From: Tom Hawk [mailto:
thawk@frostburg.edu]
Steve. But who is to say that Whittington or Burrell and Morgan is all
inclusive? B&M uses a two by two in an either/or fashion that implies mutual
exclusivity of the two dimensions on both axes. And why those four
particular
dimensions for B&M and not some others? I could construct a three
dimensional
box to add richness to the visual but even that would be limited. I like the
approach used by Ken Wilber in his books, particularly "no Boundaries,"
"Integral Psychology," and "A Brief Theory of Everything." Inclusivity seems
to be an important criterion. Finally, I have found for myself that
sometimes
the only way I can move out of my "frames of knowing" is to have them
challenged by others. On the other hand, having at least some frames and an
understanding their limitations and assumptions is a good start. Tom Hawk.
Steven Henderson wrote:
> It is a conundrum, as you say. It is also the case that the judgement on
> whether one decision has more quality than another also depends upon a
> paradigm. Articulating the nature of the paradigm does not, in itself,
> change this.
>
> I have never found it possible to identify my own paradigm consistently -
> much seems to depend upon my mood at the time. However, I have surprised
> myself by deliberately thinking through a problem from several well
> articulated views - Whittington's four strategy Schools work very well for
> strategic management decisions, and Burrell and Morgan's four paradigms
> enable one to make wider social judgements.
>
> All good wishes
>
> Steven