Revisiting social interventioninstruments: a theoretical assessment - Business goals and social commitment - Libros y Revistas - VLEX 787489217

Revisiting social interventioninstruments: a theoretical assessment

AutorJosé Camilo Dávila - Carlos Dávila - Lina Grisales - David Schnarch
Páginas147-173
·  ·
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 inuence. 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 oer 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 simplied 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 simplied thought fails, yet includes all that
endows knowledge with a sense of order, clarity, distinction, and precision.
Simplied thought deconstructs complexity from reality; complex think-
ing integrates simplied modes of thinking as much as possible, while it
rejects a simplication’s mutilating, reductionist, one-dimensional, ulti-
mately blinding consequences, which are considered to be a reection 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 simplication,” 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

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR