Revisiting social interventioninstruments: a theoretical assessment
Autor | José Camilo Dávila - Carlos Dávila - Lina Grisales - David Schnarch |
Páginas | 147-173 |
· ·
REVISITING SOCIAL INTERVENTION
INSTRUMENTS: A THEORETICAL ASSESSMENT
“e social dimension is inherent to business activity and
should not be seen as an externality, or as something marginal
to management itself” (Fundación Social, web page)
T chapter employs a theoretical lens to view the social inter-
vention model FS has developed over decades, in each of three areas: business de-
velopment, direct social intervention, and societal inuence. Certain distinguish-
ing features of the FS model are examined in light of two theoretical perspectives:
complex thinking (Morin, , ) and organisational capabilities (Chandler,
; Schreyogg, Kliesch-Eberl, ; and Dávila, ). Complementarily, based
on the empirical data and analysis that the grounded theory approach provides,
the chapter concludes by identifying a series of issues that emerge from the his-
torical account of FS’s path in the three areas mentioned. e underlying idea is
that they may oer opportunities for dialogue with scholars in at least two elds:
corporate social responsibility and business groups.
Complex thinking
Classical, or Cartesian, modes of thinking assume invariant, conserved distinc-
tions, whereas complex systems are entangled in such away that their components
· ·
and properties can no longer be separated or distinguished absolutely. Complex
thinking seeks to integrate all facets of reality, or a given situation, fact or particular
object of study, in order to achieve clear and precise knowledge. Renouncing one
part of the whole implies a simplied and reduced vision of reality, because reality
is in itself complex, i.e., implies the concurrence of all its constituent elements
and diverse interrelations. An integral vision of reality is, therefore, a pre-requisite
for complex thought. According to Morin:
Complexity emerges where simplied thought fails, yet includes all that
endows knowledge with a sense of order, clarity, distinction, and precision.
Simplied thought deconstructs complexity from reality; complex think-
ing integrates simplied modes of thinking as much as possible, while it
rejects a simplication’s mutilating, reductionist, one-dimensional, ulti-
mately blinding consequences, which are considered to be a reection of
what is true in reality (Morin, : ).
Complex thinking questions the Cartesian epistemological vision of an ana-
lytically divided world subject (cogito-ergo-sum: I think, therefore I am) and
object (extended substance). According to Morin this analytical distinction af-
fects the organisation of knowledge. He argues that “our lives are governed by
the principles of disjuncture, reduction and abstraction that together constitute…
the paradigm of simplication,” against which he posits “a paradigm of distinc-
tion/conjunction [to] distinguish without dismantling, associate without iden-
tifying, or reducing” (Morin, : , ). Complex thinking derives from the
Latin word complexus, “that which is interwoven.” It allows for a rationale that
combines separate strands of knowledge, from the standpoint that knowledge is
only relevant when considered in its entirety and placed in context. Combining,
contextualising, and encompassing are a requirement of knowledge (Morin, cited
in González, : ).
According to Morin, complexity in organisations may be examined by means
of three principles that “aid us in understanding the complexity of what is real”:
the dialogic principle, which makes it possible to maintain duality; the principle
of organisational recursiveness, which explains how outcomes are in turn self-
causing; and the hologrammic principle, according to which the whole is made
C. Gersherson & F. Heylighen: http://pespmc.vub.ac.be/Papers/inkingComplex.pdf
See, for example, Descartes, .
“Descartes established this dominant Western paradigm, separating… philosophy and science; and
positing that truth was predicated upon ‘clear and distinct’ ideas, in other words, disjunctive think-
ing.” (Morin, : ).
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba