Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 
* Korespondenčni avtor / Correspondence author 122 
Prejeto: 15. maj 2024; revidirano: 28. maj 2024; sprejeto: 28. junij 2024. /  
Received: 15th January 2024; revised: 28th May 2024; accepted: 28th June 2024. 
DOI: 10.37886/ip.2024.007 
 
Pragmatic View of Research of Organisations 
 
 
Milan Ambrož
*
 
Faculty of Organization Studies, Faculty of Organisation Studies Novo mesto, Ulica talcev 3, 
8000 Novo mesto, Slovenia 
ambrozmilan7@gmail.com 
 
 
Abstract: 
Research question (RQ):  Is pragmatic research the answer to researching complex, uncertain, 
and irrational organisational landscapes?  
Purpose and originality: This article explains a mechanism-based pragmatic approach to 
organizational science. A comprehensive examination of core approaches to organizational 
research reveals that traditional organizational theories and classical models prove inadequate in 
providing a holistic understanding of the escalating complexity and multimodality of 
organizational phenomena. This underscores the novelty and potential of the pragmatic approach 
in tackling these complexities. 
Method: The research used organizational source criticism as a historical methodology to analyse 
the shift in organizational science beyond classical objectivist conceptualizations. Mechanism-
based research explored and understood the contingency of knowledge and action using a 
pragmatic approach to organisation research. 
Results: This study's findings underscore the practical implications of pragmatic research in 
organizational science. It is not a static method but a dynamic and evolving one that effectively 
addresses organizations' changing needs, societal trends, and technological advancements. This 
emphasis on adaptability and relevance keeps pragmatic research at the forefront of organizational 
science, making our findings all the more significant and interesting. 
Limitations/Further research: It's important to note that this research is based on conceptual 
views of organizational pragmatic research. While it involved a systematic analysis of the 
application of pragmatic research methods in the empirical field, it's crucial to acknowledge that 
further analysis is not just a suggestion but a necessity to fully understand the method's role in 
explaining complex organizational phenomena. This acknowledgement of the need for more 
research encourages the reader to delve deeper into the topic, fostering a sense of curiosity and 
engagement.   
 
Keywords: paradigm, pragmatism, concept, model, complexity, reality, social mechanism, 
organisation. 
 
 
 
1 Introduction 
Major events in human society often lead to permanent changes in how people live and work, 
affecting every aspect of human life. The term 'modernity' describes these changes, 
characterised by technological, economic, and institutional features. Traditional and 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 123 
organisational science are rooted in modernist assumptions, as Gergen and Thatchenkery 
(1996) stated. It is empirical, inductive, observational, and experimental science, beginning 
with Francis Bacon's book 'The Organon.' His work became a source of various scientific and 
technological advances. Since then, new methodologies have developed, such as idealism and 
romanticism, but a rationalist or positivist view of organization still prevails today. 
 
Itzkowitch (1996, p. 31) argues that traditional micro theories see individuals and their 
rational actions as pivotal for the social world. Society or social structures become possible 
only when actors' psychological meanings and rational intentions are revealed. In response, 
macro theorists deny individuals' prevailing role, arguing that micro theory is incapable of 
creating and developing structures. Additionally, Bueno and Salapa (2021) confirm that the 
classical theories of organization and administration, often the foundation of our studies, share 
the idea of a static and universally applicable organizational structure aimed at smooth 
functioning in achieving the outcome. However, as we delve deeper into these theories, they 
may not hold up to the realities of our dynamic and complex organizational environments. 
Taylor (1911). Scientific management, for instance, is based on “one best way” of applying 
Taylor’s scientific management empirical and experimental methods to solve everyday 
problems of organisations, which was not empirically validated. The rationality of scientific 
management treating workers as machine parts, emphasizing efficiency and productivity, and 
neglecting human factors, social context, and worker relationships do not explain the complex 
and dynamic functioning of the organisation (Casey, 2002, p. 71).  
 
Fayol (1949) emphasized the hierarchical top-down management style and rigid formal 
structures and procedures. While these aspects may have been effective in the past, they fail to 
address the multifaceted challenges of a dynamic, permeable, and ever-changing 
organisational environment. Administrative theory, for instance, avoids the motivation factors 
of organisation members and gives no insight into engaging and inspiring workers. Fayol’s 
view of the organisation is simplistic and does not address the multifaceted challenges of a 
dynamic, permeable, and ever-changing organisational environment. 
 
Weber (1947) developed the bureaucratic theory of organization, assuming that organizations 
are impersonal, structured by rules and procedures, and inefficient. Formalising processes and 
activities slow down the organization and make it unresponsive to change. Workers feel like 
the cogs in a big machine; their contribution, recognition, and individuality do not count. The 
bureaucratic organization theory does not explain the role of motives, responsiveness to 
change, and adaptability capacity of the organization in a rapidly changing and complex 
organizational environment.    
 
However, classical organizational theories provide insight into foundational principles of 
organization. Only their exclusive emphasis on structure, control, and efficiency neglects the 
flexible, motivational, and adaptable capacity for change and the role of people in these 
processes (Itzkowitz,1996, p. 22). 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 124 
The rationalist paradigm reinforced modern society's dependence on science and technology 
(Gergen & Thatchkenkery, 1996). In the 20th century, positivism faced new philosophical 
currents such as pragmatism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and social constructivism. 
However, these opposing philosophies could not successfully engage with positivism due to 
their lack of clarity (Hjørland, 2016, p. 133).  
The Enlightenment period significantly impacted organisational research and shifted the focus 
to employees and managers. We know that an organisation's knowledge is not objectively 
rational but rather a result of individual rationality (Gergen & Thatchkenkery, 1996). Hjørland 
(2016) argues that classical rationalism emphasises the importance of intuition and reason in 
science. As a part of European philosophy, this approach is a fundamental aspect of the 
rationalist paradigm. The subsequent paradigm of logical positivism, which emerged from a 
combination of empiricism and rationalism, remained significant until the rise of pragmatic 
naturalism in the 1960s under the leadership of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996). 
Kuhn coined the term "paradigm," which refers to a set of beliefs, values, techniques, and 
other factors shared by a particular community. According to Hjørland (2016), Kuhn believed 
that articulated and unarticulated factors influence paradigms in the research process, and new 
paradigms emerge, leading to new theories, approaches, and definitions. Taylorism, the first 
rational paradigm, held the firm belief that maximising the sensible behaviour of a rational 
actor could only be achieved through carefully planned, organised, coordinated, and 
controlled processes. From a rationalist perspective, management by Objectives and Total 
Quality Management is a method to increase employee performance. Many management 
researchers, such as Lawrence & Lorsch (1967), Vroom (1964), House (1971), Hersey and 
Blanchard (1980), and Fiedler (1967), took a similarly rational approach to studying the ideal 
manager.  
In 1957, Herbert Simon introduced the concept of "bounded rationality," which raised the 
crucial question of the limitations of humans in processing available or hidden information. 
All theories and paradigms from this period emphasised the importance of human direction 
and control in organisations. March and Simon (1958) brought the discussion and study of 
organisations into the academic arena. They illustrated the nature of the "limits of rationality" 
at the limits of individuals constrained by the elements of the situation that are not included in 
the rational calculations supporting the strategic factors (Weick, 2019, p. 1531). Hedström 
and Swedberg (1998) see March and Simon's (1958) present rational constraints in decision-
making as an example of theorising with social mechanisms. Bromiley et al. (2019) argue that 
the limits of rationality set by the situation lead to the perception and understanding of the 
selective and attentive effect of different mechanisms at different organisational levels 
involved in decision-making (Weick, 2019). Furthermore, strategic organisational 
performance is crucial and is the focus of organisational science research (Cooper & Burrell, 
1988; Ambrož, 2021). However, successful management, even on the strategic level, relies 
heavily on the analytical capacities and competencies of the individual (Ambrož, 2021, p. 64). 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 125 
Senge (1990) argues that the perception that someone up there is in control of an organisation 
is a pure illusion. This illusion rests on the belief that controlling an organisation's dynamic 
and detailed complexity is possible. To solve the problem of organisations' hidden complexity 
and dynamics, we first need to understand what organisational research has brought to light in 
the past. The history of organisations shows that we can trace many organisational changes 
back to important social events such as the Industrial Revolution, the globalisation of markets, 
and the development of information and communication technologies. Secondly, as 
organisations become increasingly complex, uncertain, and irrational, it is necessary to move 
away from an exclusively rational perspective and adopt new philosophical and 
methodological approaches to understand better and address the evolving concept of 
organisation. Organisational models and traditional research methods are insufficient to cope 
with the rapid and profound changes caused by modern society's complex and turbulent 
circumstances. 
This article highlights the pragmatic shift in organisational science that presents itself in 
mechanism-based methodology approaches.  (Figure 1). Empirical evidence on organisational 
research shows that current organisational theories and classical models are not the 
contemporary focus of organisational research and may not make sense of the phenomenon of 
organisation. The article explicates three core methodological principles: (1) mechanism-
based theorizing, (2) multidisciplinary research, (3) problem-solving research resulting in 
actionable knowledge, and (4) mixed methodology with advanced analytical techniques 
rooted in inquiry and practical research process. 
2 Theoretical framework 
Natural science always tries to understand organisations and explain their behaviour (Van 
Aken & Romme, 2009). While positivist rational assumptions and deductive methods work 
well in the natural sciences, they require some refining in social sciences and studies. The 
positivist paradigm has four dimensions: objectivity, generality, empiricism, and linearity 
(Zhang et al., 2011). To gain a complete understanding of an organisation, Uduma and Sylva 
(2015) propose that a mixed approach is necessary, as relying solely on interpretative or 
positivist approaches can be limiting. Although positivist research studies can offer insight 
into one aspect of the problem, they do not suggest solutions. Mckenna et al. (2001) advocate 
using non-rationalist and non-positivist paradigms to overcome this gap in future research. 
From a human perspective, the concept of an organisation is complex and individualised, and 
there are no universally applicable laws. Personal and societal characteristics, such as cultural 
capital, influence the interpretation of organisational research findings. When studying social 
systems, researchers cannot remain objective observers, and their participation will inevitably 
impact the object of analysis. Postmodern, critical approaches to the organisation are the 
device for understanding the non-deterministic view of the organisation (Feys, 1965; Zhang et 
al., 2011).  

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 126 
Weik (2022) argues that organisations influence how employees think and feel about the 
world. The author criticises rationalist and cognitivist attitudes to organisational 
institutionalism, which do not include the notion of life as the source and the motion of all 
creativity, valuation and self-actualisation. Weik (2022) emphasises predominantly the 
immediate experience of feeling, perception and understanding, the process of creativity and 
novelty and presents the organismic, humanist and non-humanist model of life, which guards 
against the reduction of knowledge to solve the problem of social collaboration and non-focus 
on creativity and novelty.   
The organisational research history can highlight the pathways to future organisational 
research (Maclean et al., 2016).  Interpreting some segments of organisational history 
explains the core ideas, constructs and theories that underlie the pragmatic research approach 
as philosophy and methodology. Moreover, Coners and Matthies (2014) argue that the 
historical approach combined with content analysis explains and understands various 
organisational phenomena. Content analysis categorises primary data collections based on 
interviews or open-ended surveys and transforms qualitative data into quantitative outcomes. 
We can analyse historical archived data with new analytical techniques that did not exist 
before (Edelmann et al., 2020). 
Moreover, using newly digitalised data, researchers can develop new macro-level theories of 
social networks and cultural change and micro-level theories to explain human decision-
making on micro levels. Examples include new macro-level theories of social networks, 
cultural change, and micro-level theories of human decision-making. According to Scherning 
(2011, p. 4), multilevel research on technology adoption uses social network theory on 
different levels to research theory, measurement, and analysis.  
Wadhwani and Sørensen (2023) introduce the role of serious play in historical and 
organisational research. Drawing on the pragmatic philosophy of Pierce (1877), the authors 
argue that playful methods are effective for abductive methods in seeking new knowledge and 
improving it by creating and categorising new sources, detecting connections, developing new 
insights, and entertaining new presentations. New hypotheses and interpretations arose from 
the profound experience of the external and internal worlds comprised of the symbolic worlds 
connected by rules, habits and representations (Wadhwani & Sørensen, 2023).   
Pfeffer's (1993) research shows that studying organisations requires further development due 
to the variety of theoretical and methodological approaches, which necessitates more 
agreement. Karatas-Özkan and Murphy's (2010) study highlights the importance of 
understanding and examining alternative perspectives on organisational analysis. Burrell and 
Morgan's functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and structuralist, as well as Hardy and 
Clegg's normative, interpretative, critical, and postmodern paradigms, establish modern 
organisational analysis. Hardy and Clegg (1997) stress the importance of intuitively exploring 
diverse research methodologies. They assert that the level of reflexivity demonstrated by 
knowledge in a specific context is crucial in achieving research objectivity. The authors 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 127 
highlight the significance of distinguishing between theory and practice to avoid solely 
relying on normative and prescriptive practice concepts. Research and practice are inherently 
distinct, and reference images shape the identity of theory. A broader approach to theorising 
that encompasses different domains is necessary since the approach cannot recognise itself. 
Finally, plural communities tend to be more reflective of conventional wisdom. 
According to Weick (1993, p. 635), reality is an ongoing accomplishment aimed at creating 
order and making retrospective sense of what occurs. Organisations are indeed transforming 
using new technologies and new sources of data. Employees' experiences are changing 
accordingly, generating vast data about the organisations. Davis (2017) argues that emerging 
pervasive markets can make organisations obsolete in many areas of human endeavour. 
Different access to information and markets will reshape organisations. The author even 
argues for the new institutions to replace the old ones. Polzer (2023) states that newly 
developed data, combined with established methods and supported by new analytical 
techniques, are the latest challenge to studying human behaviour at work. Moreover, Bosco 
(2002) thinks that the greatest potential to further organisational scientific progress lies in 
• the extraction and selection of large-scale data, 
• using a formal protocol and, 
• open access to databases. 
Church & Burke (2017) point out that topics like strategy, organisational design, mission, 
human capital, reward systems, diversity and inclusion of employees will play significant 
roles in the future. However, the authors also emphasise three key drivers important in 
organisational change processes: changing nature of work, changing nature of data, and 
changing workforce dynamic. These changes are related to changes in the organisation's 
design. Moreover, drivers are the new venue for future organisation research. The future of 
work is becoming a relevant future research topic. Barbosa et al. (2002) are talking about the 
4th Industrial Revolution. Robotics, AI, biotechnology, and nanotechnology will mark this 
revolution.  
Wenzel et al. (2020) see the organisational future as an open-ended category in organisational 
life and propose "future-making practices" to delineate it. According to Church and Burke 
(2017), four future trends emerge from the key drivers explaining the nature of organisational 
change. The first is a shift to platforms over products, where platforms are new organisational 
designs due to the development of communication and information technologies. The second 
is a shift from mechanic to digital due to the need for agility and quick response of the 
organisation to the external and internal environment challenges. The third trend is a shift to 
insights into data that generate huge volumes of hidden information. Insights are more 
important than data-generating patterns and trends that support the future behaviour of 
organisations. The fourth trend is a shift to talent over employees due to changing 
demographic trends and the need to select the use of resources by high-potential people.  

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 128 
 
 
Figure 1. Pragmatic shift in organizational science 
Research question: Has pragmatic research the explaining power in answering complex, 
uncertain, and irrational organisational landscapes?  
 
2.1 Pragmatism as Organisational Philosophy 
Back in (1998), Wicks and Freeman made a case that organisational studies required a 
significant shift. They believed pragmatism was a valuable philosophy that brought attention 
to ethical and moral concerns. More recently, Farjoun et al. (2015) discovered that many 
scholars of organisational theory view pragmatism as a philosophy that can help solve 
problems in organisational processes and relationships.  
A pragmatic approach is primal to navigate changes and complexities within an organisation. 
This approach balances traditional rational and structural viewpoints in contemporary 
turbulent times marked by wars, migrations, industrial and technological revolutions, and 
environmental challenges (Lorino, 2018). Brecht (2011) and Simon (1957) suggest that 
humans make decisions based on limited knowledge and cognitive capacity, which Lorino 
(2018) further explains as complexity and uncertainty, requiring exploration, experimentation, 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 129 
teamwork, community involvement, and significant resource commitment from the 
organisation (Pérez-Ortega & Vargas-Hernández, 2018). Pragmatism combines value, 
meaning, and practical consequences by linking truth with usability, as stated by Dewey 
(1986).  
Tywoniak et al. (2021) provide an operational definition of pragmatism based on triadic 
thinking and mode of inquiry. This approach involves seeking a third way to discover useful 
solutions, unifying action and thought through a model to aid actors in understanding the 
situation, and interconnecting structure and processes in an ongoing process narrated as a 
story from the initial situation's description to the disruptive event, proposed actions, 
immediate action, and feedback loops to stabilise the system.   
Tracy (2007) noted that context is essential in organisational research, involving observation, 
pattern-seeking, and theorising based on empirical evidence. Modern organisations combine 
classical concepts, social and behavioural sciences, and organisational theory, creating a link 
between the organisation and its environment (Davis, 2010).  
2.2 Pragmatism and New Competencies 
Current researchers tend to concentrate on their particular fields when studying organisations 
instead of affiliating themselves with a specific theoretical tradition. Davis (2010) clarifies 
that the sluggish development of new theories can be attributed to the absence of experimental 
control among researchers. We commonly see organisations as instruments rather than natural 
entities, and the patterns within them can shift over time because of the dynamic nature of 
modern organisations, making it challenging to maintain generalisations. 
As per Walsh's (2006) research, knowledge is a critical production factor that assists workers 
alongside machines and capital. In today's knowledge-based work, problem-solving and 
strategic brokering are paramount. Therefore, workers require new competencies such as 
perception, attentiveness, and decision-making to excel in the new organisational setup. 
Wealth accumulation nowadays relies on investing in human capital through formal 
education. Balková et al. (2022) argue that this is insufficient and recommend that 
organisations' values significantly impact their performance and should be studied 
systematically. Organisations are constantly in need of creative behaviour. In 2016, Obeidat 
and his colleagues presented a proposition for additional exploration into the AMO theory. 
This theory posits that a functioning system has three separate elements that impact employee 
qualities and ultimately aid in the company's prosperity: an employee's capability, drive, and 
chance. 
Ganster and colleagues (2018) highlight the importance of conducting psychological research 
in organisational sciences. They explore different approaches to stress and health, including 
arousal studies, neuroscience perspectives, emotions, individual differences, and sleep. To 
better comprehend the impact of work on our mental and physical well-being, the researchers 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 130 
recommend creating an Allostatic load model, as proposed by Ganster and Rosen (2013), 
which can shed light on the factors that contribute to stress progression. 
Waldmann et al. (2017) reviewed the advent of neuroscience in management and 
organisational research. The review identifies two general topics: how the brain may be 
important to management and organisational behaviour. Authors argue that the brain when 
resting, provides trait-like information that is important in understanding individuals' 
cognition, emotions and behaviour. Secondly, the brain offers state-like responses to stimuli. 
Waldmann et al. (2017) emphasise the need to research the theoretical basis of neural 
concepts and team-based neuroscience technologies, identifying and developing the 
organisational leaders to avoid narcissistic, Machiavellian and psychopathic individuals. 
Authors suggest using neuroscience to identify entrepreneurial talent and verbal and 
nonverbal communication in teams.  
2.3 Mechanism-based Theorising 
The past can highlight the pathways to future organizational research (Maclean et al., 2016). 
Interpreting some segments of organizational history explains the core ideas, constructs, and 
theories that underlie the pragmatic research approach as philosophy and methodology. 
Moreover, Coners and Matthies (2014) argue that the historical approach combined with 
content analysis explains and understands various organizational phenomena. Content 
analysis categorises primary data collections based on interviews or open-ended surveys and 
transforms qualitative data into quantitative outcomes. 
The impact of technology, digital advancements, and the COVID-19 pandemic has caused 
significant changes in organisational structures and work processes (Polzer, 2022). Cascio and 
Montealegre (2016) highlight the transformative effects of cloud and mobile computing, big 
data and machine learning, sensors and intelligent manufacturing, robotics, and clean-energy 
technologies. These advancements have greatly influenced work efficiency and performance 
in organisations. However, there needs to be more research on the influence of modern 
technologies on leadership and organisational roles, as the authors argue. 
Thanks to the information and communication technology revolution, scholars worldwide 
now have access to organisational data, leading to a transformation in organisational design 
(Davis et al., 2016). Problem-driven work has taken centre stage, and the focus is no longer 
solely on the organisation. This work utilises mechanism-based theorising and research to 
understand better the social mechanisms explaining relationships and how and why certain 
outcomes occur (Davis & Marquis, 2005; Anderson et al., 2006). Mechanism-based research 
aims to understand the processes that lead to causal relationships by examining the 
mechanisms and theories involved (Ylikoski, 2019). Reviewing these mechanisms, we can 
move beyond surface-level descriptions of phenomena (Davis & Marquis, 2006). Many 
researchers and scholars agree that having more data does not necessarily equate to more 
precise or higher-quality theories. Becker (2014) expands on this concept by linking social 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 131 
mechanisms to case studies that deeply examine specific situations, organisations, and 
events.  
In (2007), Tracy implemented a problem-based methodology that was contextual. This 
approach, created by Huberman and Miles (1994), involves an iterative process of analysing 
data while drawing upon previous research. The analytical process focuses on layers and 
cycles, and Tracy believes it is essential to produce intriguing, practical, and theoretically 
significant outcomes by paying close attention to detail. She dismisses the interpretive 
analysis steps that rely on predetermined rules, preferring to immerse herself in a context, 
iteratively analysing data, revealing power relations that hide subordinated knowledge, and 
developing results that can engage and be evaluated by different audiences. Zang (2023) 
concurs that observable studies can only be fully understood when linked to unobservable 
internal mechanisms supported by the ontologically defined existence of underlying 
structures.  
2.4 Pragmatic View of Mechanism-based Research 
As Weber (1947) noted, the social and organisational world is not a means that determines 
ends. Important factors are motives that have various relations to means. The same action and 
structure can lead to different social outcomes. Ekström (1992) believes that social actions are 
influenced by mental dispositions, intentions, social contexts, meanings, and structures, 
making it a complex interplay. Zhang (2023) argues that we must note that observable events 
actualise unobservable ones. We can understand the social world by understanding the 
structures that generate events.   
According to Elster (1998), mechanisms provide insight into the inner workings of human 
behaviour, particularly the relationship between beliefs and desires. Similarly, Ekström 
(1992) advocates for a causal explanatory approach to research, which focuses on identifying 
the causal properties of processes instead of just establishing correlations between variables. 
However, research using mechanisms rests on some rules: stopping rule, boundary rule, rule 
of levels, self-awareness rule, temporal dimension, and links to practice. These rules are 
bound, set limits, assess capabilities, set time limits, and develop the usability of the process 
using mechanisms in research (Anderson et al., 2006). Hedström and Ylikoski (2019) develop 
a different set of characteristics. They emphasize that mechanisms are far more than 
unobservable. They can involve irreducible links between the mechanism and its effect, 
forming causality, which is local with spatiotemporal dimension, enabling the forming of 
mechanism hierarchy and its variable structure.  
Mechanisms aim to understand how individual parts form a collective result (Ambrož, 2022). 
Social mechanisms can be classified into three types by Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998): 
situational, action-formation, and transformational. Situational mechanisms show how macro-
level factors affect the micro-level. Action-formation mechanisms, on the other hand, operate 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 132 
on the micro-level, connecting cognition to behaviour. Transformational mechanisms, the 
third type, transform micro-level effects into macro-level outcomes. The ultimate aim of 
mechanisms is to connect these three levels and uncover the underlying mechanisms at the 
macro level. Situational mechanisms shape organisations, networks, and structures related to 
objectives, opportunities, beliefs, and expectations. Action formation and transformational 
mechanisms bring about both intended and unintended macro outcomes for actors through 
multi-level and multi-factor processes (Hedstrom & Swedberg, 1988; Hedström & Wennberg, 
2016). As Weber (1936) argued, the motives of the social actors define the use of means to 
achieve ends. Social actors may have different motives, actions and structures to achieve the 
same end or use different motives, actions and structures to achieve various ends. We can 
hypothesise that different social mechanisms underlie social action (Ambrož, 2021). Coleman 
(1990) suggests that individual properties, actions, and relations to one another explain social 
facts and relational structures based on individuals' rational choices in social life phases.     
In Aparna et al.'s (2019) individual-level MMO (massively multiplier games) framework, 
mechanisms are applied to three independent interacting domains: performing capability, 
desire to perform, and chances to perform. Barnett and Coulson (2010) define the strong 
social importance of the MMO as a form of online communication tool. Players in the MMO 
interact, form relationships and friendships, create working groups, and work together to 
accomplish goals. The MMO framework requires many resources to conduct in-depth 
analyses of individual performance.  
In their research, Baum and Amburgey (2017) use organisational ecology to illustrate how 
social, economic, and political factors impact the variety of organisations, their evolution or 
extinction, and how different levels and dimensions of organisation can be combined. 
Hedström and Wennberg (2016) suggest that organisational ecology connects macro and 
micro levels and is a promising avenue for future research on organisations. 
2.5 Multidisciplinary Research 
In the past two decades, a new stream of research in organisation science emerged addressing 
organisational relationships, alliances, and partnerships. Engaging organisations with external 
agencies, local communities and non-profit organisations increases and develops the urge for 
collaborative action and transformation. The nature and meaning of the network in change 
processes are in introducing the role of dyadic relations based on the dialogue principle as a 
central mechanism for change learning new sustainability capabilities (Ryan et al., 2012).  
Multidisciplinary research on organisation networking could develop knowledge of system-
level change mechanisms, relationship dynamics, and mechanisms of dyadic learning on 
intra- and inter-organizational levels (Ryan et al., 2012; Ambrož, 2021). Organisations can 
create an equilibrium of stability and change in the internal and external environment by 
recognising the mechanisms constraining actors' ability to utilise agency (Capra & Luisi, 
2014; Flockhart, 2016).  Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) emphasise the pragmatic 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 133 
philosophical framework's nature in a multidisciplinary approach. They view knowledge as 
constructed (organisation as structure) and functional (organisation-environment 
transactions).  
Breslin (2011a, 2014, 2015) argues for the research of evolutionary processes in 
organisations, introducing two approaches to evolution processes in organisation entities and 
a practice-based approach. The entity's approach advocates that ideas, knowledge and 
capabilities are the features of individuals, groups and organisations. The practice-based 
approach concentrates on how ideas, knowledge and capabilities perpetually enact and change 
through actions. Moreover, Peschl (2023) argues for a paradigm shift in understanding 
organisation as an innovation process based on organisational learning and a source of 
innovations. 
Polzer (2023) introduces new trends in organisational research. He confirms that 
organisations employ organisational scientists to complement their informational science 
teams' research on concrete organisational problems. Organisational scientists have profound 
disciplinary knowledge and methodological and analytical expertise for conducting rigorous 
human resource research. Polzer (2023) emphasises that we face a new organisational 
landscape with research challenges such as data-driven decision-making processes developing 
from algorithmic aversion to appreciation, from algorithmic complements to substitutes, 
embedding algorithms in the flow of work, analysing social networks, and adapting collective 
intelligence in generating scientific knowledge through teams. Polzer et al. (2022) see 
meetings as a research source studying team interactions and conversations using 
conversation metrics.  However, Polzer (2023) directs attention to new phenomena based on 
the development of computational linguistics to measure culture. Many other areas of work 
and management will become subject to algorithmic influence and raise questions about 
control, monitoring, transparency, privacy and fairness (Gagné et al., 2022).     
Combining machine learning and artificial intelligence allows practitioners to use the 
information from abundant data and learn from data scientists. Using the design thinking 
method as an iterative process for redefining processes and creating innovative solutions 
(Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Church & Burke, 2017) as a parallel to the scientific method fosters 
better collaboration in the internal organisational research processes. This changing landscape 
of the organisational research ecosystem helps to bridge the research and practice and gives 
way to a pragmatic approach to scientific research (Polzer, 2023; Sarwar & Fraser, 2019).  
2.6 Problem-driven Research 
As we investigate future research venues for organisations, we have realised that the 
traditional definition of an organisation is no longer sustainable. Davis & Marquis (2005) and 
Davis (2006) highlight a significant shift in organisation theory research. Previously, 
organisation research was driven by paradigms; now, it is driven by problems. The effects of 
paradigmatic approaches to study organisations are no longer effective (Davis, 2006). Instead, 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 134 
less obvious mechanisms of aggregation allow social scientists to analyse and interpret data at 
different levels of granularity, uncover patterns and relationships within complex social 
systems, and generate insights that inform theory, policy, and practice. That creates order 
within the organisation science and is key to understanding organisational behaviour 
(Coraiola et al., 2023). 
In a study conducted by Davis et al. (2005), over 120 articles on organisational theory were 
analysed, and they found that only a handful rest on classical organisation theory (institutional 
theory 25.4%, network theory 16.8%, population ecology theory 6.7%). Surprisingly for the 
author, contingency theory was only used by 2.5% of the authors. On the other hand, 56% of 
the authors used organisation theory in their research. The authors' chosen descriptors were 
quite diverse, covering many themes, and Davis (2017) reinstates the problem of the 
phenomenon called organisation, defining it with relationships and actions.   
2.7 Technology Mechanism of Organisation Research  
The impact of technology, digital advancements, and the COVID-19 pandemic has caused 
significant changes in organisational structures and work processes (Polzer, 2022). Cascio and 
Montealegre (2016) highlight the transformative effects of cloud and mobile computing, big 
data and machine learning, sensors and intelligent manufacturing, robotics, and clean-energy 
technologies. These advancements have greatly influenced work efficiency and performance 
in organisations. However, there needs to be more research on the influence of modern 
technologies on leadership and organisational roles, especially in the field of psychological 
theory, on how to cope with technological developments, as the authors argue. 
As we all know, our world is becoming increasingly global and technology-driven, reshaping 
how we create value, work, communicate, and interact in organisations. According to Cascio 
and Montealegre (2016), it is the job of organisational researchers to interpret these ongoing 
changes and their direct impact on organisational research. Asante (2013) presents two 
schools of thought on technology's influence. The first is technological determinism, which 
holds that technology plays a crucial role in determining an organisation's success. Research 
studies in organisation and technology explore how technology interacts with organisational 
aspects such as product and process quality and customer relations. Second, an opposing 
school of thought suggests that technology can shape human action. This viewpoint considers 
technology as a reflection of human behaviour. Assante (2013) notes that social interactions 
and political decisions play a crucial role in determining the development and application of 
technology.  
Organisations invest heavily in technology with the clear expectation of enhancing their 
overall performance and productivity. The findings from studies conducted by Lakhwani et al. 
(2020), Borowiecki et al. (2021), and Gomes et al. (2018) indisputably demonstrate that IT 
technology has a positive impact on an organisation's productivity. Orlikowski and Barley 
(2001) and Malayeri et al. (2011) make it crystal clear that there is an essential contrast 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 135 
between the beginnings of organisational studies and information technology. This difference 
lays the groundwork for an invaluable collaboration between institutional analysis and 
information research, highlighting technology's material properties as a crucial factor for 
organisational research. Through this approach, we can thoroughly analyse and explore the 
field.  
Lazer et al. (2009) argue for a new computational social science based on the short-term 
teams of social and computer scientists. Computational science differs from classical social 
science in using new data sources and multi-discipline teams as a new intellectual community. 
It is usually digital and large-scale from all spheres of human life (Foster, 2023). Overall, 
Foster's characterisation underscores the transformative impact of computational approaches 
on social science research. It highlights the shift towards digital, interdisciplinary, and data-
driven methodologies that enable researchers to explore and understand human behaviour and 
societal phenomena in novel ways. 
New science calls for a new cross-disciplinary approach (Lazer et al., 2020). New data 
sources are hybrid: historical archived data and data on organisational behaviour aimed at 
understanding employee behaviour, performance, and well-being. In this domain, research 
scientists will continue to play an important role in explaining psychological, sociological, 
and organisational phenomena (Coraiola et al., 2023). Lyra et al. (2023) introduced 
NERMAP, a semiautomated program for discovering future events through the timeline, 
expressing the need for a small group of researchers. This program works with machine 
learning and can gather 83% of future events in documents compared to humans, significantly 
sparing time and lowering costs.  
 
 
Figure 2. Conceptual model of pragmatic research of organisations 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 136 
3 Method 
Using organisational source criticism as a historical methodology, I researched sources in the 
history of organisational theories and concepts (patterns extending over time, contingencies, 
and contexts) to establish the veracity and meaning of the pragmatic concepts of the 
organisation (Burgelman, 2011; Heller, 2023; Lorino, 2018, p. 68) Through selective 
interpretation of pragmatic research concepts, I present the mechanism-based concept of 
pragmatic organizational research in a case study of the organisational culture of three 
industrial organisations. A case study is a method of inquiry that allows for a comprehensive 
understanding of a particular case within its real-life context (Schultz & Hatch, 1996). Case 
study as a research method provides a comprehensive, in-depth understanding of 
organisational phenomena (Harrison et al., 2017).  Moreover, Ylikoski (2019) argues that case 
studies are a permanent issue in social science methodology and are suitable for the pragmatic 
method of inquiry to mechanism-based theorizing as they generate actionable knowledge of 
organisational phenomena (Yin, 2003). The pragmatic approach corresponded to the research 
goals of consulting in three industrial organisations as an initial method of qualitative analysis 
with the method of inquiry (King et al., 2003). During the consulting project preceding the 
doctoral project, I examined the processes underlying organisational culture as complex 
phenomena (Gutterman, 2023). 
 
3.1 Organisational Culture Performance Project 
 
The research design for the project linking organisational culture to performance is based on 
Hedström and Swedberg's (1998, 2005, p. 18; Gutterman, 2023) taxonomy, converting to 
actual (situation), constructive (action-formation) and ideal (transformation) culture. These 
organisational culture mechanisms were used by seeking the answer to the following 
questions: 
1. How can organisation members build an effective organisational culture of an 
organisation going through cultural change imposed by external situations?  
2. Which beliefs and opportunities for better performance generate individual action?  
3. How do changes in collective behavior lead to better organisational performance?  
 
The research was significant in its aim to delve into the inner organizational mechanisms that 
foster a performative organizational culture. This enables organizational members to gather 
self-relevant feedback from others and recognize habits they were previously unaware of. 
Biesta (2010, p. 112) emphasizes the importance of different approaches yielding different 
outcomes, and the knowledge gained should be assessed pragmatically. My project's goal was 
to gain insight using a pragmatic approach and make claims solely based on the processes and 
procedures through which knowledge about organizational culture has been generated (Biesta, 
2010, p. 113). Pragmatically, the aim was to uncover causal factors that could bridge the gap 
between the ideal and factual culture, synthesize differentiation, transformation, and 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 137 
aggregation mechanisms to achieve collective action and link them to the organization's 
performance (Gutterman, 2023).  
 
These objectives were successfully achieved through a rigorous research process. First, a 
comprehensive literature review was conducted through databases like Google Scholar, 
Science Direct, and DOAJ to identify research gaps in organizational performance that 
supported the research questions. Second, an actionable knowledge approach was used to 
gather data, ensuring the information collected was practical and relevant. Finally, the link 
between organizational culture and performance was thoroughly explained, leaving no room 
for ambiguity. This meticulous approach to the research process instils confidence in the 
validity and reliability of the study's findings.  Further, the research process developed into 
mixed-method research, including quantitative analysis (Biesta, 2010, p. 95).   
 
In detail, the project's objectives were achieved through an active inquiry process, which 
included trans-actional dialogues, texts, acts, tools, and habits (Lorino, 1918, p. 143). This 
process involved intensive observations of the processes and the researcher's direct 
involvement in the organizational processes through trans-actional dialogues analyzing texts, 
speeches, acts, tools, and habits (Polzer, 2023). As Bakhtin (1981) argues, the storyteller and 
the listener jointly create the stories dialogically. This active role of the researcher was crucial 
in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the organizational culture and its impact on 
performance (Figure 2). 
 
I initially anticipated that subcultures in all three organizations would differ from the 
organizational culture on the organizational level. Therefore, I employed purposive theory-
based sampling based on an ethnographic approach. This approach allows for a close 
examination of the participants' understanding of organisational culture (Nymbili & Nymbili, 
2024). I chose purposive sampling with rational sample selection to build a multilayer sample. 
In this way, I obtained actionable knowledge of the cultural habits of participants and made 
the practical relevance of the impact of organisational culture on the performance of 
organizations under enquiry (Lorino, 2018, p.102) evident.  
3.2 Data collection 
I conducted interviews with three-level management, administration, production and support 
processes, and focus groups with simulations of, e.g., teamwork on various levels of the 
organisation. Diverse research methods allowed for mapping the processes, triangulation of 
research problems, and even unseen and undetected ones (Hedström & Swedberg,1996). The 
pragmatic method revealed different interpretations of reality experienced by all participants 
in the enquiry and important practical habits with the potential to improve the performance of 
organisations. 
 
I initially conducted a quantitative analysis using inferential statistical models to research 
organisational culture based on values, beliefs, norms, expectations and habits in all three 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 138 
textile, machine, and food industry organisations. In the second phase, I gathered data using a 
narrative hermeneutic approach, interpreting texts, communications, habits, and interactions. 
The narrative approach was especially useful as Charniawska (2011) argues: “…narratives — 
that is, texts that present events developing in time according to (impersonal) causes or 
(human) intentions — are the main carriers of knowledge in modern societies toward the end 
of the 20th Century. « In the third phase, I asked respondents to thoroughly describe their 
practices to detect those that had been missed or not documented using quantitative and 
narrative-hermeneutic methods. Triangulating data from three phases of research allowed us 
to verify and validate the information about changes in organisational culture (Manning, 
2018). The pragmatist approach based on abduction unified narrative and logical thought 
shifted perspectives and gave voice to all participants engaging in daily activities (Lorino, 
2018, p. 218). Moreover, the pragmatist approach enabled reflection on efficient working 
methods. Follow-up surveys in all major organisational processes enabled the implementation 
of performance problems and solutions (Schultz & Hatch, 1996). 
4 Results and Discussion 
The research on the organizational cultures of three organizations emphasizes actionable 
knowledge to inform organizational practice. The researcher collaborated closely with 
practitioners to identify research questions, co-create solutions, and facilitate the 
implementation of research findings in real-culture settings. The pragmatic approach allowed 
the use of several different techniques to extract organisational performance factors and draw 
conclusions about the unique organisational changes imposed by other organizations.  
Core pragmatist principles and constant feedback drove the dissemination of practical 
knowledge in organising the organisations’ core processes. Knowledge not obtained by 
quantitative analysis was extracted from particular organisational practices relevant to a 
particular organisational culture. Practical knowledge on the level of practice allowed the 
researcher to extract useful knowledge and link micro and macro levels through 
organisational processes. A pragmatic approach enabled the interconnectedness between 
experience, actionable knowledge, and temporal transactions, as Lorino (2018, p. 80) states: 
” Habit is a kind of crystallization of social experience, and, as such, it conveys some image 
of the past into the action-in-progress”. 
 
The situation where respondents' habits were mutually communicated in an inter-habit 
conversation kept them motivated and allowed them to further make field notes to 
communicate practical findings relevant to organisational performance. Constantly adding 
new writings of ongoing practices, supported by interviews and timely feedback loops, 
resulted in a dynamic and complex view of organisational performance. Charmaz (2009, p. 
151) argues:” Straightforward categories about ordinary experiences have profound meaning 
in producing an analytic lens that sharpens and focuses views of these experiences.” This 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 139 
flexible and constantly recurring data collection is called abduction, the process of logical 
operations introducing new ideas (Pierce, 1931).   
 
Using a pragmatic paradigm in organisational research produced several practical findings 
and solutions. Mechanism-based research inducing causal relationships allows digging under 
organisational phenomena' surface (Davis & Marquis, 2006). Becker (2014) links pragmatic 
research to social mechanisms and case studies to profoundly examine specific situations. In 
our case, we were in situations to be dealt with in the face of organisational change due to 
novel organisational practices (Ambrož, 2004). 
 
The paradigmatic method was the right tool to detect organisational processes, examine 
performance measurements and evaluation, and detect a dynamic and multi-faceted view of 
cultural practice (Kelly & Cordeiro, 2020). Moreover, this method deepened the quality and 
diversity of practices that structure organisational culture performance factors.  Additionally, 
the pragmatic approach allowed the researcher to combine micro and macro levels through 
transactional processes. The research design allowed stakeholders to engage actively in a 
larger organisational context and linked deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning, 
placing evidence-based findings into theory.  
 
Advanced analytical techniques, such as machine learning, network analysis, and simulation 
modelling, were used to analyse complex organizational data and extract actionable insights. 
Diverse research methods and techniques enable uncovering patterns, relationships, and 
causal mechanisms that may otherwise not be accessible. Assessing the effectiveness of 
interventions and the role of technology and innovation revealed drivers of organisational 
change and performance. Moreover, it revealed broader implications for organisational 
performance through the changes in organisational cultures. 
 
Research dissemination and transferability were not neglected. The researcher aimed to link 
the research findings with the real world and form access to wider organisational audiences in 
scientific articles, books and conferences. 
  
Overall, pragmatic research in organisational science continues to evolve in response to 
changing organisational needs, societal trends, and technological advancements. By 
embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, methodological innovation, and a strong focus on 
practical relevance, pragmatic researchers contribute to developing evidence-based practices 
that support organisational success and resilience in an increasingly complex and dynamic 
world (Ambrož, 2004).   
 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 140 
References 
1. Ambrož, M. (2004). Total quality system as a product of the empowered corporate 
culture. The TQM Magazine,16(2), 93- 
104. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780410522982 
2. Ambrož, M. (2021). Time management and performance in organizations. Izzivi 
prihodnosti. 6(1)1, 1–16. ISSN 2463-9281. https://ojs.fos- 
unm.si/index.php/ip/article/view/12/9, DOI: 10.37886/ip.2021.016.  
3. Anderson, P. J., Blatt, R., Christianson, M. K., Grant, A., Marquis, C., Neuman, E. J., 
Sonenshein, S., Sutcliffe, K. M.  (2006). Understanding Mechanisms in 
Organizational Research: Reflections From a Collective Journey. Journal of 
Management Inquiry, 15(2), 102-113 DOI: 10.1177/1056492605280231 
4. Aparna, J., Newton-Lewis T, Srinivasan S. (2019). Means, Motives and Opportunity: 
determinants of community health worker performance. BMJ Global Health, 
4:e001790. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2019-001790 
5. Assante, C. R. (2013). The Impact of Technology in Organizations: An Empirical 
Review. International Journal of ICT and Management,1(3),192-203. 
6. Balková, M., Lejsková, P., Ližbetinová, L. (2022). The Values Supporting the 
Creativity of employees. Front. Psychol., 12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.805153. PMID: 
35185701; PMCID: PMC8852801. 
7. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of 
Texas Press. 
8. Barbosa, C. E., Oliveira de Lima, Y.,  Coimbra Costa, L. F, C., Salazar dos Santos, H., 
Lyra, A., Argolo, M., Jonathan Augusto da Silva, J., Jano Moreira de Souza, J. (2013). 
Future of work in 2050: thinking beyond the COVID‑19 pandemic European Journal 
of Future Research,10(25), 2-19 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00210-w 
9. Barnett, J., Coulson, M. (2010). Virtually Real: A Psychological Perspective on 
Massively Multiplayer. Online Games Review of General Psychology, American 
Psychological Association,14(2), 167–179. 
10. Baum, J. A. C., and Amburgey, T. L. (2017). Organizational Ecology. Wiley Online 
Library.   
11. Burgelman, R. A. (2011). Bridging History and Reductionism: A Key Role for 
Longitudinal Qualitative Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5), 
591–601. 
12. Becker, H. S. (2014). What about Mozart? What about murder? Reasoning from 
cases.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 
13. Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods 
research in eds Tashakorri, A., Teddlie, C. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in 
Social & Behavioral Research, SAGE Publications Ltd. London.  
14. Bosco, F. A. (2022). Accumulating Knowledge in the Organizational Sciences Annu. 
Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav, 9,441–64. 
15. Borowiecki, M., Pareliussen, J., Glocker, D. Eun Jung Kim, E. J. K., Michael Polder, 
M., Rud, I. (2021). The impact of digitalisation on productivity: firm-level evidence 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 141 
from the Netherlands. OECD Economics Department Working Papers,1680, OECD 
Publishing. 
16. Brecht, F., Günther, O., Güth, W., Koroleva, K. (2011). An experimental analysis of 
bounded Rationality: applying insights from Behavioral economics to information 
systems. Jena Economic Research Papers 2011-065, 1- 6. 
17. Breslin, D. (2011a). Interpreting Futures through the Multi-Level Co-Evolution of 
Organizational Practices. Futures 43(9), 1020 –1028.Breslin, D. (2014). Calm in the 
Storm: Simulating the Management of Organizational Co-Evolution. Futures 57, 1-28 
DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.003 
18. Breslin, D. (2015). What Evolves in Organizational Co-Evolution? J of Man & Gov. 
20(1) DOI: 10.1007/s10997-014-9302-0 
19. Bromiley, P., Russeau, D. M., Koumakhov, R. (2019). The Challenges of March and 
Simon’s Organizations: Introduction to the Special Issue , Journal of Management 
Studies, 56, 1517-1527. 
20. Bueno, D. Salapa, A. (2021).  The transformation of organizational theories from 
classical to contemporary: Analysis in the context of public administration. Technical 
Report. Institutional Multidisciplinary Research and Development Journal IMRaD 
Journal, 4, 1-14. 
21. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational 
Analysis. London: Heinemann. 
22. Casey, C. (2002). Critical Analysis of Organizations: Theory, Practice, Revitalization,  
SAGE Publications London, Thousand Oaks. New Delhi 
23. Capra, F., Luisi, P. L. (2014). The System View of Life.  Cambridge. Cambridge 
University Press. 
24. Cascio, W. F., Montealegre, R. (2016). How Technology is Changing Work and 
Organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3, 349–75. 
25. Charmaz, K. (2009). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through 
Qualitative Analysis. London, SAGE. 
26. Church, A. H., Burke, W. (2017). Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations 
and Organization Development, OD PRACTITIONER, 49(3), 14-22. 
27. Czarniawska, B. (2011). Narrating organization studies. Narrative Inquiry 21(2), 337–
344. doi 10.1075/ni.21.2.12cza 
28. Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of organization 
studies. Sage Publications, Inc. 
29. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University 
Press. 
30. Coners, André and Matthies, Benjamin, (2014).  A content analysis of content 
analyses in research: purposes, data sources, and methodological characteristics. 
PACIS 2014 Proceedings, 111. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/111 
31. Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational 
analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91-112. 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 142 
32. D, M., Foster, W.M., Mena, S., Foroughi, H., Rintamäki, J. (2023). Ecologies of 
Memories: Memory Work Within and Between Organizations and Communities, 
Academy of Management Annals,17(1) published online 24 Jan 2023 
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0088 
33. Davis. G. F. (2010). Do Theories of Organization Progress.  Organisational Research 
Methods,13(2), 690 -709 DOI: 10.1177/1094428110376995 
34. Davis, G. F., Ross, S. M., Marquis, C. (2005).  Prospects for Organization Theory in 
the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms. Organization 
Science,16(4),332-343 DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0137 
35. Davis, G. F. (2017). How Institutions Matter! Research in the Sociology of 
Organizations, 48B, 311-322, ISSN: 0733-558X/doi:10.1108/S0733-558X201600048 
B011 
36. Dewey, J. (1986). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later 
works, 1925–1953, 12. Southern Illinois University Press (Original work published 
1938) Article in Organization Science · October 2006 DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0215 
37. Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne. D., Bail, C. (2020). Computational Social 
Science and Sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1),61–81. 
38. Elster, J. (1998). Emotions and Economic Theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 
47–74. 
39. Ernst van Aken, J., Romme, G. (2009). Reinventing the Future: Adding Design 
Science to the repertoire of organization and management studies, Organization 
Management Journal, 6(1), 5-12. 
40. Extröm, M.  (1992).  Casual Explanation of Social Action: The Contribution of Max 
Weber and Critical Realism to a Generative View of Casual Explanation in Social 
Science. Acta Sociologica, 35,107-122.  
41. Farjoun, M., Anselt, C., Boin, A. (2015). PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in 
Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World, 
Organization Science, 26(6),1787–1804 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1016 
42. Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management.  (c. Storrs, Trans.). London: 
Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.  
43. Feys, R. (1965). Modal Logics, Joseph Dopp, Ed. Louvain. Published with support of 
the Fondation Universitaire de Belgique. Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership 
effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
44. Flockhart, T. (2016). The coming multi-order world. Contemporary Security 
Policy, 37(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1150053  
45. Foster, C. (2023). Methodological pragmatism in educational research: from 
qualitative-quantitative to exploratory-confirmatory distinctions, International Journal 
of Research & Method in Education, 47(3):1-16 
DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2023.2210063 
46. Gagné, M., Parent-Rocheleau, X., Bujold, A., Gaudet, M.-C., & Lirio, P. (2022). How 
algorithmic management influences worker motivation: A self-determination theory 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 143 
perspective. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 63(2), 247–
260. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000324 
47. Ganster, D. C., Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: a 
multidisciplinary review. J. Manag. vol. 39,1085–122. 
48. Ganster, D. C., Tori, L. C., Brossoit, R. M. (2018). Physiological Measurement in the 
Organizational Sciences: A Review and Recommendations for Future Use Annu. Rev. 
Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 5, 267–93. 
49. Gergen, K. J., Thatchenkery (1996). Organizational Science as Social Construction: 
Postmodern potentials. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 356-377 
DOI: 10.1177/0021886396324002 
50. Gergen, K. J., Thatchenkery (1996). Organizational Science in Postmodern Context, in 
The Realm Of Organisation: Essays For Robert Cooper, 15-43. DOI: 
10.4324/9780203209035 https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/937 
51. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press. 
52. Glynos, J. and Howarth, D. (2018) ‘The Retroductive Cycle: The research process in 
poststructuralist discourse analysis’, in Marttila, T. (ed.) (2018) Discourse, Culture 
and Organization: Inquiries into Relational Structures of Power, London: Palgrave. 
53. Gomes, A. O., Alves, S. T., Silva, J. T. (2018). Effects of investment in information 
and communication technologies on courts’ productivity in Brazil Government, 
Information Quarterly, 35(3),480-490. 
54. Gutterman, A. S. (2023).  Organizational Culture – An Overview of Research, 
Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4403558 
55. Hardy, C., Clegg, S. (1997). Relativity Without Relativism: Reflexivity in Post-
Paradigm Organization Studies British Journal of Management, Special Issue 8 (S5–
S17). 
56. Heracleous, L. (2004). Interpretivist approaches to organizational discourse.In Grant, 
D., Phillips, N., Hardy, C., Putnam, L. and Oswick, C. (Eds.), Handbook of 
Organizational Discourse. Beverly Hills: Sage, 175–192. 
57. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1996). Social Mechanisms. Acta Sociologica, 39(3), 
281-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939603900302 
58. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (1998). Social Mechanisms: An Analytical 
Approach to Social Theory (Studies in Rationality and Social Change). Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511663901 
59. Hedström, P., Wennberg, K.  (2017). Causal mechanisms in organization and 
innovation studies, Innovation, 19(1), 91- 2, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1256779 
60. Heller, M. (2023). Rethinking Historical Methods in Organization Studies: 
Organizational Source Criticism, Organization Studies, 44(6), 987-1002. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231156978Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). 
Management of Organizational Behavior 4th Edition – Utilizing Human Resources. 
New Jersey/Prentice Hall. 
61. Hjørland, B. (2005). Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information 
science, Journal of Documentation, 61(1),130 – 155. 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 144 
62. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science 
Quarterly, 16 (3), 321–339. doi:10.2307/2391905. JSTOR 2391905. 
63. Huberman, M., and Miles, M. B. (1991). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Collection of 
New Methods. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Obediat, B. (2016). The Effect of Strategic 
Orientation on Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Innovation 
International, Journal of Communications Network and System Sciences, (9)119, 478-
506. 
64. Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research 
Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 
65. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., Christakis, 
N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., 
Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Social science. Computational social science. Science,6, 
323(5915),721–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1167742. PMID: 19197046; PMCID: 
PMC2745217.ports  
66. Lyra, Alan de Oliveira, Carlos Eduardo Barbosa, C. E., Lima, Y.O., Salazar dos 
Santos, H. Matheus Argôlo, M., 1 and Jano Moreira de Souza, J. (2023). Toward 
computer‑supported semi‑automated timelines of future events. European Journal of 
Futures Research,11(4), 2-9.  
67. Jaakola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review 10, 
18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 
68. Jaja, I. R., Idoniboye, O., Amadi, Chukwudi, C. (2022). A Critique of the Positivist 
Paradigm in Human Sciences. International Journal of Research and Innovation in 
Social Science (IJRISS), VI(III). 
69. Karatas-Özkan, M. ,  and William D. Murphy, W. D. (2010).Critical Theorist, 
Postmodernist and Social Constructionist Paradigms in Organizational Analysis: A 
Paradigmatic Review of Organizational Learning Literature, International Journal of 
Management Reviews, 12, 453–465 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00273.x 
70. Kelly, L., Cordeiro, M. (2020). Three principles of pragmatism for research on 
organizational processes. Methodological Innovations, 13(2), 2-10 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242 
71. King, G., Keohane, R. O., Verba, S. (2003). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific 
Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, pages: 3-28. 
72. Lakhwani, M., Dastane, O., Satar, N. S. M., Johari, Z. (2020). The Impact of 
Technology Adoption on Organizational Productivity, Journal of Industrial 
Distribution & Business, 11(4),7-18. 
73. Lawrence, P., and Lorsch, J., (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex 
Organizations Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-30. 
74. Kuhn, T. (1962/1970a). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press (1970, 2nd edition, with postscript). 
75. Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and Organization Studies.   Oxford University Press.  

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 145 
76. Maclean, M, Harvey, C & Clegg, S. (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization 
studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4),  609–632. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0133 
77. Malayeri, A. D., El Bayeh, Z. C., Mastorakis, N. E. (2011). Information technology, 
human interaction, and the influence of Web 2.0. Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS 
international conference on Applied informatics and communications, the 4th WSEAS 
International conference on Biomedical electronics and biomedical informatics, and 
the international conference on Computational engineering in systems applications. 
78. Manning, L. (2018), Triangulation: Effective verification of food safety and quality 
management systems and associated organisational culture, Worldwide Hospitality 
and Tourism Themes 10(3), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-02-2018-0009 
79. McKenna, S., Julia Richardson, J.,  Manroop, L. (2011). Alternative paradigms and 
the study and practice of performance management and evaluation. Human Resource 
Management Review, 21(2), 148–157. 
80. March, J. G., Simon, H. A, (1993). Organizations. Everything you ever wanted to 
know about growing grapes. John Wiley & Sons.Mukumbang, F. C. (2023). 
Retroductive Theorizing: A Contribution of Critical Realism to Mixed Methods. 
Research Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 93–114. 
81. Orlikowski, W. J., Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can 
research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each 
other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145–165 https://doi.org/10.2307/3250927 
82. Osei-Nimo, S., Imani Silver Kyaruzi (2015). Power and Control in Knowledge-
Intensive Firms: Post-Bureaucratic Firms and Enterprise Culture, Open Access Library 
Journal, 2 (10), 1-11  http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1101952 
83. Nyimbili F. and Nyimbili L. (2024). Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with 
Their Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies, British Journal of 
Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: English Lang., Teaching, Literature, 
Linguistics & Communication, 5(1),90-99. 
84. Pereira, D. D. A. (2005). The challenges of the small insular developing states: Are 
Mauritius and Seychelles examples of Cape Verde? 
https://core.ac.uk/download/61448731.pdf 
85. Pérez-Ortega, R.,  Vargas-Hernández, J. G.  (2021). Bounded rationality in decision-
making.  Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 1(2),34-46 DOI: 
10.29226/TR1001.2018.91 
86. Perrin, A. & Rolland, N. (2007). Mechanisms of Intra-Organisational Knowledge 
Transfer : The Case of a Global Technology Firm. M@n@gement, 10, 25-
47. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.102.0025 
87. Peschl, M. F. (2023). Learning from the Future as a Novel Paradigm for Integrating 
Organizational Learning and Innovation. The Learning Organization, 30(1),6-22 
Emerald Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/TLO-01-2021-0018 
88. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to advancing Organizational Science: Paradigm 
Development as a Dependent Variable Author(s): Source: The Academy of 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 146 
Management Review, 18(4), 599-620, Published by: Academy of Management Stable 
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258592 Accessed: 21/09/2008 20:44 
89. Pierce, C. (1877). The Fixation of Belief. The Popular Science Monthly,12, 1–15. 
90. Polzer, J. T. (2022). The rise of people analytics and the future of organizational 
research.  Research in Organizational Behavior, 42, 1-13. 
91. Razzouk, R., Shute, V. (2012).  What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? 
Review of Educational Research,82(3)3, 330–348 DOI: 10.3102/0034654312457429 
© 2012 AERA. http://rer.aera.net 
92. Ryan, A., Mitchell, I. K., Daskou, S. (2012). An interaction and networks approach to 
developing sustainable organisations. Journal of Organizational Change 
Management, 25(4), 578-594, Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0953-4814 DOI 
10.1108/09534811211239236 
93. Sarwar, A., Fraser, P. (2018). Scientficity and The Law of Theory Demarcation. 
Scientonomy, 2, 55-66 https://www.scientowiki.com/ 
https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v2i0.31275 
94. Tcherning, H. (2011). A Multi-level Social Network Perspective on ICT Adoption. 
University of Melbourne. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_20 
95. Senge, P. (1990). Fifth Discipline: The Art&Practice of The Learning Organization. 
Currency Doubleday, New York. 
96. Simon, H. A. (1957). Background of Decision Making, Naval War College Review, 
10(9), Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol10/iss9/2 
97. Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J. )1996). Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of 
Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies. The Academy of Management 
Review, 21(2), 529–557. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258671 
98. Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York. 
99. Tracy, S. J. (2007). Taking the Plunge: A Contextual Approach to Problem-Based 
Research, Communication Monographs, 74 (1),106–111. 
100. Tywoniak, S. , Lavagnon, I.,  Bredillet, C. (2021). Pragmatist Approach to Complexity 
Theorizing in Project Studies: Orders and Levels, Project Management Journal, 52(3), 
298–313. 
101. Uduma, I. A., Sylvia, W. (2015). A critique of the adequacy of positivist and 
interpretivist views of organisational studies for understanding the 21st century 
organisation(s). International Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(8), 44-
52. 
102. Wadhwani, R. D. & Anders R. Sørensen, A. R. (2023). Methods of Musement: 
Cultivating serious play in research on business and organization, Management & 
Organizational History,18(1),1-15, DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2023.2187032 
103. Walsh, J. P., Meyer, D. A., Schoonhoven, C. B. (2006). A Future for Organization 
Theory: Living in and Living with Changing Organizations, Organization 
Science,17(5), 657-671 DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0215 
104. Waldmann, D. A., Ward, M. K., Becker, W.J. (2017). Neuroscience in Organizational 
Behavior. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 9,9-20. 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 147 
105. Van Aken, J.E. & Romme, A.G.L. (2012). A design science approach to evidence-
based management. In: D.Rousseau (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based 
Management, pp. 43-57. Oxford: Oxford University Press (17) (PDF) A Design 
Science Approach to Evidence-Based Management. Available from: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235945854_A_Design_Science_Approach_t
o_Evidence-Based_Management [accessed Apr 24 2024]. 
106. Weik, E. (2022). A new lease on life? The return of vitalism in management and 
organization studies, European Management Journal, 40, 2–9. 
107. Wenzel, M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., & Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and Organization 
Studies: On rediscovering a problematic temporal category in 
organizations. Organization Studies, 41(10), 1441-
1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620912977 
108. Wicks, A. C., Edward Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization Studies and the New 
Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization 
Science 9(2):123–140. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123 
109. Wurm, B., Becker, M., Pentland, B. T., Lyytinen, K., Weber, B., Grisold, T., 
Mendling, J., & Kremser, W. (2023). Digital Twins of Organizations: A Socio-
Technical View on Challenges and Opportunities for Future Research. 
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 52, 552-565. 
https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05223 
110. Weber, M. (1936). Social actions. 
111. Wenzel. M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and organization 
Studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations, 
Organization Science, 41(10),  1441-1455  DOI: 10.1177/0170840620912977 
www.egosnet.org/os 
112. Weick, K. E. (2019). Evolving reactions: 60 years with March and Simon’s 
“Organizations”’. Journal of Management Studies, 56, 1527–36. 
113. Wicks, A. C., Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: 
Positivism, Anti-Positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 
123–140 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 148 
114. Wadhwani, R. D., & Sørensen, A. R. (2023). Methods of musement: Cultivating 
serious play in research on business and organization, Management & Organizational 
History, 18(1), 1–15, DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2023.2187032 To link to this article: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2023.2187032 
115. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.Hedström, P., Ylikoski, P. (2010). 
Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences, 36, 49-67 Annual Review of Sociology, 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632  
116. Ylikoski, P. (2019). Mechanism-based theorizing and generalization from case studies, 
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 78, 14–22. 
117. Weber, M. (1947). Bureaucracy, in Gerth, HH. Mills, C.W. (eds) from May Weber: 
Essays in Sociology, NY: University Press, 196-244. 
118. Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Edition, Sage, 
Thousand Oaks. 
119. Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Colucci, W., Wang, Z. (2011). The Paradigm Shift in 
Organizational Research International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations,1, 
57-70.  
 
 
 
*** 
Milan Ambrož is an emeritus professor lecturing at several faculties FOŠ, ECM, Turistica, EF, the Faculty of 
Criminal Justice and Security, and the Faculty of Social Sciences. He has authored and co-authored over sixty 
scientific articles and twelve monographs on security, human resource management, tourism, management, and 
social methodology. He has also been a researcher on a research team for several international projects. 
 
*** 
 
 
 
 
Povzetek: 
Pragmatični pogled na raziskovanje organizacij 
 
Raziskovalno vprašanje (RV): Ali je pragmatizem prava metoda za raziskovanje kompleksnega, 
nepredvidljivega in neracionalnega organizacijskega polja? Raziskovanje na področju 
organizacijske vede se odmika od uporabe klasičnih teorij, ki pogosto niso učinkovite pri razlagi 
fenomena organizacije, zato smo predstavili pragmatični raziskovalni model, ki omogoča celovit, 
kompleksen in raznovrsten pogled na delovanje organizacije.  
Namen: Namen raziskovanja, na osnovi sistematičnega pregleda raziskovalnih konceptov, 
oblikovati pragmatični raziskovalni model, ki naj bi zapolnil vrzel, ki nastaja z uporabo 
tradicionalnih organizacijskih teorij v raziskovanju. Pragmatični pristop k raziskovanju predstavlja 
celovit, kompleksen in multi-modalni pristop k raziskovanju. 
Metoda: Pregled raziskovalnih konceptov na področju organizacije smo izvedli  z zgodovinsko in 
kritično organizacijsko metodo in verodostojni in pomenski pogled na pragmatični raziskovalni 
pristop. S selektivno razlago različnih pragmatičnih konceptov smo razvili na socialnih 
mehanizmih temelječ raziskovalni model.     
Rezultati: Rezultat selektivnega pregleda in integracije paradigmatičnih raziskovalnih pristopov, 
je paradigmatični raziskovalni model, ki temelji na socialno - mehanicističnem pristopu, ki 
obravnava organizacijske spremembe in potrebe, organizacijske trende in tehnološki razvoj.    
Omejitve/nadaljnje raziskovanje: Paradigmatični model je nastal na osnovi raziskovanja na 
konceptualni ravni. Kljub temu, da temelji na selektivnem pristopu k razvoju paradigmatičnega 

Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 122–149. 
 149 
pristopa k raziskovanju, je treba paradigmatični model operacionalizirati in ga preizkusiti v 
empirični raziskavi.  
 
Ključne besede: paradigma, pragmatizem, koncept, model, kompleksnost, realnost, družbeni 
mehanizem, organizacija 
 
 
 
Using organisational source criticism as a historical methodology, I researched sources in the 
history of organisational theories and concepts (patterns extending over time, contingencies, 
and contexts) to establish the veracity and meaning of the pragmatic concepts of the 
organisation (Burgelman, 2011; Heller, 2023; Lorino, 2018, p. 68) Through selective 
interpretation of pragmatic research concepts, I present the mechanism-based concept of 
pragmatic organizational research. 
 
 
Copyright (c)  Milan AMBROŽ 
 
 
Creative Commons License 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.