When Theories Become Tools Toward A Framework For

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/240276323
When Theories Become Tools: Toward a Framework for

Pragmatic Validity
Article in Human Relations · October 2002

DOI: 10.1177/0018726702055010082
CITATIONS READS
136 1,073
3 authors, including:
Nicolay Worren Karl Moore

Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) McGill University
49 PUBLICATIONS 1,101 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 1,472 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nicolay Worren on 13 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Human Relations
http://hum.sagepub.com
When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity

Nicolay Am Worren, Karl Moore and Richard Elliott
Human Relations 2002; 55; 1227
DOI: 10.1177/0018726702055010082
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/55/10/1227
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
The Tavistock Institute
Additional services and information for Human Relations can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

© 2002 The Tavistock Institute. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
99M 04worren (ds) 12/9/02 3:27 pm Page 1227
Human Relations
[0018-7267(200209)55:10]
Volume 55(10): 1227–1250: 028082
Copyright © 2002
The Tavistock Institute ®
SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks CA,
New Delhi
When theories become tools: Toward a

framework for pragmatic validity
Nicolay Worren, Karl Moore and Richard Elliott
A B S T R AC T In this article we discuss the characteristics of knowledge that lead

to practical utility. We first review previous efforts at identifying the
characteristics of useful knowledge. These contributions are grouped
into three perspectives according to which representational mode
they imply: propositional, narrative, or visual. We develop a frame-
work for pragmatic validity that encompasses knowledge rep-
resented in all three modes. However, we also note an over-reliance
on the propositional mode in academia, which contrasts with a
preference for narrative and visual knowledge among practitioners.
Explicit and propositional knowledge are key criteria for achieving
scientific validity, but more ambiguous knowledge serves important
functions in organizational life and may thus possess pragmatic validity.
We highlight the role of conceptual models expressed in a visual
format, a representational mode that has received little attention in
the literature. We end with suggestions for further research that may
extend the notion of pragmatic validity and lead to a more refined
framework for the development of useful knowledge.
KEYWORDS pragmatic validity prescriptive theory representational

modes tools
Introduction
A number of authors have discussed the characteristics of useful knowledge

and the process by which practitioners translate knowledge into action (e.g.
1227

1228 Human Relations 55(10)
Heller, 1986; Lawler et al., 1985; Rynes et al., 2001; Thomas & Tymon,
1982). The general view in this literature is that the traditional criteria for
scientific validity do not in themselves guarantee usefulness to practitioners.
In a field like business management, there is only occasional alignment
between the formal body of knowledge and the particular circumstances of
unique cases encountered by managers, which tend to be ‘not in the book’
cases (Hoshmand & Polkinghorne, 1992; Schon, 1983). Even when there is
a match between theory and the problem encountered in practice, the type
of knowledge required may be qualitatively different. Whereas some pro-
fessions rely on a well-established and rigorous knowledge base, managerial
practice is far away from being the mere application of a set of well-defined
findings or theories. Managers rely primarily on tacit, procedural knowledge,
derived from direct experience and trial-and-error learning. This does not
imply that academically produced knowledge cannot or should not be
utilized, but rather that the outputs of academic research must be compatible
with these practical reasoning processes. Only then can researchers engage in
an interactive and reciprocating process with managers aimed at building
useful theory (cf. Mahoney & Sanchez, 1997; Mohrman, 2001).
Hoshmand and Polkinghorne (1992) and Schon (1983) called for a
better articulated epistemology of practicing knowledge, which would
illuminate the relationships between conceptual understanding,
formal/scientific knowledge, and professional expertise. This perspective is
rooted in the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. Aristotle
referred to praxis as the art of acting upon conditions one faces in order to
change them (Bernstein, 1971; Susman & Evered, 1978). He contrasted
praxis with theoria, ‘the sciences and activities that are concerned with
knowing for its own sake’ (Bernstein, 1971: ix) and with techne, ‘the skillful
production of artifacts and the expert mastery of objectified tasks’
(Habermas, 1973: 42). Whereas for Aristotle, there was a sharp distinction
between the theoretical and practical disciplines (Bernstein, 1971), philoso-
phers in the pragmatist tradition have attempted to overcome the dichotomy
between theory and action. John Dewey called for a philosophy that would
become a ‘philosophy of practical activity’ (quoted in Bernstein, 1971: xiii).
1 He felt that traditional epistemology was excessively occupied with the
logic of proof and results rather than with the process by which one
discovers, tests and modifies hypotheses.
The pragmatic validity of knowledge can be judged by the extent to
which goals or intended consequences can be achieved by producing certain
actions or using particular instruments (cf. Rescher, 1977). Because tra-
ditional criteria for scientific validity do not guarantee pragmatic validity,
there is a need to identify the characteristics that lead to usefulness. Yet there

Worren et al. When theories become tools 1229
is little consensus in the literature regarding how pragmatically valid know-

ledge is created. Previous work has discussed such factors as the origins of
research questions, the research techniques employed, the relationship
between researchers and managers during the research process, and different
approaches to theory building. For example, in an analysis of studies pub-
lished in the field of industrial psychology, Sackett (1994) found that the vast
majority of studies built on research questions derived from the existing
literature rather than from any applied problem. He argued that academic
research would be more useful if the starting point was a real problem faced
by an organization. However, one can also argue that too strong a focus on
applied problems would actually add little new knowledge to what prac-
titioners already know (e.g. Donaldson, 1985, 1992). As for the research
process, Evered and Louis (1981) argued that much research has limited use-
fulness because it is conducted ‘from the outside’ of organizations rather than
‘from the inside’. However, Lawler et al. (1985) and Donaldson (1985)
defended the use of large-scale and quantitative research ‘from the outside’
to study the effects of different approaches to enhancing organizational effec-
tiveness. Concerning theory building, a focus on prescriptive theory was
advocated by Argyris (1996c), Meehan (1982) and Mahoney and Sanchez
(1997), whereas Lewin and Stephens (1993), Mintzberg (1979) and Pettigrew
(1990) argued that a descriptive approach actually enhances utility of
management theory to managers.
Knowledge as design
One aspect that has been less prominent in this debate is the format of the
output of the research. Theories and research findings can be represented
in different ways, relatively independently of the research methods
employed to produce them. This aspect of academic knowledge becomes a
central concern if one applies the pragmatist perspective described above.
The pragmatist perspective focuses on the role knowledge plays as a con-
ceptual tool in professional inquiry processes. This potentially tool-like
character of knowledge is often overlooked (Perkins, 1986). Perkins con-
trasted the prevailing view of ‘knowledge as information’ with the alterna-
tive view of ‘knowledge as design’. A design is a structure adapted to a
purpose, for example, a knife constructed to be a tool for cutting. For
example, the year 1492, when Columbus discovered America is not only a
piece of information or an isolated ‘fact’, but can be a milestone date and
a peg for parallel historical events: What happened in Europe at that
time, or in the Far East? (Perkins, 1986). In other words, the same piece of

knowledge – the year 1492 – can potentially be treated both as information

and as design (in this case, as a tool for grasping or holding other pieces of
information).
In order to develop a framework for pragmatic validity, we propose
that one can utilize principles from fields such as cognitive ergonomics, which
seeks to identify design principles that can be consulted by those who develop
user interfaces of computer systems, buildings, cars, or any other physical
product. User-friendliness is a concern in many fields and it is possible that
the same principles may apply whether one is considering the design of
physical products or the design of cognitive tools such as conceptual models
derived from academic theory. An example is the use of external cues to
remind people of what to do in various situations. A physical product such
as a door handle may be designed to signal its proper operation (e.g. whether
a slide or a pull is required) (Norman, 1990). A conceptual model may in the
same manner function as external memory that helps compensate for the
limited capacity of short term memory (Meyer, 1991; Argyris, 1996a). For
example, the Five Forces diagram (Porter, 1985) might work as a mnemonic
device and assist a management consultant in recalling the most important
elements that need to be considered when analysing a company’s competitive
situation.
In addition to cognitive ergonomics, one also needs to consider the role
that tools play in shaping social processes. J.M. Levine et al. (1993) noted
that tools embody accepted ways of thinking and often invisibly shape the
course of both individual and group cognitive activity (see also Meindl et al.,
1994, and Bonora & Revang, 1993). Werr et al. (1997) studied the method-
ologies employed by leading management consulting firms. They found that
all of the consulting firms had highly detailed and structured methods that
facilitate ‘cognitive co-ordination’. The methods were used to co-ordinate
action both inside the consulting firms and in interaction with clients. The
methods represent a shared interface that support the exchange of experience
because communication can be based on a common vocabulary and refer-
ence points among actors that might belong to different functional groups or
even different national practices.
Yet it is rare that theories in management can be used as cognitive tools
by practitioners without great modification. Argyris (1996a) noted that many
theories of organizational behaviour are too complicated for the mind/brain
to use in everyday life. Mintzberg questioned whether the human brain
prefers to think in terms of the continuous and bivariate relationships found
in formal research, and concluded that it searches for another kind of order,
‘characterized by clusters or configurations, ideal and pure types’ (1979:
588). In contrast with the characteristics of widely adopted conceptual

models, such as those used by consulting firms, the outputs of academic

research are usually not tailored to how people process information and are
thus difficult to apply under the constraints imposed by everyday situations,
such as time pressure, uncertainty and complexity.
Knowledge in different representational modes
In focusing attention on the outputs of research and the role it plays as a cog-
nitive tool for the practitioner, it is necessary to consider the different possible
ways in which knowledge can be represented. For this purpose, it is helpful
to apply elements of the analytical framework developed by Kress and van
Leeuwen (1996) in the field of social semiotics. Social semiotics seeks to
understand how different signs acquire meaning and the underlying grammar
that govern the production and interpretation of these signs. The most
commonly analysed type of sign-making is the one that occurs through oral
or written language. However, social semiotics emphasize that human
societies use a variety of modes of representation, including gestures and
facial expressions, pictures and symbols, myths and stories, together with
verbal and written language. One might be able to use the same analytical
framework for analysing sign-making in different representional modes. As
pointed out by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996), sometimes the same thing can
be ‘said’ both visually and verbally. For example, the choice between word
classes and semantic structures in written language is in visual communi-
cation expressed through, for instance, different uses of colour, perspective
and line. At other times, the meanings that are realized in one representa-
tional mode cannot be translated into a different mode without a loss of
meaning. Kress and van Leeuwen observed that many of the meanings
conveyed via diagrams are difficult to convey verbally and are therefore left
unexplained in many textbooks and newspaper articles.
In the following we analyse some of the key contributions to the litera-
ture on the usefulness of knowledge. We have grouped these contributions
into one of three categories depending on the representational mode that they
imply: propositional, narrative or visual (these are summarized in Table 1).
We describe the tenets of each perspective and analyse how knowledge
achieves pragmatic validity in each mode. As an example we show how the
same prescription – ‘adoption of Japanese manufacturing techniques will lead
to higher productivity’ – may be represented in a propositional, narrative and
visual mode. We end with a discussion of how pragmatic validity may be
included as a formal criterion for research and theory building in manage-
ment and organization theory.

Table 1 Perspectives on representing theory as tools for practitioners
Mode of
representation Description Requirements for achieving pragmatic validity
Propositional Prescriptive statements about Testability through explicit, causal

potential managerial actions propositions
and outcomes
Operational definitions of constructs
Descriptions of how implementation is to

proceed to achieve desired outcomes
Narrative Stories and anecdotes that Vivid imagery and persuasiveness

illustrate a particular concept
or suggest a course of action Ambiguity – flexibility in interpretation
and application
Plausibility through logical consistency in

the ordering of the underlying plot
Visual Diagrams and other visual Appropriate symbolic and iconic

depictions of conceptual representation of concepts and
models relationships
Simplification or aggregation of complex

information into meaningful patterns
Pragmatic validity in the propositional mode
Sound description is the foundation for all knowledge systems, including one
in which pragmatic validity is a key criterion. Descriptive accounts provide
the starting point for intervention and also the reference points against which
the effects of the intervention are assessed. Yet here we take the position that
although descriptive theory is necessary, it is not sufficient if academic
research is to be useful. Useful knowledge does not only contain a descrip-
tion of what is happening, or what is going to happen under certain con-
ditions, but also specifications for how these conditions and actions can be
created in the first place (Argyris, 1996b; Meehan, 1982). Whereas descrip-
tive theory might help answer the question ‘What caused an event to occur?’,
prescriptive theory helps answer the question ‘How can that situation be
changed?’

Argyris (1996a, 1996b) and Meehan (1981, 1982) have both described
frameworks for how one should construct prescriptive theory that is useable
by practitioners in their everyday context. Their perspective is a Popperian
one, although it is applied to management and organizational learning rather
than to science. In line with Popper’s theory of falsification, Argyris (1996c)
argued that learning is often hampered when either practitioners or manage-
ment scholars fail to specify the operational definitions they use or the pro-
cedures that can be used for testing the validity of their claims. Consequently,
a self-sealing process is created in which beliefs are protected from feedback
that might otherwise have provided disconfirming evidence. The result is that
ineffective theories are maintained instead of being replaced by more effec-
tive theories.2
Pragmatically valid theory in the propositional mode contains three
major components. First, there are explicit and causal propositions of the
form ‘if you do A, then B is likely to follow, given certain conditions’.3 The
second component consists of rules that practitioners can use to test the
validity of these causal claims. This requires a certain level of operational-
ization of the construct. For example, the theory that states that ‘adoption
of Japanese manufacturing techniques will lead to higher quality and produc-
tivity’ can be tested by observing whether the implementation of the tech-
niques leads to the predicted consequences by observing indicators of quality
and productivity. Third, a pragmatic theory needs to contain explicit state-
ments of how the results are created. In this case, it must specify the changes
that must be made to factory organization, automation, etc. in order to
implement the Japanese model (Figure 1).
Discussion – propositional perspective
There are important implications for theory building if the propositional

perspective gains wider acceptance. This perspective suggests that scholars
should place increased emphasis on developing prescriptive theory that can
be tested by implementation in real organizational contexts. This contrasts
sharply with the observed state of affairs. Lutz (1982) and Moran and
Ghoshal (1996) saw little potential for deriving meaningful prescriptions
from the most popular models within organizational theory. Lutz (1982)
remarked that what most of the current theories do is to tell managers that
they are in trouble, and occasionally why, but they say nothing about how
they are supposed to get out of trouble. Indeed, many prominent theories
present a pessimistic view of the role of managers in effecting organizational
change. Moran and Ghoshal concluded that current organization theory is

Testable main proposition:

Adoption of Japanese manufacturing practices leads to higher quality and productivity.
Description and constructs which have been operationalized:

Manufacturing practices encompass all elements of the work organisation of a plant,
including plant lay-out, work design, organisational structure, work processes, incentives,
etc. Manufacturing practices are also influenced by product design and by the linkages
between personnel involved in manufacturing, marketing, and product design.
Classifications:
1. Japanese ‘lean manufacturing’
2. American ‘Tayloristic model’
3. Swedish ‘human-centred model’.
Tools and methodologies exist that can help operations and manufacturing managers move
toward the Japanese model. These specify how changes are made to the following
elements of the firm system:
• Product design (e.g. design for manufacturability, standardization of parts)
• Buyer-supplier relations (e.g. long-term partnerships and alliances)
• Work design (e.g. work cells)
• Incentive systems (e.g. performance related pay; profit sharing)
• Automation (e.g. automated assembly)
• Human resource management (e.g. quality circles)
• Work processes (e.g. ‘quality at source’, elimination of non-value adding activities)
Figure 1 The case for Japanese manufacturing principles: A propositional representation
more concerned about ‘the unintended consequences of organizing than

about organizing for [an] intended purpose’ (1996: 70).
Although many scholars are sympathetic to the need for relevance and
utility of academic research, there are challenges that proponents of the
propositional perspective must address in order to present a viable guiding
framework for future research. One challenge is the view of learning and
decision-making processes inherent in this perspective. There is a tendency
within the propositional perspective to assume that learning only occurs by
conscious or analytical reasoning. However, an emerging body of work in
cognitive psychology, summarized by Claxton (1997), shows how learning
may also accrue without conscious understanding – a process called inci-
dental learning or learning by osmosis. There are in fact a number of poten-
tially negative effects of encouraging people to be more reflective and explicit
when learning a new task or making a decision. A study by Masters (1992)
compared two groups of novice golf players: one group received explicit

instructions about how to stand, hold the club, and hit the ball, etc., whereas
the second group were left free to practise on their own. When the two groups
were tested against each other under stress (induced by the presence of a golf
expert and a financial reward), the group that received explicit instruction
performed worse than the group that had not. This effect, however, is depen-
dent upon the task. Explicit strategies are predictive of success on well-
defined, analytical tasks. Explicit strategies are predictive of failure for many
skill acquisition and insight tasks. Explicit strategies, which decompose infor-
mation that can be reduced to words, tend to distort tacit representations
(such as affective and sensory considerations) that may in fact be important
for effective learning and problem solving. As Claxton (1997) pointed out,
more ambiguous or intuitive tasks contain many considerations that are not
(equally) verbalizable.
Argyris and Meehan acknowledge that there will always be gaps in the
managerial theories available to practitioners because the theories can never
represent the full complexity of the context in which the implementation is
occurring (Argyris, 1996c). Hence in any given situation, action will be a
result of combining theoretical knowledge with practical knowledge derived
from previous experience. Although this perspective thus emphasizes the role
of organizational learning, it is unclear what the role of improvisation is
relative to conscious design and planning. As Weick (1993) pointed out,
effectiveness is not only achieved through intention, planning and implemen-
tation, but may also result from improvisation. Improvisation is the organiz-
ing strategy of ‘making it up as you go along’ (Miner & Moorman, 1995: 1)
or more formally ‘activities in which composition and execution of action
approach convergence with each other in time’ (Moorman & Miner, 1996:
2). Intentions may set things in motion, but the stream of actions that is
generated often lead to outcomes that were not specified in advance. These
emergent structures may prove dysfunctional in some cases, but they may
also prove effective and thus exhibit a ‘post hoc orderliness’. As stated by
Weick (1993: 351):
(. . .) the source of coherence in the design lies elsewhere than in inten-

tion. There [is] not a transition from imagination, through intention,
into execution. Instead, there [is] an imaginative interpretation of exe-
cution that [imputes] sufficient coherence to the execution that it could
easily be mistaken for an intention.
There is some evidence that the ability to improvise is linked to effec-

tiveness, particularly in organizations facing dynamic market conditions.
For example, in a study of six product development projects, Brown and

Eisenhardt (1997) characterized the more successful projects as being in a

state of dissipative equilibrium that required constant vigilance to avoid
slipping into either pure chaos or rigid structure. This was most successfully
done by a combination of predetermined structures and procedures, and
improvisational tactics in response to unexpected events.
However, the fact that improvisation plays a role does not necessarily
diminish the importance of the propositional perspective as such. As pointed
out by Kay (1995), to observe that organizations are complex and that
change is adaptive helps little in deciding what to do. Prescriptive theory,
for all its weaknesses, provides recipes for action and maps of processes that
managers can at least partially control. Yet the findings described above are
helpful in reminding us that intended action is continuously mixed and inte-
grated with emergent patterns and structures to create successful adap-
tation. They also point to some potential problems of forcing all learning
and problem-solving efforts into an explicit and propositional format.
Pragmatic validity in the narrative mode
Authors with a postmodern or constructivist perspective have frequently crit-

icised the prevailing emphasis on empirical precision and conceptual clarity
in the organizational sciences. Indeed, Astley and Zammuto (1992) argue
that linguistically ambiguous knowledge – such as stories, metaphors or
general concepts – is often more useful to practitioners. Ambiguous know-
ledge applies to a wider range of empirical phenomena and may therefore be
used as a basis for designing interventions that address a number of different
managerial problems. Because substantive knowledge about cause–effect
relationships is lacking in many areas of organizational life, linguistically
ambiguous knowledge might actually improve the ability to deal with situ-
ations involving high uncertainty.
Orr (1990) has shown that practical knowledge is often shared by
means of story-telling between members of a community of practice. In a
study of photocopier repairmen, he found that many of the faults they had
to deal with were not covered in the machine manuals, as they involved
problems that were not anticipated by the designers, such as problems
deriving from the interaction between the user and the machine rather than
from the machine itself. In contrast, the war stories and anecdotes circulat-
ing among the repairmen combined facts about the machines with the context
of specific situations, and were often used to make sense of ambiguous situ-
ations, such as when diagnosing a problem not previously encountered.
Astley and Zammuto (1992) and Barry and Elmes (1997) describe the

role of ambiguous knowledge in strategic decision-making. Ambiguous

theories frame the strategic discourse within the organization without
making premature commitments to a particular decision. Poorly defined
theories might thus preserve options, in that managers can apply the same
theories even when the environment is changing. Ambiguous theories also
appeal to a wider range of stakeholders, who are allowed to interpret the
theory in ways that fit their particular context. Different stakeholders might,
for example, support the same policy for different reasons. The need for fos-
tering coherence and identity among multiple stakeholders with varying
interests is seen as increasingly important in a time when integrated hierar-
chies are being replaced by loosely coupled or even virtual organizations. In
sum, Astley and Zammuto argue that the most useful type of knowledge is
not prescriptions or techniques but concepts and ideas that can be used to
interpret events or, as rhetorical tools, to alter perceptions and galvanize
collective action.
Some types of ambiguous knowledge can be evaluated by using frame-
works for analysing narratives (e.g. Barry & Elmes, 1997; Bruner, 1986).
Narratives have been defined as the ‘symbolic presentation of a sequence of
events connected by subject matter and related in time’ (Scholes, 1981: 205).
Whereas propositional knowledge has deductive and generalized features,
narrative knowledge has imaginative and contextualized qualities. Effective
narratives have the power to persuade and facilitate understanding by being
mediators between the general and the particular. Hermans et al. (1992)
noted that the parable is the oldest form of moral literature, and the anecdote
is the most common form of instruction. The usefulness of narrative know-
ledge is indicated by the extensive use of case studies in contemporary
business education (Alvarez & Merchan, 1992). The fact that ambiguous
theory by definition lacks the propositional format of prescriptive theory
does not imply that there are no criteria for judging the appropriateness or
effectiveness of this type of knowledge. To be effective, a narrative must
conform to rules for logical consistency in its descriptions of the connections
between particular events, and must, at the same time, provide drama or
imagery to arouse interest and attention. According to Barry and Elmes
(1997), successful organizational stories tend to be those that are novel and
stand out from other stories, are persuasive, and invoke retelling and sense-
making among diverse stakeholders.
Narrative analysis draws on fields such as literary criticism, rhetorical
theory and aesthetics to explain how stories provide a sense of meaning and
credibility. For example, archetypal figures and motifs can be employed to
persuade readers of the viability of a theory. As pointed out by March (1995),
one of the most conventional plots is to herald an age of uncertainty and

accelerating change. Another familiar plot is the emergence of an enemy or

obstacle. By embarking on a ‘Hero’s Journey’, the company can then renew
itself (while enduring hardship), confront the enemy, and finally succeed
(Barry & Elmes, 1997). Consider the way lean manufacturing is described in
the book The machine that changed the world (see Figure 2), a text that
employs many of the familiar rhetorical devices identified by scholars
analysing narratives. The imperative for introducing ‘lean manufacturing’ is
couched in terms of a drama involving Japan versus the rest of the world:
western companies have lost out during this struggle but can regain their
strength if they adopt best practice. The authors also recount a number of
stories about individual characters. We are not reading about Toyota in
general but about Kiichero Toyoda and his nephew and how they managed
to develop a new production system.
Interestingly, other researchers have subsequently contested many of
the claims in this book. For example, Swedish researchers (Sandberg, 1995)
disputed the productivity data that were provided, which were used to hail
Japanese lean manufacturing and denounce the effectiveness of the neo-craft
‘Twice in this century [the auto industry] has changed our most fundamental ideas about
how we make things. And how we make things dictate not only how we work but what
we buy, how we think, and the way we live. [. . .] After World War 1, Henry Ford and
General Motors’ Alfred Sloan moved world manufacture from centuries of craft
production – led by European firms – into the age of mass production. Largely as a result,
the United States soon dominated the global economy. After World War 2, Eiji Toyoda
and Taiichi Ohno at the Toyota Motor Company in Japan pioneered the concept of lean
production. The rise of Japan to its current economic pre-eminence quickly followed, as
other Japanese companies and industries copied this remarkable system.’
‘In the spring of 1950, a young Japanese engineer, Eiji Toyoda, set out on a three-month
pilgrimage to Ford’s Rouge plant in Detroit. In fact, the trip marked a second pilgrimage
for the family, since Eiji’s uncle, Kiichiro, had visited Ford in 1929. (. . .) Eiji was not an
average engineer, either in ability or ambition. After carefully studying every inch of the
vast Rouge, the largest and most efficient manufacturing facility in the world, Eiji wrote
back to headquarters the he ‘thought there were some possibilities to improve the
production system’. (. . .) But simply copying and improving the Rouge proved to be hard
work. Back at home in Nagoya, Eiji Toyoda and his production genius, Taiichi Ohno, soon
concluded (. . .) that mass production could never work in Japan. From this tentative
beginning were born what Toyota came to call the Toyota Production system and,
ultimately, lean production.’
[Excerpt from Womack et al., 1991]
Figure 2 The case for Japanese manufacturing principles: A narrative representation

oriented assembly techniques that were practised at Volvo’s Uddevalla plant.

The fact that these protests have not gained much attention in the business
community may be the lack of an equally compelling ‘counter-story’ to
support the Swedish model.
Discussion – narrative perspective
The narrative perspective has elucidated a mode of representation that was

previously largely ignored. Representing knowledge in a narrative format
frequently increases usefulness by enhancing interest, involvement and
credibility of a theory or concept. Narratives also facilitate encoding and
recall of information, in that people can use their general knowledge of
familiar plots and settings to structure the concepts of a story (Glass &
Holyoak, 1986). At the same time, it is important to acknowledge limi-
tations of this representational format. For example, although it is clear that
much organizational knowledge is transmitted in the form of stories (e.g.
Barry & Elmes, 1997; Orr, 1990), this process is not unproblematical. It is
often difficult to extract lessons from the stories told in organizations,
especially where one’s personal knowledge has to be pooled with knowledge
gained by others, or in an environment where interpretations are politically
motivated and aimed at establishing favourable reputations (Levinthal &
March, 1993). While it is true that myths and stories play an important role
in complex organizations and that management theories may serve as input
material to the story-telling process, these remain only a part of reality and
not the only reality (Lutz, 1982). Narrative knowledge is susceptible to dis-
tortion (Mandler & Johnson, 1977) and we agree with Beyer (1992) that
progress is difficult unless ambiguous knowledge is confronted with data
from time to time. However, as we have pointed out earlier, the most
relevant empirical test from a pragmatic viewpoint may not be the degree
of fit between the content of the narratives and reality per se, but rather the
degree of effectiveness in producing desired outcomes when utilizing this
type of knowledge. As conceptual tools, the most important role of narra-
tives and other types of ambiguous knowledge is that of providing cognitive
support by facilitating information encoding and retrieval, conveying
implicit assumptions, and shaping interpretive frames of reference among
organizational actors. As we shall discuss in more detail below, these effects
might be identifiable and measurable, and therefore researchable using con-
ventional methods.

Pragmatic validity in the visual mode
Knowledge in organizations is frequently codified and represented in a visual

format. For example, business processes, organizational structures and even
vision statements are frequently expressed by means of diagrams or other
types of illustrations. Innovations such as television, colour printing tech-
nologies and graphics software have enabled this proliferation of visuospa-
tial representation of management concepts. The same trend is evident in the
academic world, where there has been an increase in the use of graphics and
visual media. One study compared different editions of a standard college
textbook over four decades, and found that the average number of illustra-
tions per 100 pages had increased markedly during the last 30 years (Mag-
nussen et al., 1996).
Despite the increasing use of visual media, our knowledge about the
factors associated with pragmatic validity for visually represented infor-
mation is largely intuitive. Visual communication has received scant atten-
tion in the academic literature,4 and visual data have played a very minor
role in organizational research, which instead has relied on verbal reports
from subjects (Meyer, 1991). What is needed is an increased understanding
of both the ‘grammar’ underlying the production of visual statements, and
the broader role that visual information plays in organizational processes.
Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) have developed a framework for
analysing the grammar of visual representation. They define grammar as the
rules that govern how depicted elements combine into visual ‘statements’ of
greater or lesser complexity and extension. So far this framework is descrip-
tive but they suggest that their investigation might lead to a normative frame-
work that can help to develop ‘visual literacy’ supported by a set of more
formal rules for visual representation. It is interesting to note that visual
grammar might be more than just a matter of social convention. Research
suggests that there exist universals in visual representation of both physical
objects and abstract relationships. Blind people recognize a wide variety of
pictures and use many of the same devices as sighted illustrators do when
making drawings. For example, blind people can express visual metaphors
such as a spinning wheel by drawing curves inside a circle (Kennedy, 1997).
Like any semiotic system, the visual mode provides an array of choices
of different ways objects and their relations may be represented. Figure 3
provides a representation of some of the same concepts as in the proposi-
tional and narrative examples in Figures 1 and 2. This diagram makes use
of two basic codes for representing visual information. First, the concepts
are depicted as interacting with each other through the use of arrows, more
formally called vectors in Kress and van Leeuwen (1996). Vectors realize

similar meanings as ‘action verbs’ in language (such as ‘cause’ ‘transmit’,

‘send’). Specifically, the arrows are used to indicate that introducing
Japanese manufacturing principles leads to success. In other words, this
system of objects represents a process of events that takes place over time.
The figure also contains a classification in that two ‘intervening’ variables,
quality and productivity, have been split into two different boxes. Because
the two boxes are equally large it implicitly suggests that quality and
productivity are equal in some way, for example, they may contribute
equally strongly to competitive advantage. The choice of geometrical shapes
is also a way of conveying meaning. For example, one could imagine the
boxes being replaced by circles or by triangles. Visual shapes are examples
of choices that are normally left unexplained in the accompanying text. For
example, the size of boxes may indicate the importance attached to different
concepts, and this may not have been made explicit. Similarly, the choice of
a circle over a rectangle may connote an ‘organic’ rather than a ‘mechanis-
tic’ orientation.
In addition to social semiotics, there are frameworks within cognitive
psychology that can be used to analyse visual representations. Cognitive psy-
chologists have documented how information can be organized best to aid
encoding and retrieval (e.g. Card et al., 1999: 15–17; Glass & Holyoak,
1986). The use of hierarchical organization of information and the use of
visual symbols are ways of establishing memory cues and of ‘chunking’
information into larger units to aid both encoding and retrieval (Glass &
Holyoak, 1986). The importance of simple, parsimonious and flexible con-
ceptual modes must be seen in relation to the typical work demands in
managerial jobs. Managers work with and through people and must cope
with discontinuity, variety and time pressure. Visual models help communi-
cate complex relationships in an efficient manner and function as external
memory that help compensate for the limited capacity of short-term
working memory.
Productivity
Japanese
manufacturing Competitive
principles advantage
Quality
Figure 3 The case for Japanese manufacturing principles: A visual representation

Discussion – visual perspective
Many of the most popular management models are expressed in a visual

format or at least accompanied by visual representations. We would suggest
that the popularity of Porter’s Five Forces framework is in part due to the
simple diagram with five boxes, each representing an external force that a
firm must consider in defining its strategic position. Yet despite the popularity
of such models, there is little research-based inquiry into how representa-
tional modes influence their diffusion, adoption or effectiveness. Recent con-
tributions have begun to rectify this imbalance by documenting the
pervasiveness of visually encoded information and by taking the first steps in
developing frameworks for analysing images (e.g. Glasgow et al., 1995; Kress
& van Leeuwen, 1996; Stafford; 1996). Most of this work is still in its early
phases, but promises to supplement the current interest in narratives and dis-
course among postmodern scholars (Kilduff & Mehra, 1997) with an equally
strong foundation for understanding visual representations.
As with other representational modes, pragmatic validity in the visual
mode is related to how effective the representation is in conveying meaning
and providing cognitive support to managers. The effectiveness of visually
represented information has been the subject of some experimental research.
For example, Smith and Taffler (1996) studied the use of cartoon graphics to
improve the communication of accounting data. Accounting ratios were
assigned to facial features to illustrate, for example, ‘healthy’ and ‘distressed’
companies. Their study compared three groups of users who were presented
with the same information presented in different formats: accounting state-
ments, financial ratios and ‘faces’ constructed by the application of financial
ratios to particular facial features (e.g. a smiling mouth indicated high profit-
ability). Participants were asked to classify companies as solvent or bankrupt,
and the speed and accuracy of their judgements were compared to assess the
effect of the three different presentation formats. The results show that
participants’ categorizations of solvency or bankruptcy were more accurate
and made twice as fast when they were based on the faces compared with
actual accounting statements and ratios.
Within operations research, the ‘travelling salesman’ is a classic puzzle
used to demonstrate various techniques for optimization. The goal is to find
the best route for someone who wants to visit seven cities and return back
to the starting point. The conventional way of solving this problem is to
employ an algorithm such as neighbourhood search (Pidd, 1996). A more
recent approach is visual interactive modelling, which represents the cities as
points on the computer screen and asks the participant to indicate the
shortest distance by simply drawing the mouse between the points. The

power of the visual mode is demonstrated by the fact that lay people using
the visual interactive software reach a solution that is within 80 percent of
the computationally derived optimal route (Hurrion, 1980).
There are, of course, potential drawbacks from representing knowledge
in a visual mode. Visual information is subject to the same biases as other
types of ambiguous knowledge such as narratives. We noted above that many
diagrams convey taxonomies through the use of boxes or circles. The result-
ing diagram does not reflect a ‘natural’ classification but a rather subjective
process of deciding which elements belong to the same class (Kress & van
Leeuwen, 1996). Visual representations can be highly persuasive even if their
implicit premises are wrong (Meyer, 1991). The potential for misuse points
to need for the type of analytical frameworks that we have described above,
which can be used to increase people’s ‘visual literacy’ (Kress & van Leeuwen,
1996; Stafford, 1996).
Conclusions
We have sought to demonstrate that pragmatic theory may be represented in

different modes. The existing literature is flawed by a lack of balance on this
point. The author’s epistemological stance, usually rooted in one representa-
tional mode (typically narrative or propositional), is often promoted without
any consideration for the domain that this form of knowledge might apply
to, or the limitations of leaving other representational modes out. Within the
propositional perspective, rigour has come to mean reasoning in the formal
languages of logic and mathematics, with a subsequent neglect of visual and
narrative reasoning (Simon, 1995; Sloman, 1995). For authors like Argyris
(1996c) and Meehan (1982), propositions are the basic cognitive code and
usefulness is equated with linguistic precision and explicitness, with little
attention paid to the uses of alternative representational modes. The focus
on precision and explicitness makes it difficult to observe and represent ambi-
guity as an empirical phenomenon (D.N. Levine, 1985) and this perspective
does not in itself provide a viable foundation for developing pragmatically
valid theory. At the other extreme we find postmodern authors such as
Morgan (1980, 1986), who considers metaphor the basic cognitive code and
the generative mechanism for both scientific and pragmatic inquiry. Astley
and Zammuto (1992) described how linguistic ambiguity may prove advan-
tageous in developing vision statements, but failed to mention other aspects
of organizational life where linguistic ambiguity is dysfunctional (see Don-
aldson, 1992). The ambiguous type of theory that Astley and Zammuoto
advocate, such as metaphors and stories, has little relevance for managers

seeking specific advice for, say, how to control costs, reduce inventories, test
customer preferences or implement a new compensation system.
Managers need different types of knowledge that fit the demands of
different activities, and academic approaches that consider one representa-
tional mode in isolation will always end up with an incomplete picture of
how managers actually apply knowledge. The usefulness of knowledge will
depend on the degree of fit with such characteristics as the type of problem
or decision being considered, the phase in the process and organizational con-
textual factors. It is likely that ambiguous knowledge is particularly effective
in shaping the tacit and interpretive frameworks that practitioners apply in
solving problems. Ambiguous knowledge such as metaphors, stories and
diagrams guides the process of ‘paradigm negotiation’ or framing that occurs
in the early stages of problem solving and decision making (Boje et al., 1992).
More explicit types of knowledge come into play once the participants have
reached a consensus on how the problem should be viewed and thereby move
from the strategic to the tactical domain (Rosenhead, 1989).5 There are also
contextual factors that depend on, for example, the level of the organization
in which the knowledge is applied. Senior level management typically employ
relatively ambiguous frameworks in developing visions and strategies,
whereas lower level employees typically apply more specific techniques and
methods to operationalize and implement these visions and strategies.
Despite the differences between representational modes, we consider it
likely that the use of cognitive tools has certain identifiable effects and that
some of these effects generalize across representational modes. Most of the
current methodological literature is oriented toward ensuring scientific, not
pragmatic, validity. We need a user-oriented approach that will help us judge
the appropriateness of alternative representations of knowledge in different
fields of practice. Earlier, we likened this approach to a ‘cognitive ergonomics’
of management theory, but we also pointed out that it needs to incorporate the
broader social and organizational effects of employing conceptual tools.
We envisage three approaches to assessing pragmatic validity. The first
is simply to use the level of adoption as an indicator.6 It is likely that the
models that are adopted widely and used extensively have some adaptive
value for those using them. However, although an important indicator,
looking at the degree of diffusion runs the risk of confounding the pragmatic
validity of the tools themselves with the power of the channels of distribution
and marketing used to disseminate the tools (consulting firms, business book
publishers, gurus, etc.). The second approach, is therefore, to assess prag-
matic validity more directly, using an experimental methodology. For
example, one can imagine a business simulation involving two groups of
MBA students solving a case, each supplied with a different conceptual

model, which could differ in design (e.g. visuospatial layout) but not in sub-
stantive content. Differences in performance may thus be attributable to the
degree of pragmatic validity of the model employed. An example of this
research paradigm is the study reported in Smith and Taffler (1996) referred
to earlier on the use of cartoon graphics to improve the communication of
accounting data. Armstrong and Brodie (1994) conducted an experiment to
determine whether use of Boston Consulting Group’s growth/market share
matrix (Henderson, 1984) had an effect on investment decisions made by
management students presented with a hypothetical case.
The third approach is to ask the users of the tools about their opinions.
One can, for example, have users rate different versions of the same concep-
tual model. In fields such as software interface design, a high degree of end-
user involvement and feedback is considered a key factor in securing
user-friendly designs. Pragmatic validity is fundamentally about whether the
use of certain tools helps guide action to attain goals (cf. Hoshmand & Polk-
inghorne, 1992), and the users themselves might be the ones who are best
qualified to judge whether this is happening. However, it is important to
consider the potential biases inherent in direct user feedback and self-
assessments of pragmatic validity. The very purpose of cognitive tools is to
create a frame of reality, and it might be difficult for users to think outside
the frame once it has been established. Psychological research has docu-
mented a number of pervasive cognitive illusions, such as illusory correla-
tions and the hindsight bias (Glass & Holyoak, 1986), which may cause
subjects to attribute success to the use of tools, whereas in fact the outcomes
would have been as good or better without the use of the same tools. The
ideal approach might be therefore to combine self-reports of usefulness with
more objective indicators in order to assess pragmatic validity.
In sum, we believe the pragmatic perspective bears a number of impli-
cations for theory building and research in management. The most obvious
implication is the need to acknowledge the importance of the concept itself.
Traditional criteria for evaluating organizational theories (e.g. Bacharach,
1989) rely on the notions of explanatory power and falsifiability seen from
the researcher’s perspective and do not address the issues of practical useful-
ness and relevance. By incorporating pragmatic validity as a criterion we
would significantly improve our field’s ability to impact managerial practice.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Norwegian

Research Council. We would like to thank Peter Collett, Chris Argyris, Richard

Whittington and the anonymous reviewers of Human Relations for helpful

comments during the development of this article.
Notes
1 Dewey did not claim, however, that one should not construct systematic theory that
abstracts features from individual phenomena or experiences, or that theory should
always serve practical ends (see Bernstein, 1971: 216–17). On the contrary, his main
object was ‘to bring the problems and procedures of our moral and social life into
closer harmony with the dramatic advances made in experimental scientific inquiry’
(Bernstein, 1971: 218).
2 As pointed out by Meehan (1982), theoretical adequacy is more important than
accuracy. Even ‘weak’ theories can be the basis for action, in that they serve as launch
points for action and the observed outcomes as feedback that can be used for further
inquiry.
3 Prescriptive theory according to this view assumes causal relations, but unlike
descriptive theory, which may connect variables that are not under managerial
control, we see that the connection made in prescriptive theory is between specific
actions and outcomes.
4 Notable exceptions include studies on the role of signs in advertising and marketing
(e.g. Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993), visual media to communicate accounting infor-
mation (Smith & Taffler, 1996), and visual interactive modelling in operations
management (New et al., 1992). Meyer (1991) discusses a number of other examples
of the use of visual data.
5 The research in cognitive psychology summarized by Kaufmann (1988) shows that
the more ill-structured a task is, the more imagery gains in importance in determin-
ing problem-solving performance. With high novelty, complexity or ambiguity,
people switch from a verbal mode to visual representation.
6 This is the most common method used in the literature on the diffusion of manage-
ment knowledge (e.g. Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1993).
References
Abrahamsom, E. & Rosenkopf, L. Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using math-

ematical modelling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of Management
Review, 1993, 18, 487–518.
Alvarez, J.L. & Merchan, C. The role of narrative fiction in the development of imagination
for action. International Studies of Management & Organization, 1992, 22(3), 27–45.
Argyris, C. Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory.
Journal of Behavioral Science, 1996a, 32, 390–406.
Argyris, C. Unrecognized defenses of scholars: Impact on theory and research. Organiz-
ation Science, 1996b, 7, 79–87.
Argyris, C. Prologue: Toward a comprehensive theory of management. In B. Moingeon &
A. Edmondson (Eds), Organizational learning and competitive advantage. London:
Sage, 1996c.
Armstrong, J.S. & Brodie, R.J. Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making:
Experimental results. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1994, 11, 73–84.
Astley, W.G. & Zammuto, R.F. Organization science, managers, and language games.
Organization Science, 1992, 3(4), 443–60.

Bacharach, S.B. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 1989, 14, 496–515.
Barry, D. & Elmes, M. Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse.
Academy of Management Review, 1997, 22, 403–28.
Bernstein, R.J. Praxis and action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.
Beyer, J.M. Metaphors, misunderstandings and mischief: A commentary. Organization
Science, 1992, 3, 467–74.
Boje, D.M., White, J. & Wolfe, T. The consultant’s dilemma: A multiple frame analysis of
a public housing community. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds), Research in
organizational change and development, Vol. 8, pp. 181–242. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
1992.
Bonora, E.A. & Revang, Ø. A framework for analysing the storage and protection of know-
ledge in organisations: Strategic implications and structural arrangements. In P. Lorange
et al. (Eds), Implementing strategic processes. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Brown, S.L. & Eisenhardt, K.M. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory
and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1997, 42(1), 1–34.
Bruner, J. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.
Card, S.T., Mackinlay, J.D. & Shneiderman, B. Information visualization: Using vision to
think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.
Claxton, G. Hare brain, tortoise mind: Why intelligence increases when you think less.
London: Fourth Estate, 1997.
Donaldson, L. In defence of organization theory: A reply to the critics. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1985.
Donaldson, L. The Weick stuff: Managing beyond games. Organization Science, 1992, 4,
461–6.
Evered, R. & Louis, M.R. Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: ‘Inquiry
from the inside’ and ‘inquiry from the outside’. Academy of Management Review, 1981,
6, 385–95.
Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N.N. & Chandrasekaran, B. (Eds) Diagrammatic reasoning: Cog-
nitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Glass, A.L. & Holyoak, K.J. Cognition. New York: Random House, 1986.
Habermas, J. Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Beacon, 1973.
Heller, F.A. (Ed.) The use and abuse of social science. London: Sage, 1986.
Henderson, B.D. The logic of business strategy. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984.
Hermans, H.J.M., Kempen, J.G. & van Loon, R.J.P. The dialogical self: Beyond indi-
vidualism and rationalism. American Psychologist, 1992, 47, 23–33.
Holbrook, M.B. & Hirschman, E. The semiotics of consumption: Interpreting symbolic
behaviour in popular culture and works of art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993.
Hoshmand, L.T. & Polkinghorne, D.E. Redefining the science-practitioner relationship and
professional training. American Psychologist, 1992, 47, 55–66.
Hurrion, R.D. Visual interactive (computer) solution for the travelling salesman problem.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1980, 31, 537–9.
Kaufmann, G. Problem solving and creativity. In K. Grønhaug & G. Kaufmann (Eds),
Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988.
Kay, J. Foundations of corporate success. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Kennedy, J.M. How the blind draw. Scientific American, 1997, 1, 76–82.
Kilduff, M. & Mehra, A. Postmodernism and organizational research. Academy of
Management Review, 1997, 2, 453–81.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge, 1996.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, A.M., Ledford, G.E. & Cummings, T.G. (Eds) Doing research that
is useful for theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

Levine, D.N. The flight from ambiguity: Essays in social and cultural theory. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1985.
Levine, J.M., Resnick, L.B. & Higgins, E.T. Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review
of Psychology, 1993, 44, 585–612.
Levinthal, D.A. & March, J.G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,
1993, 14, 95–112.
Lewin, A.Y. & Stephens, C.U. Designing postindustrial organisations: combining theory
and practice. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds), Organizational change and redesign.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Lutz, F.W. Tightening up loose coupling in organizations of higher education. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 1982, 27, 653–69.
Magnussen, S., Grenness, C.E. & Worren, N. Hvor mange ord er et bilde verdt? [How many
words are a picture worth?]. Nytt norsk Tidsskrift, 1995, 4, 338–47. [In Norwegian.]
Mahoney, J.T. & Sanchez, R. Competence theory building: Reconnecting management
research and management practice. In A. Heene & R. Sanchez (Eds), Competence-based
strategic management. Chichester: Wiley, 1997.
Mandler, G. & Johnson, N.S. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall.
Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 111–51.
March, J. Disposable organizations and the rigidities of imagination. Organization, 1995,
2(3/4), 427–40.
Masters, R.S.W. Knowledge, nerves, and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit
knowledge in the breakdown of a complex skill under pressure. British Journal of Psy-
chology, 1992, 83, 172–9.
Meehan, E.J. Reasoned argument in social science: Linking research to policy. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press, 1981.
Meehan, E.J. Economics and policy-making: The tragic illusion. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 1982.
Meindl, J.R., Stubbart, C. & Porac, J.F. Cognition within and between organizations.
Organization Science, 1994, 5(3): 289–93.
Meyer, A.D. Visual data in organizational research. Organization Science, 1991, 2, 218–36.
Miner, A.S. & Moorman, C. Organizational improvisation and long-term learning: The
case of how firms make it up as they go along. Working paper, School of Management,
University of Wisconsin, 1995.
Mintzberg, H. An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1979, 24, 582–9.
Mohrman, S.A. Seize the day: Organizational studies can and should make a difference.
Human Relations, 2001, 54, 57–65.
Moorman, C. & Miner, A.S. Organizational improvisation and organizational memory.
Working paper, Marketing Science Institute, 1996.
Moran, P. & Ghoshal, S. Theories of economic organization: The case for realism and
balance. Academy of Management Review, 1996, 21, 58–73.
Morgan, G. Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, 605–22.
Morgan, G. Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1986.
New, S.J., Lockett, A.G. & Boaden, R.J. Untangling visual interactive modelling: Pictures
of models of pictures with models. Paper presented to the 34th Annual Conference of
the Operational Research Society, Birmingham, 8–10 September 1992.
Norman, D.A. The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
Orr, J.E. Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity. In D.S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds),
Collective remembering. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.
Perkins, D.A. Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986.
Pettigrew, A.M. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization
Science, 1990, 3, 267–92.

Pidd, M. Tools for thinking: Modelling in management science. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.
Porter, M. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press, 1985.
Rescher, N. Methodological pragmatism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977.
Rosenhead, J. Introduction: Old and new paradigms of analysis. In J. Rosenhead (Ed.),
Rational analysis for a problematic world. Chichester: Wiley, 1989.
Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. & Daft, R.L. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and
transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 2001,
44(2), 340–55.
Sackett, P.R. The content and process of the research enterprise within industrial and
organizational psychology. Presidential address, Society for Industrial and Organiz-
ational Psychology conference, Nashville, TN, 9 April 1994.
Sandberg, Å. Enriching production: Perspectives on Volvo’s Uddevalla plant as an alterna-
tive to lean production. Aldershot: Avebury, 1995.
Scholes, R. Language, narrative, and anti-narrative. In W. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrativity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Schon, D.A. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
Simon, H. Forword. In B. Chandrasekaran, J. Glasgow & N.H. Narayanan (Eds), Dia-
grammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Menlo Park, CA: MIT
Press, 1995.
Sloman, A. Musings on the roles of logical and non-logical representations in intelligence.
In B. Chandrasekaran, J. Glasgow & N.H. Narayanan (Eds), Diagrammatic reasoning:
Cognitive and computational perspectives. Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press, 1995.
Smith, M. & Taffler, R. Improving the communication of accounting information through
cartoon graphics. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 1996, 9(2), 68–85.
Stafford, B.M. Good looking: Essays on the virtue of images. Boston, MA: MIT Press,
1996.
Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D. Assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 582–603.
Thomas, K.W. & Tymon, W.G. Necessary properties of relevant research: Lessons from
recent criticisms of the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 1982,
7, 345–52.
Weick, K.E. Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds),
Organizational change and redesign. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Werr, A., Stjernberg, T. & Docherty, P. The functions of methods of change in management
consulting. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1997, 10, 288–307.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. The machine that changed the world. New York:
Harper, 1991.

Nicolay Worren is an internal consultant with Kvaerner, a global engi-

neering and construction company with headquarters in Oslo and
Houston. He recently completed his doctoral thesis in management
studies at Oxford University. His research interests include pragmatic
validity, strategic flexibility and modularity in product and process design.
[E-mail: nicolay@worren.com]
Karl Moore is a professor at McGill University and a fellow at Temple-

ton College, Oxford University. His research interests include the role of
subunits in competency creation within global multinationals and inter-
national business in the ancient world.
[E-mail: karl.moore@templeton.oxford.ac.uk]
Richard Elliott is Professor of Marketing and Consumer Research at

the University of Exeter and Editor of the British Journal of Management,
and European Editor of the Journal of Product and Brand Management.
[E-mail: Richard.Elliott@relliott.demon.co.uk]

View publication stats

When Theories Become Tools Toward A Framework For

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Theories Become Tools Toward A Framework For

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

When Theories Become Tools: Toward a Framework for

Article in Human Relations · October 2002

Nicolay Worren Karl Moore

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity

The online version of this article can be found at:

The Tavistock Institute

Email Alerts: http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

When theories become tools: Toward a

A B S T R AC T In this article we discuss the characteristics of knowledge that lead

KEYWORDS pragmatic validity prescriptive theory representational

A number of authors have discussed the characteristics of useful knowledge

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

1228 Human Relations 55(10)

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

Worren et al. When theories become tools 1229

is little consensus in the literature regarding how pragmatically valid know-

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

1230 Human Relations 55(10)

knowledge – the year 1492 – can potentially be treated both as information

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

Worren et al. When theories become tools 1231

models, such as those used by consulting firms, the outputs of academic

Knowledge in different representational modes

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

1232 Human Relations 55(10)

Table 1 Perspectives on representing theory as tools for practitioners

Propositional Prescriptive statements about Testability through explicit, causal

Descriptions of how implementation is to

Narrative Stories and anecdotes that Vivid imagery and persuasiveness

Plausibility through logical consistency in

Visual Diagrams and other visual Appropriate symbolic and iconic

Simplification or aggregation of complex

Pragmatic validity in the propositional mode

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

Worren et al. When theories become tools 1233

Discussion – propositional perspective

There are important implications for theory building if the propositional

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

1234 Human Relations 55(10)

Testable main proposition:

Description and constructs which have been operationalized:

Figure 1 The case for Japanese manufacturing principles: A propositional representation

more concerned about ‘the unintended consequences of organizing than

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

Worren et al. When theories become tools 1235

(. . .) the source of coherence in the design lies elsewhere than in inten-

There is some evidence that the ability to improvise is linked to effec-

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

1236 Human Relations 55(10)

Eisenhardt (1997) characterized the more successful projects as being in a

Pragmatic validity in the narrative mode

Authors with a postmodern or constructivist perspective have frequently crit-

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

Worren et al. When theories become tools 1237

role of ambiguous knowledge in strategic decision-making. Ambiguous

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008

1238 Human Relations 55(10)

accelerating change. Another familiar plot is the emergence of an enemy or