Inspired in part by the idea of an on-going series at org theory.net, (grad skol rulz), and my own desire to blog more frequently, I would like to launch a semi-recurring series of what I don’t like in theory writing.
I am reviewing conference submissions for a conference, and I have come across an example of the kind of figure or image I don’t like.
The Curse of the Everything-Is-Connected Figure.
This type of figure is usually used in a conceptual article. And, to make matters worse, it is usually in the kind of article I am quite sympathetic to. The author wants to get past static or overly-reified depictions of organizations. They talk about the need for multi-level analyses which means looking at process, and, more often than not, mixed types of data. They probably cite Gareth Morgan’s Image sof organizaions of book, or Mar Jo Hatch’s Organization Theory or Joel Baum (and others?) use of the metaphor of a fish scale to discuss org studies as a multiscience.
But, when you look at the figure, you realize that it explains everything and hence nothing.
Full disclosure: I am probably guilty of this kind of figure and when I find one, I will poke fun at myself too. Here is mock-up I made of the type of figure.
One problem with these is that they don’t specify what is moving between cells/circles/whatever-other-shape-tickled-one’s-fancy-in-insert-shape-in-MS word..
A second problem is they don’t deal with time. Does sequencing matter? How do changes agglutinate or accumulate?
So, throwing caution to the wind, have you seen one of these in published work? Do they drive you a little nuts too?