Working Paper

Series

A Description of Modernism and Postmodernism in the Context of Organisation Studies and Thinking about Management

Carlene Boucher School of Management

ISSN 1038-7448 No.WP 99/8 (July 1999)

A Description of Modernism and Postmodernism in the Context of Organisation Studies and Thinking about Management
Carlene Boucher School of Management

ISSN 1038-7448 No.WP 8/99 (July 1999)

Carlene Boucher is currently a senior lecturer in the School of Management. She can be contacted as follows: Phone: 9925 5914 Email: cboucher@netspace.net.au

Abstract

Writing about organisations from a postmodern perspective has proliferated in the last ten years (for example Calas 1987; Barratt & Strauss 1989; Hassard & Parker 1994; Boje, Gephart & Thatchenkery 1996), as has criticism of applying postmodern thinking to organisation studies (Tsoukas 1992). This paper attempts to identify, for the person not familiar with the literature on postmodernism, the fundamental tenets of this approach and the main criticisms made of it. The paper also describes some of the most interesting challenges postmodernism creates for thinking about organisations studies and management.

Modernism and Postmodernism

The project of modernity came into being in the 18th century. Based on a Newtonian, mechanistic view of (homogeneous) time and space, Enlightenment thinkers developed a notion of there being universal laws and morality and an objective science. This science would offer freedom from scarcity and natural calamity. Progress made in social organisation and rational thought would release people from oppression and ignorance. "The universal and eternal qualities of humanity could be discovered and revealed" (Harvey 1989, p 12). Modernism produced doctrines of equality, liberty and universal reason. It was intrinsically optimistic. Reason and science would produce a better world. Cooper and Burrell (1988) identifies two current versions of modernism, critical modernism and systemic modernism. Critical modernism focuses on the ability of reason and rationalism to liberate individuals and groups (Cooper & Burrell 1988). Systematic modernism (which Cooper & Burrell believe is currently dominant) focuses on the system itself and how through logic and reason, the system and thus human experience can be improved (Cooper & Burrell 1988). But others would argue that within the Enlightenment project, and especially within systemic modernism, lurked the seeds of its own downfall. In the name of human emancipation, nature was to be dominated, and "the lust to dominate nature entailed the domination of human beings, and that could only lead, in the end, to a nightmare condition of self domination" (Harvey 1989) . Also, the enlightenment project (and therefore modernism) were seen as liberating only for the dominant group, white western males (Calas & Smircich 1991; Flax 1987; Yeatman 1991). Some philosophers believe that in the name of human emancipation we must abandon the Enlightenment project while others argue that it has been perverted in various ways and can still work, especially if we return to the tenets of critical modernism (Harvey 1989). "What position we take depends upon how we explain the 'dark' side of our recent history and the degree to which we attribute it to the defect of Enlightenment reason rather than to a lack of its proper application (Harvey 1989, p 14). By the beginning of the twentieth century, Enlightenment reason was being seriously questioned, notably by Nietzche (Harvey 1989). Jenks dates the symbolic end of modernism in architecture to 3.32 pm on 15 July 1972 when the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St Louis (an exemplar of modern architecture) was dynamited because it was considered uninhabitable. Cooper (1988) describes the modern/postmodern debate as being part of a periodic bout of the human sciences self-doubt and selfanalysis. The rise of postmodernism began in the 1960's but began to seriously influence thinking about culture, economics, philosophy and architecture in the early 1970's (Harvey 1989; Clegg 1990).

Postmodernism defies definition. In fact to attempt to define it is to transgress many of its basic tenets. Writers do agree however, that postmodernism represents some kind of reaction to, or departure from, modernism (Barratt & Straus 1989; Burrell 1988; Callinicos 1989; Cooper 1989; Cooper & Burrell 1988; Flax 1987; Harvey 1989; Kritzman 1988; Martin 1990; Parker 1992b; Yeatman 1991). Yeatman (1991 p 6) also identifies the dependency of postmodernism on modernism. Without modernism, postmodernism would never have come into existence.

Basic Tenets of Postmodernism

Postmodernism encompasses a post-disciplinary (as opposed to multi-disciplinary) stance, crossing over many of the traditional boundaries of modernist social science (Yeatman 1991). Postmodern approaches are now being used to examine many social, political, cultural and economic issues. Yeatman (1991) credits the movements of marginalised people (women, people of colour, people with disabilities) with bringing postmodernism into the arena of social analysis. These movements opened up postmodern critical theorising because they could not be contained as one singular and rational subject. Postmodernism allows a critical look at modernism and calls into question some of the fundamental premises of the project of modernism. The displacement of reason Postmodernists begin by rejecting the central positioning of reason in modern knowledge construction. "Postmodernists refuse to give reason universal and transcendent status (Yeatman 1991, p 3). This does not mean that they do not believe that a 'truth' (or truths) cannot be arrived at, but that these need to be continually negotiated (Yeatman 1991). Postmodernism disputes the pre-eminent place given to rationalism by the modernity project. Postmodernists assert that, in fact, all rational acts are remedial (a response to an event) and that all acts can, in retrospect be explained rationally although, at the time of the act, it was not rationally planned (Cooper & Burrell 1988). Thus, the dominance of reason, as practiced in modernism is based on a fallacy. The rejection of meta-narratives and grand theories Following on from the displacement of reason, postmodernists would argue that if there is no universal rationality or reason then there can be no grand theories, no metanarratives (Harvey 1989; Yeatman 1991; Palmer in Clegg & Palmer 1996). Postmodernism rejects the possibility of one history or one truth and as such legitimises the experience of those (such as people of colour) who under the modern project were obliterated from the dominant meta-narratives "...whose secret terroristic function was to ground and legitimate the illusion of a universal human history" (Harvey 1989, p 9, quoting Eagleton). In displacing the theories, postmodernism also displaces the theorists. It rejects the notion of the expert as the 'holder of the truth' and opens up the possibility of all persons being knowers (Chodorow 1989; Eisenstein 1984; Elshtain

1981; Flax 1987; Fonow & Cook 1991; Stanley 1990). "Postmodernism is a medicine, a specific cure for certain kinds of intellectual arrogance" (Yeatman, 1991, p 17, quoting Connell). The decentring of human beings Similar to the way Gaileo replaced the earth with the sun as the centre of our system, (and perhaps with a similar level of profundity) postmodernism once again challenges the notion that human beings are at the centre of the world. Whereas the modernist project is based on the implicit assumption that a rational, 'understandable' world exists and is waiting to be known by humans, postmodernism insists that it is human beings who put themselves at the centre and from this position see an ordered world because to not see one would be too anxiety producing (Cooper & Burrell 1988). "Postmodernism therefore decentres the human agent from its self-elevated position of narcissistic 'rationality' and shows it to be essentially an observer-community of the world, their interpretations having no absolute or universal status" (Cooper & Burrell 1988, p 94). Discontinuity, fragmentation and chaos As mentioned earlier, postmodernism totally rejects any notion of the world as a rational, ordered and 'knowable' place. Postmodernism harks back to the deep chaos in modern life and its intractability before rational thought and treats chaos, disorder, lack of closure and indeterminacy in positive ways. Lyotard has defined postmodern discourse as "the search for instabilities" (Cooper & Burrell,1988, p 98). By questioning the existence of any type of certainty, postmodernism can be seen to threaten all that appears to hold our organisations together, value systems, authority, tradition. But it also opens a possibility "...of a democratic politics of voice and representation, where the ideal state is not the overcoming of domination once and for all but the ongoing imaginative and creative forms of positive resistance to various types of domination" (Yeatman 1991, p 8).

Postmodernisms
At least four different postmodernisms seem to exist. Yeatman (1991) and Parker (1992b), although coming from very different political positions, both distinguish between postmodernism as a positivistic stance (the idea that modern institutions have qualitatively altered and have entered a post-modern age) and postmodernism as a critical stance (a new way of viewing the world). Both argue that while it is true that the nature of the world and organisations has changed, postmodernism is a state of mind, "... a condition where there is no operative consensus concerning the ultimate or transcendental grounds of truth and justice" (Yeatman 1991, p 116). In Harvey's (1989 p 42) terms they would argue that postmodernism is a style rather than a period.

The other two postmodernisms are probably best expressed as being two ends of the same continuum, or what Tsoukas (1992 p 648) refers to as soft and hard versions of postmodernism. Adherents to the hard version, which he describes as being "...in danger of descending into solipsism..." (Tsoukas 1992, p 648), are strident in denying the existence of universal truths and vigorously dispute the notions of rationality and reason. A softer version recognises the ontological existence of the social world (Tsoukas 1992, p 648), however precarious and fluid it may be, and "...has a strong relationship of continuity with modern traditions of emancipatory discourse... In respect of its intellectual expressions, it may be termed postmodern critical theorising" (Yeatman 1991, p 8).

Criticisms of a Postmodern Approach to Organisation Studies

At its worst, postmodernism is viewed as a minefield of conflicting notions that just happen to wear the same label (Harvey 1989). It is seen by some as descending into infantile revolt, and expression of anger towards the excesses of high modernism (Harvey 1989), or as an aberrant form of the anti-modern. It is seen on the one hand to be revolutionary (Yeatman 1991) and on the other to be reactionary, simply an example of crass commercialisation (Harvey 1989), and by others as simply out of touch with reality. "The rhetoric of postmodernism is dangerous for it avoids confronting the realities of political economy and the circumstances of global power" (Harvey 1989, p 117). Harvey describes some postmodern philosophers as being "...obsessed with deconstructing and delegitimating every form of argument they encounter, they can end only in condemning their own validity claims to the point where nothing remains of any basis for reasoned action" (Harvey1989, p 116), and argues that since meta-theory cannot be dispensed with, the postmodernists simply put it underground where it cannot be examined or criticised (Harvey 1989). Some critics attempt to dispense with the notion of postmodernism altogether by arguing that it is simply a strong version of critical modernism (Tsoukas 1992) and that modernism already includes reflexive (critical) rationalism and that this is what a lot of (supposed) postmodern critique really is. Whilst the way postmodernists question the basic assumptions made by modernists may be viewed as useful, it is not seen as something new. Tsoukas argues that, at least in organisation analysis, the postmodern approach of "...showing the limits of human rationality... decentering the role of rational purpose are particularly valuable, although they are not really new" and he states that this type of work was done by Hayek, Weick and Mintzberg (Tsoukas 1992, p 647). One of the most scathing criticisms of postmodernism is that it is nothing more than a fad that will run its course and die out. Harvey (1989) asks whether postmodernism is anything more than a fad restricted to high culture and having little or no impact on the day to day life of the masses. He goes on to suggest that the postmodern era may

already be over in architecture (Harvey 1989) and that in other areas is undergoing a subtle evolution, perhaps reaching a point of self-dissolution into something different. New alternatives are already being offered such as a new romanticism, a new realism, ethics, renewal of historical materialism, renewal of enlightenment project, a return to classicism or a return to modernism. Rajchman (in Parker 1992b, p 14) suggests that postmodern theory "..is the Toyota of thought: produced and assembled in several different places and then sold everywhere". If postmodernism is such a flawed, disreputable and outmoded notion, why study its application to organisation studies and management? Because like many writers cited in this paper (Burrell 1988; Calas 1987; Cooper 1989; Cooper & Burrell 1988; Martin 1990; Parker 1992b; Yeatman 1991), my experience of organisations as irrational, chaotic and unreasonable resonates with the postmodern project. Modernism explains how organisations should be, postmodernism is the experience of how they are.

Some Impacts of Postmodernism on Organisation Studies

The beginnings of contemporary organisation theory lie in the Enlightenment, with the application of reason and rationality to thinking about organisations, and the important role of rationality is epitomised in the work of Weber (Cooper & Burrell 1988). Gergen (quoted in Parker 1992b, p 6) argues that organisation theory has been shaped by both modernism and romanticism. The modernist project is evident in the use of reason in organisation theory, the machine metaphor used in organisation studies, the principles of scientific management and the use of psychometrics to quantify worker behaviour. The influence of romanticism is reflected in the impact of the human relations movement, the adaptation of psychoanalytic approaches to understanding organisations, and in various motivation theories that adopt an individual approach and focus on such issues as self-actualisation. He suggests that both romanticism and modernism are exhausted and it is time to look for a new approach. If the modern approach to organisations depicts them as rational, intentional, systematic and reassuring in their substance, the postmodern approach is exactly the opposite. Postmodernism entered organisation theory through those interested in post-Fordism and organisation culture (Parker 1992b) and through those who wished to address the concerns of people who have traditionally have been marginalised in organisations (Calas 1987; Calas & Smircich 1991; Cooper 1989). Postmodernists view organisations as automatic and autonomous in operation, out of the control of people (Cooper & Burrell 1988). If the modernist metaphor is a machine driven by a person the post modernist metaphor is a runaway vehicle. Obviously this fundamental difference has significant implications for how we understand organisations. Rather than being the outcome of human rationality, the organisation produces rationality (Cooper & Burrell 1988).

Organisation as a coping mechanism Building on the work of Foucault, postmodernists place subjects (not objects) at the beginning of the organising process (Cooper & Burrell 1988). Therefore, organisations do not exist, but are created in the minds of people as a defence against anxiety (Cooper & Burrell 1988; Foucault,1973; Menzies Lyth,1988).
Organizations do not first pre-exist and then create their relationships, they occur in existential gaps which lie beyond knowledgeable discourse....Organized rationality, far from originating in beau-ideals and consummate logics of efficiency, is founded on sleight of hand, vicious agonism and pudenda origo (shameful origins). This is the revisionary lesson that postmodernism brings to organization analysis" (Cooper & Burrell 1988 p 108) .

This represents a fundamental conceptual shift in the way we think about organisations. The role of rationality and reason A fundamental challenge postmodernism offers to organisation theorists is its displacement (and outright rejection) of any notion of rationality or reason in organisations. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, postmodernism suggests that organisations do not actually exist. Thus it destroys the hope of discovering or creating a knowable order in organisations. This has many significant implications for what has been largely unquestioned organisation assumptions. If organisations are not rational then how can we talk about people having prescribed roles in organisations (Cooper & Burrell 1988). Organisation theory is premised on the assumption that organisations have rational goals and act to attain them. If the truth is that action is in fact automatic, not linked in any way to goals, but justifiable in terms of them (Cooper & Burrell 1988, p 103, quoting Mayntz, Merton and Gouldner) then traditional business planning processes are nothing more than emotionally reassuring rituals. Recent advances in business planning technology, such as information theory, cybernetics and decision theory become nothing more than bright new toys, fun to play with but useless. Destruction of meta-theory If we dispense with meta-theories as a way of understanding organisations, then organisation studies must undergo a transformation (Willmott in Hassard & Parker 1994). From a postmodern perspective what is analysed is "the production of organization rather than the organization of production" (Cooper & Burrell 1988, p 106). Research will focus on attempting to ...open up the indeterminacy that modern social science, everyday conception, routines and practices have closed off (Alvesson in Clegg, Hardy & Nord 1996, p 210).

New understandings of concepts such as power must be developed. No longer can power be understood as something that is possessed as a result of personality or position (Gergen in Reed & Hughes 1992). New voices must be listened to, the minority voices of those whose experience of organisations has traditionally been silenced (Calas & Smircich in Clegg, Hardy & Nord 1996). Postdisciplinary approach Cooper (1988) points out that most contemporary organisation theorising occurs within the fairly strict boundaries of various academic disciplines (economics, accounting, organisation behaviour) and suggests that one benefit offered by a postmodern approach is that it 'frees up' the sources and types of knowledge that can be bought to organisations. Traditional academic specialisations have resulted in a set of representations of organisations (theories and models) that we attempt to master and then make organisations fit (Cooper & Burrell, 1988). Postmodernism offers the opportunity to see organising and organisations as processes that happen within the wider body of society and to bring to their study, the knowledge from a wide variety of disciplines previously considered irrelevant such as literature, culture, art and music. It also opens up for discussion the question of who has knowledge of organisations (and for that matter what constitutes knowledge). Another challenge presented by postmodernism deserve mention. If, as Foucault suggests, it is only from the site of the human body that the power of resistance (to the status quo) can be released (Harvey 1989), then we need to rethink the ways we approach organisation change, because all change is a form of resistance (Bradshaw in Hassard & Parker 1994).

Some Implications of Postmodern Thinking for Managers and Management

From a political perspective, postmodern writing on organisations, unlike writings from the modernist project, offer nothing to the organisers, the powers that be. Postmodernism illustrates the limits of their project. In postmodernism, management is withered into vestigial form. Management is merely a transparent image... an elusive if reified, meaningless sense-making device...(Boje, Gephart & Thatchenkery 1996, p 41). Postmodern writing would attempt to undermine all conventions of traditional academic and administrative discourse. It would be disruptive, evasive, indeterminate, not logical. Postmodern research would not purport to be accurate or truthful (Parker 1992b,). Can organisations deal with and use this knowledge and if not, who is it for? The resistors? Postmodernism and modernism offer two apparently conflicting epistemological positions; modernism with its belief in the essential capacity of humanity to perfect itself and its organisational structures through the power of rational thought and postmodernism with its critical questioning, and often outright rejection of the

On the one hand Parker (1992b) and Tsoukas (1992) suggest that postmodernism has little new to offer, that it is a distraction, that it is simply a reworking of contingency theory, control vs commitment, Taylor vs Mayo. On the other hand a number of writers (Burrell 1988; Calas & Smircich 1991; Cooper 1989; Cooper & Burrell 1988; Flax 1987; Martin 1990; Turner 1990; Yeatman 1991), while unclear about how postmodern notions will influence thinking about organisations focus on the possibilities. Burrell (1988 p 231) suggests that a Foucauldian analysis of organisations would "... focus on the multiplicity of factors involved in describing organization life and events. It would emphasise the complexity, contingency and fragility of organization forms as transitory manifestations of relationships of dominance, subordination and as mere embodiments of an underlying relationship of forces...", and points to the challenge of developing a new discourse (a discursive ferment) of organisations without developing new disciplines.

References

Barratt, B., & Straus, R. T. 1989. Notes on Postmodernism and the psychology of gender. American Psychologist, (October): 1328-1330 Boje, D.M., Gephart, R.P. & Thatchenkery, T.J. (Eds) 1996. Postmodern management and organization theory. London: Sage Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organisational analysis 2: The contribution of Michael Foucault. Organization Studies, 9(2): 221-335 Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1987. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Aldershot: Gower Calas, M. B. 1987. Organization science/fiction: The postmodern in the management disciplines. Doctoral Thesis: University of Massachusetts Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. 1991. Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies, 12(4): 567-602 Callinicos, A. 1989. Against postmodernism. Cambridge: Polity Chodorow, N. J. 1989. Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven: Yale University Press Clegg, S. R. & Palmer, G. 1996. The politics of management knowledge. London: Sage Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. & Nord, R.W. (Eds) 1996. Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage Clegg, S. R. 1990. Modern organizations. London: Sage Cooper, R. 1989. Modernism, post modernism and organisational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10(4): 479-502 Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organisational analysis: an introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1): 91-112 Critchley, S. 1992. The ethics of deconstruction.. Cambridge: Blackwell Eisenstein, H. 1984. Contemporary feminist thought. Sydney: Unwin Elshtain, J. B. 1981. Public man, private woman: Women in social and political thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press Flax, J. 1987. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs, 12(4): 621643

Flax, J. 1990. Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary west. Berkeley: University of California Press Fonow, M.M. & Cook, J. A. (Ed.). 1991. Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Foucault, M. 1973. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books French, M. 1977. The women's room. London: Sphere Books Grosz, E. 1990. Jacques Lacan: A feminist introduction. Sydney: Allen and Unwin Harding, S. (Ed.). 1987. Feminism and methodology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. 1988. The meaning of difference: gender theory, postmodernism and psychology. American Psychologist (June): 445-464 Harvey, D. 1989. The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell Hassard, J. & Parker, M. 1994. Towards a new theory of organizations. London: Routledge Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of organizations (2 ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons Kritzman, L. D. (Ed.). (1988). Michael Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture. New York: Routledge. Martin, J. 1990. Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1(4): 339-359 Menzies Lyth, I. 1988. Containing anxiety in institutions: Selected essays. London: Free Association Books Parker, M. 1992a. Getting down from the fence: A reply to Hardimos Tsoukas. Organization Studies, 13(4): 651-653 Parker, M. 1992b. Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory. Organization Studies, 13(1): 1-17 Reed, M. & Hughes, M. (Eds) 1992. Rethinking organization: New directions in organization theory and analysis. London: Sage Stanley, L. (Ed.) 1990. Feminist praxis: Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology. London: Routledge Tsoukas, H. 1992. Postmodernism, reflexive rationalism and organizational studies: A reply to Martin Parker. Organization Studies, 13(4): 643-649

Turner, B. 1990. Organisational symbolism. Berlin: de Gruyter Weisbord, M. R. 1978. Organizational diagnosis: A workbook of theory and practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Yeatman, A. (Ed.). 1991. Postmodern Critical Theorising. Adelaide: Adelaide University of

Other RMIT Business Working Papers

1992 Barrett, M., Strategic Implications of International Countertrade, WP 92/01. Thandi, H.S., A Case for Increasing Australian Trade with Malaysia, WP 92/02. Thandi, H.S., Some Conceptual Designs to Facilitate the Generation and Integration of International Trade Research, WP 92/03. Thandi, H.S., Malaysian Macrolights for the Investor, WP 92/04. Thandi, H.S., NAFTA - Boon or Bane?: Some Initial Reactions, WP 92/05. 1993 Thandi, H.S., Self Disclosure Perceptions Among Students of Management, WP 93/01. Thandi, H.S., Competitive Directions for Australia, WP 93/02. Thandi, H.S., Culture-Strategy Integration in the Management of Corporate Strategy, WP 93/03. Subanidja, S. & Thandi, H.S., Logistical Implications of Surplus Rice in Indonesia - A Historical Perspective, WP 93/04. Wu, C.L., On Producer's Surplus, WP 93/05. Jackson, M., Unauthorised Release of Government Information, WP 93/06. Jackson, M., Incidence of Computer Misuse Fact or Fiction?, WP 93/07. Beaumont, N., The Use of an Automated Storage and Retrieval System (AS/RS) at the State Library of Victoria, WP 93/08. Morley, C., An Experiment to Investigate the Effect of Prices on Tourism Demand, WP 93/09. Morley, C., Analysis of Experimental Data on Individual's Choice of Destination, WP 93/10. Morley, C., The Use of CPI for Tourism Prices in Demand Modelling, WP 93/11. Ainworth, M., The Value of Management Education: Views of Graduates on the Benefits of Doing an MBA, WP 93/12. Vitols, M., Some Criticisms of the Health Capital Model: Responses to Symptoms, WP 93/13. Marks, L., Marketing and the Public Sector Library: Some Unresolved Issues, WP 93/14. Jackson, M., Protection of the Proprietary Information of Organisations in the Asia-Pacific Region, WP 93/15. 1994 Morley, C., A Comparison of Three Methods for Estimating Tourism Demand Models, WP 94/01. Mottram, K., Management Coaching Process, WP 94/02. Wright, K. & Benito, M.A., Sales Remuneration: Some Sins of Omission and Commission, WP 94/03. Morley, C., Beyond the MBA: Professional Doctorates in Business, WP 94/04. 1995 Morley, C., Tourism Demand: Characteristics, Segmentation and Aggregation, WP 95/01. Morley, C., Data Bias in the Estimation of Airfare Elasticities, WP 95/02. Morley, C., Estimating Tourism Demand Models, WP 95/03. Jackson, M. & Bos, A., The Effect of Management Education on Women's' Careers: The RMIT Experience, WP 95/04. Callaghan, B. & Jackson, M., Accounting Professionals: Current Attitudes to Banks, WP 95/05. Jackson, M. & O'Connor, R., Research Planning and Management in Non-traditional Research Discipline Areas, WP 95/06. Callaghan, B. & Dunwoodie, K., How Large Are Cultural Values Differences in the 90's?, WP 95/07. Morley, C. & Willis, Q.F., Managerial Theory and Economic Rationalism: An Argument in Response to Karpin, WP 95/08.

Morley, C., Diffusion Models of Tourism: International Tourism to Australia, WP 95/09. 1996 Scarlett, B., An Enterprise Management Understanding of Social Differentiation, WP 96/1. Slade, P., Technological Change in New Zealand Sawmilling, WP 96/2. Mathews, C. & Davey, B., The Collection and Analysis of Environmental Information in the Top 150 Australian Companies: Some Preliminary Results, WP 96/3. Kangsanant, V., The Commercialisation of New High Technology Products by Small Firms in the Information Technology Industry, WP 96/4. Slade, P., Employment Relations: New Paradigm or Old Ideology, WP 96/5. 1997 Jackson, M. & OConnor, R., Staff Mobility Programs in Australian Universities, WP 97/1. Morley, C.L., An Econometric-Product Growth Model of Tourism to Australia, WP 97/2. Callaghan, W.M. & Dunwoodie, K., A Comparison of Decision Making Approaches used by Australian and Malaysian Managers, WP 97/3. Martin, W.J. & Chishti, M.A., Content and Context in Information Management: The Experience of Two Melbourne-Based Organisations, WP 97/4. Chishti, M.A., Martin, W.J. and Jacoby, J., Information Technology Enabled Organisational Change: A Survey of Australian Practices, WP 97/5. Scarlet, B., Beyond Excellence: In Search of Enterprise Effectiveness, WP 97/6. ONeill, M., Bellamy, S., Jackson, M. and Morley, C., An Analysis of Female Participation and Progression in the Accounting Profession in Australia, WP 97/7 Holian, R. & Martin, S., Ethical Issues and Decision Making in Organisations, WP 97/8.

1998 Scarlett, B.L., Business Goals, WP 98/1. Scarlett, B.L., A Typology of Enterprise Effectiveness Models, WP 98/2. Lombardo, R.W., Unravelling the Mysteries of Ellwoods Basic Mortgage Equity Capitalisation Model, WP 98/3. Woolley, R.L., International Accounting Standards and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation of their Relationship in Asia, WP 98/4. Caddick, M., Moore, S. & Management Research Team, Adding Value: Using Customer Feedback: An Exploratory Research Project Examining the Use of Customer Feedback by Victorian Local Government Organisations, WP 98/5. 1999 Scarlett, B.L., A Cross Cultural Comparison of Business Goals, WP 99/1. Parratt, E. & Holian, R., ISO 9000 Certification: Is it worth it?, WP 99/2. Morley, C., Estimating Integrated Time Series and Other Problems in Modelling Tourism Demand, WP 3/99. Morley, C., How Professional? The Role of the University in Professional Doctorates, WP 4/99. Ellingworth, R., When the Will to Change is not Enough? An Action Research Case Study from the Finance Industry, WP 5/99. Boucher, C., Leaders with Disabilities: Still a Splendid Deception, WP 6/99. Boucher, C. & Gardner, I., Beyond Male Stereotypes in Management Practice, WP 7/99. Boucher, C., A Description of Modernism and Postmodernism in the Context of Organisation Studies and Thinking about Management, WP 8/99. Kimber, D., Values Based Strategies and Planning for Global Organisations, WP 9/99.

Further copies of this working paper and others in the series are available from: Research Development Unit RMIT Business GPO Box 2476V Melbourne Vic 3001 Ph: 9925 5594 Fx: 9925 5595 Email: rdu@bf.rmit.edu.au Web: http://rmit.edu.au/RDU