:13:22.580 --> 01:13:26.330
Robert Jungmann: unfortunately. I think

431
01:13:26.340 --> 01:13:28.440
Robert Jungmann: we need to go on

432
01:13:28.720 --> 01:13:33.770
Robert Jungmann: but we we almost

433
01:13:33.960 --> 01:13:36.899
Robert Jungmann: remain at this kind of perspective.

434
01:13:37.120 --> 01:13:40.990
Robert Jungmann:  Amanda.

435
01:13:41.210 --> 01:13:44.330
Robert Jungmann: Thank you, Tacos, once again. And

436
01:13:53.330 --> 01:14:02.529
Amanda Gross: yeah, I will share my presentation. Thank you, Pax, because you did the out. Very good in the

437
01:14:02.720 --> 01:14:05.030
Amanda Gross: going to be really helpful for me.

438
01:14:10.080 --> 01:14:13.649
I'm sorry. Just one moment. We can't hear Amanda.

439
01:14:13.760 --> 01:14:16.139
Guess we have.

440
01:14:16.200 --> 01:14:17.280
Robert Jungmann: Okay.

441
01:14:17.360 --> 01:14:20.200
can you try? Talk again, please?

442
01:14:20.780 --> 01:14:25.290
Amanda Gross: Can you hear me now? No.

443
01:14:26.840 --> 01:14:38.090
Robert Jungmann: it's okay. Yeah. Maybe you need to speak very loud. And what you now need to speak a little bit less loud because we

444
01:14:38.150 --> 01:14:40.230
have pumped up the volume.

445
01:14:40.420 --> 01:14:41.610
Robert Jungmann: Okay.

446
01:14:46.220 --> 01:14:46.920
okay.

447
01:14:48.330 --> 01:15:00.590
Amanda Gross: okay, so thank you very much for for my paper here. it's a question here, and it's going to be really good to receive some feedback and questions.

448
01:15:00.750 --> 01:15:11.190
Amanda Gross: As this is one of my that says of my Tvs, I'm a Pg and data here in Brazil some powerful or at

449
01:15:11.400 --> 01:15:36.450
Amanda Gross: and these essay is an invitation to us organizations. Callers to recover the most, please sees the interdependences with the the field. And in relation to the older. So yeah, I'm trying to discuss the formation of the field in the perspective of the list. But I here.

450
01:15:38.720 --> 01:15:44.800
Amanda Gross: So one of the the by, 2 of the debate, it's okay, can you hear me? Yeah.

451
01:15:46.480 --> 01:16:06.190
Amanda Gross: So 2 of the debates that motivated me to present this paper, and also all the these are the debates on the grand challenge, and on the proposing that are perching that we are having some

452
01:16:06.340 --> 01:16:24.149
Amanda Gross: limited all the meetings on our approach you're at, or make a large co-oproach any we need to review them or add the new ones, or emphasize some others. There are kind of marginalizing into the field.

453
01:16:25.260 --> 01:16:29.830
Amanda Gross: I'm also inspired by Granola to

454
01:16:29.970 --> 01:16:33.379
Amanda Gross: on this book down towards

455
01:16:33.410 --> 01:16:44.150
Amanda Gross: in which he says that do it in face of the climate change. And it's consequences. It's important. Or it's a fundamental political attitude.

456
01:16:44.300 --> 01:16:52.629
Amanda Gross: that, we recognize our dependency relationships. and it's

457
01:16:53.090 --> 01:16:59.979
Amanda Gross: it means to map and to describe the inventory of bones, and in

458
01:17:01.330 --> 01:17:05.599
Amanda Gross: I to situate ourselves and our collectives

459
01:17:05.790 --> 01:17:09.389
Amanda Gross: to in, then find new. Yeah, that we can share.

460
01:17:10.690 --> 01:17:12.100
Amanda Gross: So

461
01:17:12.250 --> 01:17:27.449
Amanda Gross: do it to that. I'm proposing that there's a button here flows up an electron network theory as approaches that can help us on. I have bring about a reflexive perspective to the field.

462
01:17:27.610 --> 01:17:43.259
Amanda Gross: On recovering our to please our dependencies, our move to disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity. that seems to be fundamental to the present or in the future regarding the

463
01:17:43.380 --> 01:17:50.139
Amanda Gross: the, the that we have due to the climate change, social inequalities, and others.

464
01:17:52.620 --> 01:18:13.319
Amanda Gross: I'm also under painted by turning that says that our the persist wall and vit well on the and philosophy put the drive management organization studies to investigate the forces and the bodies and the events that a change the social and the organization of world.

465
01:18:13.760 --> 01:18:33.109
Amanda Gross: I'm advancing a little bit on that, and say that not only even the, but also I for night for you. It could be drivers to investigate and detention them, which please that structure, our field. And as us as researchers.

466
01:18:35.200 --> 01:18:49.990
Amanda Gross: so I'm also proposing the idea of the zone as it's the. It's the main concept of the in which they create size is the idea of a linear and dated history.

467
01:18:50.140 --> 01:19:05.760
Amanda Gross: and they understand that their zone I I think it's similar to the text that that's presented represents the real form of to. And it's in contrast of the common idea that you have of a 3,

468
01:19:05.800 --> 01:19:14.410
Amanda Gross: because it's the image we have of the Western tort, and it's it's it's hierarchy, affiliation, and term symptoms.

469
01:19:14.420 --> 01:19:21.950
Amanda Gross: Thus the rezone is pure imminence and contains some lines of segmentarity that stretch filed

470
01:19:22.620 --> 01:19:42.579
Amanda Gross: so there's a It's not only about the structure, but it's all also about process. And there's some process and ruptures when those segments are to lines, explodes, and it's called also a process of the third, the realization

471
01:19:43.090 --> 01:19:55.560
Amanda Gross: they relate to those process to the movements of the creation and the permission of scientific field, on the discussion on the nomadic.

472
01:19:59.650 --> 01:20:09.100
Amanda Gross: So regarding their discussions on nomadology and all of science, they understand that we are

473
01:20:09.230 --> 01:20:12.060
Amanda Gross: always facing chaos

474
01:20:12.160 --> 01:20:29.050
Amanda Gross: throughout and throughout time, in philosophy and art we are trying to make some meaning and order of. but they say that science, more than she will spin. Art has the struggle against scales as its fundamental aim and task.

475
01:20:31.770 --> 01:20:46.430
Amanda Gross: But the border between chaos and science is really thing, because science price to avoid chaos, but it's also attracted to it and produce a continual movements between them.

476
01:20:46.870 --> 01:20:56.710
Amanda Gross: The Norman science is considering a exterior on free-party soups and scientific agents like intuition practition on the knowledge

477
01:20:56.770 --> 01:21:01.409
Amanda Gross: that's always proposing problems to be so good to the royal science.

478
01:21:01.470 --> 01:21:05.820
Amanda Gross: which has, in fact, the legitimacy and the intelligence to do it.

479
01:21:06.990 --> 01:21:16.639
Amanda Gross: From these dynamical new scientific fields awards. and we can understand that it to to MOS.

480
01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:20.549
Amanda Gross: So

481
01:21:20.670 --> 01:21:30.000
Amanda Gross: I'm I'm I'm I'm saying here that MOS emerged as a response to an apparent chaos of an organizing the world.

482
01:21:30.070 --> 01:21:45.929
Amanda Gross: and then the but the concept of an organization and the idea of the field always exceeds the limits and cannot be considering stable objects simply located in a specific time and space

483
01:21:46.120 --> 01:22:04.099
Amanda Gross: and MOS is then they stable with zoom to office session of tensions between normally and the real science and the translation process that re, or the theory for wise voice of knowledge within the field. 3. To to propose a specific form of organizing the law

484
01:22:05.800 --> 01:22:15.999
Amanda Gross: mit Ctl, and the problem is that we we are satisfied with the the establishment of what it is, it is our organization. And what is management? Organizations, studies 250

485
01:22:16.120 --> 01:22:22.800
Amanda Gross: completed the structures localizing somewhere in the world. We tend to forget the beyond

486
01:22:24.790 --> 01:22:44.280
Amanda Gross: then trying to answer, or to have some ideas on the the that I put as the title of that say I propose to think they beyond organizations and beyond management organizations, that is, by assuming the fuse as a resematic form.

487
01:22:44.510 --> 01:22:58.360
Amanda Gross: I considered a management organization as a rezone. We are forced to accept that the use of re options that happen within the field should be understood as creative movements.

488
01:22:58.800 --> 01:23:11.419
Amanda Gross: does the amount of knowledge and theories produced it within the fields. Could it be taught as a as of play that are constantly being remoted, and with the rendered

489
01:23:12.090 --> 01:23:31.440
Amanda Gross: does, for example, the discussion on the paradigm and the on to large call, and it's a logical perspective with Zoom must be understood as becoming, and connections among them must be explored must be further explorer than it has traditionally been.

490
01:23:31.960 --> 01:23:41.370
Amanda Gross: A zone is always connected to the others, to others. does by assuming these. We are also

491
01:23:42.150 --> 01:23:51.790
Amanda Gross: erez agmoni for them to investigate the connections of our field with others, or, as turning, says others, monstrous bodies of knowledge

492
01:23:51.970 --> 01:23:56.800
Amanda Gross: that have some relation to us. And here I'm saying about all the

493
01:23:57.180 --> 01:24:04.499
Amanda Gross: scientific fields, or a traditional low lodge or other prospects and chemical perspectives.

494
01:24:10.030 --> 01:24:29.640
Amanda Gross: So, really concluding my presentation here. I'm I bring some ideas from Parker that the boundaries of management organization study service to make the insight and outside of organizations possible, and to recognize that something is organized or not.

495
01:24:30.320 --> 01:24:38.220
Amanda Gross: Spoilstra also said that to be occupied with the organizations it is a way to stop thinking about organizations

496
01:24:38.780 --> 01:24:50.900
Amanda Gross: by the other side campable and others said that don't triple seen features a phenomenon, but phenomenal that's unbounded in calculable and unthinkable.

497
01:24:51.240 --> 01:25:18.109
Amanda Gross: Then I understand that's time to question the boundaries of our discipline in order to question what is in size and outside the operations that we commonly use to organize the word we are meeting. So the question that I've entitled my, I say, I think he's one that we must be constantly asking ourselves. as organizations callers to avoid the simple locations of our concepts.

498
01:25:18.270 --> 01:25:24.750
Amanda Gross: and certainly not on the question to be answer, and don't have one

499
01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:27.699
Amanda Gross: simple question or so simple answer

500
01:25:27.800 --> 01:25:29.160
Amanda Gross: I don't need to have.

501
01:25:29.760 --> 01:25:31.390
So thank you.

502
01:25:39.080 --> 01:25:41.200
Robert Jungmann: Thank you very much. Amanda

503
01:25:44.040 --> 01:25:45.530
Robert Jungmann: got out there

504
01:25:45.970 --> 01:25:49.270
Robert Jungmann: any questions, comments

505
01:25:53.180 --> 01:25:54.870
Robert Jungmann: tack us?

506
01:25:55.360 --> 01:25:56.160
Robert Jungmann: Huh?

507
01:25:58.140 --> 01:26:09.659
Takis Jakob: Yes, I just wanted to ask them. thank you very much, and I just wanted to ask if you have Maybe some some kind of example of of a

508
01:26:10.160 --> 01:26:12.629
Takis Jakob: of a moment where

509
01:26:12.750 --> 01:26:25.109
Takis Jakob: a management organization studies, tends towards the nomadic science as opposed to to a royal science, where where there is kind of a moment of

510
01:26:25.250 --> 01:26:35.990
Takis Jakob: transcending the the royal understanding of management. Organization studies some influence from another discipline that could be seen as a nomadic moment, so to say.

511
01:26:38.170 --> 01:26:51.589
Amanda Gross: Yeah, I think the Minister of Management organization that is, in fact, a response to the practical of manager manager.

512
01:26:51.680 --> 01:27:03.740
Amanda Gross: So it's I. As as far as I I I researcher it's a merge of to legitimize the manager real opportunity. So I think it's mainly

513
01:27:04.500 --> 01:27:07.099
Amanda Gross: a field that

514
01:27:07.150 --> 01:27:13.590
Amanda Gross: emerged to respond to this practical activity

515
01:27:13.740 --> 01:27:27.889
Amanda Gross: and the throughout. The so the the history of management organization is that it's always encountered with the all others. bodies of knowledge like sociology, psychology.

516
01:27:28.020 --> 01:27:36.210
Amanda Gross: even engineering. So we are always in contact. So

517
01:27:36.330 --> 01:27:42.989
Amanda Gross: you know, we are kind of. But I I I don't think we work well with all that

518
01:27:43.090 --> 01:27:54.309
Amanda Gross: relations. And currently, we are receiving some perspectives on traditional knowledge or families perspectives

519
01:27:54.410 --> 01:27:56.689
our life perspective. So

520
01:27:57.150 --> 01:28:00.110
Amanda Gross: it's the the bodies of knowledge that I think.

521
01:28:00.250 --> 01:28:01.670
Amanda Gross: Can I?

522
01:28:01.720 --> 01:28:03.900
Amanda Gross: work as normal

523
01:28:03.980 --> 01:28:05.250
movements

524
01:28:05.300 --> 01:28:07.220
Amanda Gross: to management?

525
01:28:08.580 --> 01:28:09.469
Takis Jakob: Thank you.

526
01:28:13.830 --> 01:28:15.610
Robert Jungmann: Why, I think

527
01:28:15.970 --> 01:28:18.920
Robert Jungmann: why and which I it.

528
01:28:20.350 --> 01:28:24.110
Well, if no one wants, I have 2 comments.

529
01:28:26.230 --> 01:28:48.749
Yeah, okay, So 2 comments. one. yeah. Let's just so. My first comment is that And that's more a positive comment that I saw the presentation in my first thought was that. Yeah, that all sounds very plausible. we are probably not exactly the right audience

530
01:28:49.060 --> 01:28:53.209
in terms of that. This is a sociology conference.

531
01:28:53.220 --> 01:29:01.250
and I, for example, would rather count me as a sociologist than as an organization management scholar.

532
01:29:01.820 --> 01:29:25.000
and So I would say, well, I think that this the presentation describes Pretty well. Looking at the debates we had in the past years on that. So there have been some reflective pieces. There are some reflective pieces coming, and I think that. That resonates quite well with with that debate in an organization of management studies and in sociology about like

533
01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:32.200
how this focus on organization produces these absurd effects. In a way.

534
01:29:32.230 --> 01:29:49.920
My second comment would be a bit more critical, so I think it resonates quite well, and and I like it. But at the same time I have to say I don't think that you need such like that. You need to actualize that

535
01:29:50.350 --> 01:29:53.720
much of like highly abstract

536
01:29:53.950 --> 01:30:21.639
theoretical framework to come to these conclusions. So my impression was that that for what you want to say. it's it tends to be so. My impression was, it's it's a bit over theorized in the beginning, so to say, I think you can. you can jump to your you can get to your conclusions a little bit more digestible for at least for a sociological audience.

537
01:30:21.890 --> 01:30:23.040
Thank you.

538
01:30:23.570 --> 01:30:35.480
Amanda Gross: Oh, no, thank you, thank you. I think it's a. It's a question that out, because I I I represented previous versions of this paper and another conference in some other context.

539
01:30:35.550 --> 01:30:49.709
Amanda Gross: And it's certainly a a question. But I'm working on that, because it's been really hard for my, all the audiences, even organizations, that you and so thank you very much.

540
01:30:50.310 --> 01:30:52.330
Amanda Gross: Yeah, I don't.

541
01:30:52.780 --> 01:30:57.950
So we had. We have one more. And if you want to or yeah.

542
01:30:59.630 --> 01:31:08.530
I mean, thank you for your presentation. And I'm just wondering. I mean, it seems to me your plantation focuses on a particular field.

543
01:31:08.680 --> 01:31:21.160
I mean the management and the organizational studies. That is the interdisciplinary is indeed quite messy in a sense. but then, to what extent can you

544
01:31:21.180 --> 01:31:37.470
apply your framework to another field, which is maybe much cleaner, such as economics or physics. So oh, another field. So I'm just wondering. I mean, to what extent you can.

545
01:31:37.650 --> 01:31:42.079
I expand your framework to other fields? Thank you.

546
01:31:44.600 --> 01:31:53.889
Amanda Gross: Yeah, no, thank you, sir. but I I I I I think it's possible to extend the springboard this idea to other field, because

547
01:31:54.680 --> 01:32:07.590
Amanda Gross: the for a regarding the the idea of the likes. But I here and then also at the next work. All the fuels work like that, and all the things have this kind of the stretcher of the real science and the Norman science and

548
01:32:08.750 --> 01:32:10.120
Amanda Gross: movements.

549
01:32:14.540 --> 01:32:20.159
Robert Jungmann: and I'm not quite sure if Lean is is Leni there, I'm

550
01:32:20.720 --> 01:32:23.910
Robert Jungmann: I haven't seen her.

551
01:32:25.610 --> 01:32:28.279
Robert Jungmann: our last presenters not

552
01:32:28.740 --> 01:32:30.370
oh, then.

553
01:32:30.730 --> 01:32:39.069
Robert Jungmann: because if this is a case, I would have a question.

554
01:32:41.700 --> 01:32:44.339
She's not here

555
01:32:44.420 --> 01:32:47.000
for her. They say not him.

556
01:32:47.930 --> 01:33:04.589
Robert Jungmann: Okay, so am I not? I really like this kind of reflexive turn you you you've done bringing us as analysts. And this is quite, quite important, I guess. But beyond

557
01:33:04.600 --> 01:33:09.589
Robert Jungmann: this I I always thought, okay, if this is a.

558
01:33:09.670 --> 01:33:17.699
Robert Jungmann: this kind of creative moment where we can actually realize.

559
01:33:17.740 --> 01:33:23.540
Robert Jungmann: Okay. we have this, this kind of instability, this kind of in

560
01:33:23.880 --> 01:33:29.119
Robert Jungmann: continuous instability in organizing right.

561
01:33:29.650 --> 01:33:33.970
Robert Jungmann: But as practitioners, as organizational practitioners.

562
01:33:34.010 --> 01:33:46.890
Robert Jungmann: And what follows from from this, I mean, we can have this in mind, but do we nevertheless have to secure some kind of stability, or

563
01:33:47.440 --> 01:33:52.560
Robert Jungmann: at least try to secure some kind of stability or order

564
01:33:52.610 --> 01:34:01.239
Robert Jungmann: in the continuous flex of practice. are this kind of unstable world?

565
01:34:02.160 --> 01:34:04.079
Robert Jungmann: This is what I asked myself.

566
01:34:05.310 --> 01:34:15.859
Amanda Gross: Yeah, yeah, no. I, I think. well, thank you very much for your question. it's certainly something that I I think a lot about.

567
01:34:15.870 --> 01:34:27.289
Amanda Gross: I I used to be a partitioner also. So, but I also have a background also. So which so after I will be

568
01:34:27.530 --> 01:34:31.810
Amanda Gross: so I really think

569
01:34:31.860 --> 01:34:34.580
Amanda Gross: even the

570
01:34:34.760 --> 01:34:43.170
Amanda Gross: benefited from this perspective, for sure it's the translation process

571
01:34:43.310 --> 01:34:57.680
Amanda Gross: would be no, it would be necessary. but because I think I think the the the presentation of that. can can we force in some way? This is yeah.

572
01:34:57.720 --> 01:35:01.429
Amanda Gross: because we are leaving nice stable

573
01:35:01.480 --> 01:35:02.810
world

574
01:35:02.970 --> 01:35:30.789
Amanda Gross: like, we have this kind of instability. So I think it's going to be helpful to understand the organizational world and even the social world and the connection among them. in this unstable perspective. So. But I'm I'm I'm sure it's not easy. because we have this position to think on stable structures. And

575
01:35:31.080 --> 01:35:35.620
Amanda Gross: no. but I think it' be useful.

576
01:35:36.260 --> 01:35:36.930
Hmm!

577
01:35:41.730 --> 01:35:44.850
Amanda Gross: I don't know if I who you are. My, my.

578
01:35:45.800 --> 01:35:47.090
Robert Jungmann: yeah, thank you.

579
01:35:48.320 --> 01:35:49.360
Robert Jungmann: Robert.

580
01:35:50.390 --> 01:36:00.659
thanks. A man. It was a really, really stimulating and and suggested paper. I just. I just wanted to play around with the distinction

581
01:36:00.700 --> 01:36:14.420
you make between nomad and Royal Science. or Nomadic and Royal Science. I haven't heard that expression royal since before. I presume it means something like official or established

582
01:36:14.600 --> 01:36:15.930
science.

583
01:36:16.050 --> 01:36:17.250
yeah.

584
01:36:17.260 --> 01:36:23.039
 Now you, you focus on the dynamic between those 2.

585
01:36:23.420 --> 01:36:27.099
But I'm wondering if you can add to that an account of the way in which

586
01:36:27.280 --> 01:36:50.120
different royal sciences relate to each other, and that and that that's a really important dynamic. I mean that that's come out in some of the earlier questions, right? So that you're talking about the the tunnels. What's going on is a dynamic between, say, I don't know philosophy and sociology or or economics and sociology right? So it's royal sciences

587
01:36:50.280 --> 01:36:59.519
in a, in a very dynamic relationship with each other, producing transformations and innovations, and so on. does that? Does that make sense?

588
01:37:01.870 --> 01:37:24.930
Amanda Gross: I'm not sure I I understood perfectly your question. but I'm I'm trying to answer and say if it's a resonate. But the idea of real science, in fact. as I understand, it's the idea of I institutionalize it. Science. It's not a specific science like

589
01:37:25.440 --> 01:37:30.500
Amanda Gross: but Every time, forever. Scientific field has.

590
01:37:30.530 --> 01:37:37.030
Amanda Gross: It's from that is institutionalized, institutionalize it. So it's to equip our calls

591
01:37:37.110 --> 01:37:47.850
Amanda Gross: royal science. And you have the other noologies. There are kind of Eric knowledge. There are proposing those questions and making the

592
01:37:48.000 --> 01:37:51.149
Amanda Gross: you emerge

593
01:37:51.930 --> 01:37:57.260
Amanda Gross: new knowledge and new scientific fields.

594
01:37:57.450 --> 01:38:03.849
Amanda Gross: But but then my question is, what happens when different royal sciences

595
01:38:03.950 --> 01:38:09.730
collide with each other, or clash with each other, or into relate with each other.

596
01:38:10.139 --> 01:38:21.179
Amanda Gross: Yeah, I I don't think the there's what are here, or I turn it for go far on that. But my my understanding is that when

597
01:38:21.299 --> 01:38:46.259
Amanda Gross: we we can understand that when 2 kinds of institutionalize with the science collides. we are, we can consider that they all. There is some kind we no no knowledge like. because we have one to just on a sign here, and you have another. So you have. This is a exterior knowledge for this one. I don't know. It's

598
01:38:47.340 --> 01:39:02.680
Amanda Gross: so that collision produces another, a kind of nomad science in itself. Yeah, yeah, it's made it to emerge new annual fields or a new board of knowledge.

599
01:39:03.379 --> 01:39:04.590
Okay, thanks.

600
01:39:12.820 --> 01:39:13.790
Robert Jungmann: And

601
01:39:15.080 --> 01:39:18.659
Robert Jungmann: I have a connecting question to.

602
01:39:19.100 --> 01:39:28.920
Robert Jungmann: can I? I'm not sure of the chair. So

603
01:39:29.750 --> 01:39:35.099
Robert Jungmann:  I have a question to both of you takers and Amanda.

604
01:39:35.230 --> 01:39:37.759
Robert Jungmann: because I I teach

605
01:39:37.870 --> 01:39:54.369
Robert Jungmann: a lot of Potanski and Chapello recently and they would state that these kind of rhythmatic arguments about decentralization about flexibility.

606
01:39:54.530 --> 01:40:05.089
Robert Jungmann: that these kind of arguments? yeah, refer to a new kind of legitimatory order for new forms of capitalism.

607
01:40:05.690 --> 01:40:20.879
Robert Jungmann:  I mean, like, for example projects or networks or set of organized teams, and they all refer to this kind of individualistic idea of flexibility.

608
01:40:21.550 --> 01:40:28.850
Robert Jungmann: so taking this reflexive stance, that that Amanda? suggested.

609
01:40:28.940 --> 01:40:31.059
Robert Jungmann: Isn't it a good offer

610
01:40:32.220 --> 01:40:34.430
Robert Jungmann: problem?

611
01:40:34.630 --> 01:40:45.119
Robert Jungmann: could could these kind of rhythmatic arguments be this kind of a legitimation towards new forms of capitalism

612
01:40:45.680 --> 01:40:48.529
Robert Jungmann: in the sense of potentially. For example.

613
01:40:50.950 --> 01:40:54.450
Takis Jakob: I I I would answer, first, if that's okay.

614
01:40:54.820 --> 01:41:15.809
Takis Jakob: And because I'm just thought them the what I would say to that is, some that they lose and got to review capitalism in a very specific way, because they are not necessarily anti-capitalists, like other thinkers from that area. But they say that capitalism

615
01:41:15.990 --> 01:41:25.430
Takis Jakob: also brings with it the a way out of capitalism, so to say. So this development of a rhythmatic

616
01:41:26.210 --> 01:41:30.990
Takis Jakob: a project like structure is something that capitalism itself brings about.

617
01:41:31.010 --> 01:41:35.830
Takis Jakob: and it's also part of capitalism. But on

618
01:41:35.950 --> 01:41:42.489
Takis Jakob: on the same at the same time. Capitalism also brings about the mechanism that is

619
01:41:42.720 --> 01:41:58.879
Takis Jakob: possible to be used for emancipatory or even anti-capitalistic way. So it has. I would say it has both. It's both in the new spirit of capitalism and on the other side, it's also a new potentiality for ways of organizing

620
01:41:59.040 --> 01:42:11.790
Takis Jakob: outside of capitalism, and as opposed to other. When earlier theories will just say, Oh, it's a new spirit of capitalism, it's it's all bad, they would say. It always has these 2

621
01:42:11.810 --> 01:42:19.749
Takis Jakob: 2 lines of flight, a more stabilizing one, and also the new potentialities in a in a different direction.

622
01:42:25.050 --> 01:42:42.930
Amanda Gross: Yeah, I I don't think I I have too much to to add, because I think that's as well, but perfectly but I I think it's the main, the main for it season that that, there's got a human perspective receives like, because it's kind of a rainforest

623
01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:49.680
Amanda Gross: decentralized capitalism that emerged since the need of the like center.

624
01:42:49.900 --> 01:43:02.549
Amanda Gross: So but I I really thought that. we we need to understand that this structure also can bring the reactions to.

625
01:43:03.110 --> 01:43:11.399
Amanda Gross: But it's important that people have these. Again, I think it's some way it's connected with your a question before, because

626
01:43:11.530 --> 01:43:16.399
Amanda Gross: the fraction of the

627
01:43:16.550 --> 01:43:17.710
Amanda Gross: it could be

628
01:43:18.200 --> 01:43:22.800
Amanda Gross: strong. Our reaction against capitalism.

629
01:43:26.820 --> 01:43:27.870
Robert Jungmann: Robert.

630
01:43:32.920 --> 01:43:44.470
Yeah, I think I honestly don't think there's much point talking about capitalism. It's such an abstraction. There are many, many different kinds of capitalisms empirically.

631
01:43:44.470 --> 01:44:08.150
and some of them are better than others, and I think the argument that Amanda has made by bringing in the Anthropocene.

632
01:44:08.150 --> 01:44:24.250
then it's possible for progressive political parties, and I think this really means Social Democratic parties, or or green parties depending on the country. The country that you're dealing with. To begin to build a reform agenda which is based on prohibitory taxes

633
01:44:24.290 --> 01:44:25.430
which

634
01:44:25.570 --> 01:44:42.970
companies capitalist companies have to show they are purposely avoiding. So that you know you set the taxation level at a very, very high level, and the company has to show purpose. Why, it's not creating

635
01:44:43.600 --> 01:44:58.459
pollution, environmental degradation, etc., on a on a local or a global scale in order to avoid that, that taxation. And you know this, this is a way of bringing together the

636
01:44:58.880 --> 01:45:15.429
projects as as as as the re-somatic networks, the Anthropocene and its planetary boundaries with a clear a clear political purpose. So I think we, we we need to bring the concept of purpose into the argument very, very explicitly.

637
01:45:23.610 --> 01:45:50.829
So the just agreement. Should we go to the yes. Yeah. Okay, no. Yes. Well, everyone just nodded and was like, Yeah, that was more of a comment than a question. Okay, I've just remembered that a question that came to our mind, Amanda, earlier in your presentation, you were explaining

638
01:45:50.830 --> 01:46:06.029
the whole idea of the the resome and delays in guitar and how there are these kind of segments or something. But there's one bit in your presentation when you said when a segment explodes. Do you remember?

639
01:46:06.030 --> 01:46:12.639
It was about the second or third slide, and I was thinking, why would it explode?

640
01:46:15.570 --> 01:46:20.350
Do you remember the slide I'm talking about? It's about a second

641
01:46:21.470 --> 01:46:35.560
Amanda Gross: erez agmoni. Yeah, the the idea of a a segmentarity line. It's like a just to say that when you have this kind of rupture, it's the the rupture and the part that 101

642
01:46:36.060 --> 01:46:51.650
Amanda Gross: bring from from that is still part of the zone. In some way it is to have some relation to the man structure in some way. So it's why, I don't know. I answer your question, but

643
01:46:51.770 --> 01:46:53.289
Amanda Gross: this is that.

644
01:46:53.540 --> 01:46:57.500
Well, my question is, why would it rupture? What makes it rapture?

645
01:46:57.840 --> 01:47:07.879
Amanda Gross: What makes the eruption? Many things couldn't make the eruption of in the lies, guarantee, and philosophy. They use the idea for events.

646
01:47:08.090 --> 01:47:15.699
Amanda Gross: even if I don't know kind of pronounce correction. But the idea of even so

647
01:47:16.080 --> 01:47:17.299
Amanda Gross: could it be

648
01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:23.169
Amanda Gross: as anything that happens that make some

649
01:47:24.610 --> 01:47:28.150
Amanda Gross: rupture in the structure and change it

650
01:47:28.440 --> 01:47:36.990
Amanda Gross: and change the the form, but it still have some relations continuously part of the zone.

651
01:47:40.040 --> 01:47:42.350
Amanda Gross: I don't know if I answer, yeah.

652
01:47:53.420 --> 01:47:54.560
Yeah.

653
01:47:55.650 --> 01:47:58.940
So we don't have any questions in the room.

654
01:47:58.990 --> 01:48:01.020
Robert Jungmann: Okay? And

655
01:48:01.630 --> 01:48:03.890
yeah, it's probably time.

656
01:48:05.060 --> 01:48:08.909
Do you? Do you want to? Or yeah, sorry. I mean.

657
01:48:09.200 --> 01:48:17.849
Robert Jungmann: no. I just want to thank all the presenters for providing us with these insights. So

658
01:48:17.930 --> 01:48:20.379
Robert Jungmann: thank you very much. Once again.

659
01:48:20.510 --> 01:48:21.210
Thank you.

660
01:48:30.620 --> 01:48:52.079
Robert Jungmann: I also want to thank Robert and Tiago and the presenters for bringing this very nice session to our C. 17, and also the attendance in the room. Thanks for joining us. We have more interesting Rc. 17 sessions today. So if you want to join later, please do so also digitally, of course.

661
01:48:52.080 --> 01:49:05.440
And yeah, please also consider our new journal of organizational sociology. If you haven't heard of it yet where we intend to publish great pieces like we heard a lot in the past days. And thanks again.

662
01:49:07.850 --> 01:49:08.910
Thank you.