论文部分内容阅读
如果我们将“城市”作为组织的场所会怎样?这个问题的提出,其隐含的意义也许解释了为何城市未能成为以卓越和专业为信条的组织研究领域的传统认知手段的一部分。分析学家们有可能在城市中迷失:对客体和主体、或者结构和代理的传统区分,在涉及城市的组织特性的术语时,往往会错乱。本评论文章开辟了一个新的视角,不再将城市作为组织理论家们在他们那些太过熟悉和沉溺的“组织研究与某某问题”(“某某”可以是本文探讨的“城市”)模式中的另一个关注目标。相反,我们希望思考城市和都市力量如何能够成为不断重新评估一种方式的场所,这种方式能让研究组织理论的学者可以通过社会和文化转型等问题参与其中。总而言之,这些文章反对我们将城市简单地视作追求秩序的一种意愿的结果以及由此产生的外部效应,而是呼吁我们对新的组织形式敞开怀抱。在这个问题上,我们的感悟和想象才刚刚起步。
What happens if we consider “city ” as an organizational forum? The implication of this question may explain why cities fail to become part of the traditional cognitive approach to organizational research based on excellence and professionalism . Analysts may lose themselves in the city: the traditional distinction between objects and subjects, or structures and agents, tends to be confused when it comes to the terminology of organizational characteristics of cities. This review article opens up a new perspective that no longer treats cities as organizational theorists who are too familiar and addicted to them. “Organizational research and certain problems” (“certain”) can be explored in this article “City ”) mode of ?? another focus on the target. Instead, we want to think about how urban and urban power can be a place to continually reevaluate a way for academics of organizational theory to engage with issues such as social and cultural transformation. All in all, these articles objected to the fact that we simply saw cities as the result of a desire to pursue order and the resulting externalities. Instead, we called for our open arms to new forms of organization. On this issue, our perception and imagination have just started.