OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Chapter 14

Reflections on t h e
Parad oxes of Mode rni t y
A Conversation with James March

Richard Badham (with a “Comment” by

James March)

Our modern society of organizations is confronted by paradoxes within and of moder-

nity. As technicians of modernity, we are concerned with the former, providing advice
on how to better manage organizations and those within them. This is a rational enter-
prise embedded in a long and noble intellectual tradition of addressing the problems
that a rational society creates (Badham 2015), in this instance by advocating an accept-
ance rather than avoidance or denial of embedded paradoxical tensions. This includes
addressing the competing and paradoxical demands of multiple institutional logics, and
modern variants of universal organizational tensions, between exploitation and explo-
ration, centralization and decentralization, and empowerment and control and so on.
(see Smith and Lewis 2011 for a comprehensive overview).
In contrast, interpreters of modernity are more attentive to the paradoxes of moder-
nity, as cultural interpreters of either the “dark side” of modern “risk society” and the
high modernist quest for order and control (Alexander 2013; Bauman 2013; Smart,
1999: 48) or its more comic “lighter” side in promoting or at least enabling, a self-​critical
and reflexive modernity (Berman 1982; Haraway 1992; Kundera 1984, 1993; Serres 1997;
Mueller 2011). The purpose of the present chapter is to contribute to the latter discussion
within organizational studies, by introducing and illustrating the work of James March
as a significant and elegant set of insights and reflections on the rhetorics and rituals
of a modern rational ethos that we have no choice other than to live by (Lanham 1995;
McLoskey 1994; Kegan and Lahey 2009).
As March’s co-​author Thierry Weil observes, “Before criticizing and dismissing the
dominant paradigm, he [March] displays all its strengths. He uses a very rational, sci-
entific framework to demonstrate the limits of reason . . . March uses the tools of reason

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 277 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

278    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

to demonstrate the incompleteness of reason” (March and Weil 2005: 108). In so doing

March argues that, “ambiguity and equivocality are essential to the process, as are
irony, paradox, playfulness and metaphor” (March 1994: 211). The use of such methods
is exemplified in March’s characterization of and advocacy for a “garbage can” view of
decision-​making, the “technology of foolishness” in innovation, mindfulness of the
“hot stove” effect in experiential learning, and support for the quixotic dimension of
leadership motivation and inspiration (Cohen, March, and Olsen 1972; Denrell and
March 2001; March and Olsen 1986; March 1988; March 2006a). In March’s work, these
concepts are not mere “rhetorical frosting” (Augier and March 2011: 239) but an exercise
of (and recommendation for) serious play (Statler, Heracleous, and Jacobs 2011) in the
face of the ambiguities, contradictions, and paradoxes that beset the managerial quest in
modern organizations (Padgett 1992).
In order to capture some of the range and depth of March’s insights on the inherent
paradoxes of modernity, this chapter adopts a particular framework for interrogat-
ing his work. James March is seen as identifying and seeking to address three main
paradoxes of modernity: a paradox of rationality (involving a consistently rational
appreciation of the limits of rationality, given pressures and temptations to relapse);
a paradox of performance (that besets attempts to communicate and act on the basis
of this knowledge given the tensions between talk and action in modern organiza-
tions); and a paradox of meaning (concerning the purpose we attribute to this enter-
prise, given the limited scope and problematic outcomes of intelligent action). In
conclusion, the chapter addresses the implications of the issues raised by March’s
insights into these three paradoxes of modernity for adopting a paradox perspective
in organization studies.

The Paradox of Rationality

A Critical Rationality
It did not require the arrival of postmodernism to note the exaggerated and mythologi-
cal nature of the Western faith in rationality and the claims made on its behalf. From the
philosopher David Hume to liberal skeptics such as Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, and
Ernest Gellner, critical rationalists have unmasked the illusory nature of the “Heavenly
City” promised by uncritical advocates of rationality. What they, and others, have
revealed is the misleading hubris and dangerous consequences of an exaggerated faith
in the ability of “modernity projects” to define and deliver a “one best way” of thought
and action (Scott 1999) and bring about order and control in human affairs (Smart 1999;
Wagner 2012).
Within organizational studies, these insights have been reflected in Herbert Simon’s
critique of equating the application of “procedural” rationality with the attainment of
“substantive” rationality (Simon 1976), and they have informed critiques of classical,

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 278 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   279

technical, comprehensive, omniscient, and strategic views of rational thought and

action in favor of views of rationality that are more reflective (Schon 1983), limited
(Lindblom 1959), bounded (Simon 1957), and contextual (Weick 1993)  in character.
These insights are further extended in modern process, practice, performative and dis-
course studies (Cabantous, Gond, and Johnson-​Cramer 2010).

A Predictable Irrationality
Yet, despite awareness of the limitations and dangers of exaggerated views of what
rational thought and action can deliver, the faith in rationality remains strong and influ-
ential, fueled by great hopes (Brunsson 2006) and embodied in urgent quests (Bauman
2013). Even critical rationalists, far from decrying or denigrating the use of rationality in
any thoroughgoing fashion, actually do the opposite, using logic and evidence to reveal
the illusory and counterproductive character of exaggerated and misleading claims
made on rationality’s behalf.
Within organizational studies, this is exemplified in the focus on systematically
identifying sources of “predictable irrationality” (Ariely 2010) as a guide for decision-​
making and action. This has been a central and enduring component of March’s work.
His critique of the profit-​maximizing and perfect-​knowledge assumptions of neo-​
classical models of decision-​making, and their replacement by a behavioral theory of
the firm, was part of an attempt to provide an improved understanding of actual behav-
ior. His garbage can model of decision-​making was not intended to legitimate chaos
but, rather, discern predictable patterns in actual decision-​making behavior (Cohen,
March, and Olsen 2012: 25; March in Coutu 2006: 86). His analyses of the “hot stove
effect” and the advantages of a “technology of foolishness” were not intended to dismiss
the value of experience or technologies of reason, and replace them with recommenda-
tions for “silliness” (March in Contu 2006: 87) or establish a “Mardi Gras for reason”
(March 1988: 261), but to remind us that while experience may be the “best teacher” it is
not a “good one” (March 2010: 115), and that a playful relaxation of the rules of reasoned
intelligence may assist us in exploring the goals we wish to pursue (March 1988). Nor
was his contrast between “exploitation” and “exploration” a simple critique of a conserv-
ative and narrowly rationalistic exploitation in favor of a radical romance of explora-
tion, but an argument for recognizing the inevitable tensions between the two, the need
for balance, and the dilemmas of calculating trade-​offs. In all these areas, what March
has argued for is greater rational understanding of the character of rational thought and
action, informed reflection on the claims made on its behalf, and a balanced apprecia-
tion of its contributions and limitations.
The paradox of rationality remains, however, even within those committed to a
rational appreciation of the limits of rationality, as they are seduced into exaggerating
the degree to which their tempered rationalism reveals the “one best way” (the “Real
and the Rational,” the “Good” and the “True”), overstating the certainty of the knowl-
edge they provide about means and their understanding and realization of the goals to

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 279 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

280    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

be pursued. As the sociologist Peter Berger once aptly remarked, our cultural assump-
tions confront us not only as a law from without, but also a conscience from within—​
the seductive religion of rationality often creeps unsuspecting into even the work of its
heretics.
In regard to both means and ends, Herbert Simon and James March were similarly
critical of omniscient views of rational behavior in modern organizations. However,
there are significant disparities in how consistently and extensively they follow through
on their critical rationality. Herbert Simon, for example, frustrated that the concept
of bounded rationality and descriptive behavioral studies of decision-​making were
regarded by economists as “outside the Pale” (Simon 1978: 345), focused on persuading
his economics colleagues by developing and empirically supporting a superior theory to
replace it. In the process he became a self-​proclaimed prophet “prepared to preach the
heresies of bounded rationality to economists . . . in season and out’ (cited in Khurana
2011: 263).
In contrast, March is much more tentative in his claims and sanguine in his expec-
tations. March presents the garbage can as a model not the model of organizations, a
partial viewpoint on behaviors that are “characteristic of any organization in part—​part
of the time . . . describ[ing] a portion of almost any organization’s activities, but will not
describe all of them” (Cohen, March, and Olsen 1972: 1). March is consistently aware of
how the interpretation and take-​up of theories, academic and otherwise, is an emer-
gent and social process. All ideas, he notes, “are incorrigible progeny with endless trans-
formative capabilities to annoy and delight their previous authors” (Cohen, March, and
Olsen 2012: 23). Discussing the garbage can model, he remarks that it is most likely to
be influential in situations of complexity and in times of chaos. (Cohen et al. 2012: 29).
Reflecting on “post-​heroic” theories of leadership, March playfully, yet pertinently,
observes that while “Carlyle said that leaders determined the course of history [and]
Tolstoy said that leaders had nothing to do with the course of history,” in organizational
life “leaders are more inclined to believe in Carlyle in good times and Tolstoy in bad
times” (Cohen and March 1974: 203).
Most significantly, March is also nuanced and reflective in his observations about the
partial, complex, and uneven take-​up of more critical views of rationality within eco-
nomics and organizational studies. Within the domain of micro-​economics, he argues,
the take-​up has been substantial and effective. However, outside this domain, more rec-
ognition and acceptance is given to the rhetoric of such critiques (as a rational analysis
providing certain “truths” about micro-​economic behavior) than is given to their theo-
ries (which challenge the rationalistic assumptions that often lie unquestioned in organ-
izational behavior, marketing, strategy and so on). As a result, he observes, concepts
such as “ ‘bounded rationality,’, ‘exploration and exploitation,’ ‘garbage cans’  . . .  have
become common part of the education, but their precise implications for practice have
been generally less clear and less explored.” “As a result,” and perhaps predictably, “much
of the teaching of topics such as leadership, innovation, and entrepreneurship that might
have pointed to new ways of understanding such phenomena have become instead an
echo of an earlier pursuit of ‘best practice’ ” (Augier and March 2011: 232; March 1978).

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 280 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   281

A More ‘Extreme’ Form of Irrationality

A key theme in March’s reflections is his consistent questioning of the exaggeratedly
rational assumptions about or interpretations of the preferences, goals, or purposes of
action that are served (or not) by instrumentally rational means. In this enterprise, he
is more consistently critical in his rational interrogation of the assumptions of omnis-
cient rationality than Herbert Simon. As Simon put it, “Jim has a very large fascina-
tion (I have some) with even more extreme forms of irrationality than I do. So, in my
organizations, there is still more rationality than in the garbage can” (cited in Augier
and Kreiner 2000a: 675). As Augier and Kreiner (2000a) note, the bounded ration-
ality focus of Herbert Simon lay with the psychological restrictions on the ability of
human beings to grasp the nature of the world, their limited “computational abilities,”
“memory,” and “wits” in the face of complexity. While recognizing the crucial impor-
tance of such phenomena, March goes further. For March, the complex time–​space
environment is not a given that individuals or organizations have a limited ability to
grasp, but is fundamentally unknowable as goals and premises are the “at the same time
premises for and outcomes of human and organizational choice” (Augier and Kreiner
2000a: 675). For March, what the garbage can theory identifies is a world in which it
is not only the case that the means for pursuing organizational goals are multiple and
uncertain, and that people’s attention is partial, fluid, and shifting, but also that the
goals being pursued are ambiguous, conflicting, and unstable. This is no minor shift
of emphasis. As Perrow (1973) has observed, many human relations and organiza-
tional development advocates have questioned the use of mechanistic means to achieve
organizational goals, but they far less frequently reflect on the nature and adequacy of
those goals themselves.
While part of March’s analysis concerns the existence of multiple and ambiguous
goals, what he also adds is a recognition of and emphasis upon the shaping and forg-
ing of preferences in the course of action. For March, means/​ends are inevitably inter-
twined, not only in the sense that every means is in some sense an end in its own right,
but the fact that ends are re-​shaped in the process of pursing the means for attaining
our presumed initial preferences. As March also succinctly puts it, all rational actions
are based on a gamble, guesses about future consequences and preferences. Those who
initiate action are not only changed in the process of action itself, but also face different
circumstance at the end.
For March, therefore, there is an inherent unpredictability and irrationality in human
action that cannot be countered through rational analysis, however intelligent and crit-
ical. March’s response to this situation is to recommend abandoning the “metaphor of
search” (March 1988: 258–​9) as the process of “discovery” is also one of “creation,” and
advocates, as a “rational” response, a reduction in the faith and use of rationality as a tool
for decision-​making, and the value of intuition, foolishness, and play as part of explora-
tion. As our purposes are created, rather than simply discovered, in the course of action,
the non-​rational and playful pursuit of apparently “foolish” ventures are not an alterna-
tive to intelligence and wisdom, but part of it.

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 281 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

282    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

What this analysis of March’s work reveals, therefore, is a constant tension within the
contemporary faith in and pursuit of rationality. On the one hand, the exaggerated and
omniscient assumptions of a confident Rationality, assumed to reveal “one best way”
of thought and action, have been brought into question by a critical rationality that has
uncovered inherent ambiguity, plurality, and uncertainty in the means to be employed,
and fluidity, conflict, and unpredictable emergence in the goals to be pursued. On the
other hand, there is a temptation to interpret the insights of such a critical rationality
as a new “one best way,” certain in its knowledge of the workings of a pragmatic ration-
ality (or predictable irrationality) and confident in the utility and value of its insights.
As Kenneth Burke noted in his classic phrase, “Even humility can go to their head”! (in
Rueckert 1983: 272).

The Paradox of Performance

The Managerial Dilemma

The rational analysis of how decisions are actually made in organizations would appear
to argue for the explicit adoption of a more pragmatic or reflective view of rationality,
shorn of the grandiose, pretentious, exaggerated, and misleading claims and aspira-
tions of omniscient views of rationality. Like the small boy who declares the emperor
to be naked, a mark of intelligence and virtue would appear to be to end the foolish-
ness and pretense of mistaken conventional wisdom by simply pointing to the evi-
dence, debunking ignorance and collusion and replacing it with thought and action
grounded in the realities of organizational life. What March’s work reveals is that,
somewhat paradoxically, such a view betrays the very rationalist ethos that it claims to
be implementing.
In addition to its debunking of omniscient rationality, what a critical rational analy-
sis of organizational life also uncovers is the essential character of decision-​making as a
symbolic performance. In modern Western culture, this mythology is, at least in part,
in conflict with the insights and ethos of a pragmatic and reflective rationality, and sup-
portive of a more substantive faith in the ability of rational thought and action to deliver
certain knowledge and intended and meaningful outcomes. We ignore this insight
at our peril. Failing to understand and take into account these symbolic dynamics of
decision-​making is a recipe for ineffective action, personal disillusion, and damaged
careers. If we return to the imagery of The Emperor’s New Clothes, it is no accident that
while knowing the child’s words to be true, the emperor continues “stiffer than ever”
because “the procession must go on.” (Anderson 1907)
In this situation, administrators, managers, leaders, and all those working in mod-
ern organizations are, March observes, caught in a fundamental performative dilemma.
What the critical insights of rational understanding and analysis reveal is a dual, yet
inconsistent, requirement for both pragmatic action, improvisation, and exploration in

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 282 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   283

complex, ambiguous, and uncertain situations and understanding and communicat-

ing what they are doing as acting with confidence and certainty secure in their calcula-
tive knowledge and the achievement of the consciously and explicitly chosen goals and
objectives. As March puts it, it is a “managerial dilemma of speaking a rhetoric of deci-
siveness, certainty and clarity while experiencing a life of doubt, paradox and contradic-
tion” (March 2010: 68). What this insight leads to is not the moral condemnation of an
apparent hypocritical commitment to contradictory omniscient and critical rationali-
ties in the light of a consequentialist faith, but, rather, an acknowledgement of the exist-
ence of a required and valuable hypocrisy that is functional (Pondy 1977), aspirational
(Christensen, Morsing, and Thysen 2013), and generative (March 1994).

A Productive Hypocrisy
As exemplified in the classic analyses of Meyer and Rowan (1977) and Brunsson (1989),
in order to secure the legitimacy required from external institutional regulators and
resource providers, and cope with the competing demands of multiple internal and
external stakeholders, proclamations of rational organization and delivery divorced
from actual implementation, may be a requirement for individual success and organiza-
tional survival. Moreover, and crucially, the effort of leaders, followers, and their organ-
izations required to overcome the challenges of life in overcoming obstacles and getting
things done requires confidence and commitment in their enterprise. As March puts it,
“great commitments require great hopes” (March 2007). Without a faith in the benefi-
cial outcome of rationally informed striving, such efforts are likely to be undermined.
As March puts it, it may be more desirable for individuals and organizations to strive
to achieve more through a “false positive” that exaggerates their rationality and signifi-
cance, than to undermine their motivation through a “false negative.” Moreover, there
is a further positive advantage in striving to attain unrealistic yet desirable aspirations,
even if it is impossible to live up to these ideals in practice, “in full consciousness, not
in hopes of fulfilling the precepts—​for they would not want to do that—​but in hopes of
acting in a better way than they would without the struggle.” (March 1980: 28). Finally,
there is an unpredictability in symbolic actions and the unfolding of events, that means
that short-​term instrumental hypocrisy may lead to the development of actions, values,
and commitments that have beneficial effects that transcend their short-​term motiva-
tions. In the long run the proclamation of social values, and the encouragement of one-
self and others to live up to them, may lead to unpredicted and beneficial results.

The Dilemma Remains

Despite such benefits attributable to hypocrisy, the managerial dilemma remains, how-
ever. The intelligent administrator, as March describes her, is faced with a continuing
tension between maintaining a dubious mythology and undermining the commitment

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 283 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

284    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

of themselves and others to the significance of their actions. There are drawbacks in not
being able to acknowledge this “confusion and ambivalence” (March in Coutu 2006: 21).
The dominant omniscient ideology can be used for self-​aggrandizement, social manip-
ulation, and cover up. It can also mislead and delude, as it encourages hubris and path-
ological optimism, followed by excessive cynicism when such hopes are dashed. It also
leads to a lack of openness about the symbolic dimension of managerial work.
However, because of the symbolic importance of their work, and the decisions they
make, leaders are required to spend a considerable part of their time on symbolic
actions. More information is regularly collected than is used, time and resources are
spent on strategy and policy development that are not followed up, and considerable
time is spent on displays of command of information and competence, holding meet-
ings, developing procedures, and sending memos with the purpose of symbolizing
visions of control (March 1994). Moreover, an essential component of this symbolic dis-
play is that it is not admitted or recognized as such. Managers and leaders partake, and
have to partake, in such activities, yet deny their symbolic activity, to themselves as well
as others. March reminds us that managers with successful careers and subject to reg-
ular performance reviews marking their progress, are inclined to believe and require
reassurance in their capabilities and effects. Such symbolic actions are constitutive of
decision-​making processes and the identities of those involved. As March remarks, it
“is not that symbols are important to politics, although they certainly are. Rather, the
argument is the reverse—​politics is important to symbols, and a primary contribution
of politics to life is in the development of meaning” (March and Olsen 1983: 292).

The Reorganization Saga and the Schizophrenic

Tour-​de-​Force
In order to illustrate what such a recognition involves, we will use two important exam-
ples from March’s work, the significance of which have yet to be fully taken up within
organizational studies. These are his analysis of the reorganization saga that dominates
reform programs, and the schizophrenic tour de force that bedevils the academic and
practical contributions of business school researchers.
Drawing on insights from public reform in the US political system, March and Olsen
(1983) posit the existence of a deeply culturally embedded symbolic performance pres-
ent in reorganization programs. The “saga” consists of a temporal and cyclical iteration
of two rhetorics, an initial reforming “rhetoric of administration” with its “litany of
coordination, chains of command, authority and responsibility,” followed up by a “rhet-
oric of realpolitik,” with its “litany of interests, politics, conflict, bargaining and power”
(March and Olsen 1983: 204). Leaders, encouraged by their success in being elected,
confident in their abilities, and with expectations upon them to act decisively, initiate
organizational redesigns to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. The resulting “rhetoric
of administration” is the voice of the “prologue.” Its rhetoric of better execution, reduced
expenditure, increased operational efficiency, and consolidation and rationalization in

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 284 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   285

the pursuit of strategic alignment secures and reassures leaders in their faith, followers
in their effectiveness, and reflects the modernist creed of achieving progress through
rational intentional action. It also draws on built-​up frustrations at the dysfunctionali-
ties and personal intrusions of established bureaucratic regimes.
Over time, however, leaders’ attention tends to shift, strategic crises and the stress of
events distract them, multiple networks of power and interest begin to have an effect,
reorganization initiatives are traded off for political favors, garbage can processes begin
to create a complex and watered down set of projects, and initial enthusiasm is replaced
by a lack of systematic attention to implementation or rigorous evaluation of prog-
ress. At this point, the dominant rhetoric of administration begins to be replaced by an
equally well known and sacred “rhetoric of realpolitik,” the voice of the epilogue, with its
language of political constituencies, complex interest representation, and struggle. This
rhetoric draws cultural support from suspicion of naive utopian reformers, appreciation
of human weakness, and the cynicism of the less successful and that generated by expe-
riences of well-​documented high failure rates.
In the face of this (inevitable) saga, March and Olsen (1983:  292)  recommends
acceptance rather than denial of reorganization as “a domain of rhetoric, trading,
problematic attention and symbolic action” and, in a sense, riding the cyclical saga. In
reaction against understandable temptations toward hubris and disillusion, or simple
programmatic approaches to “improving implementation,” they recommend an “intel-
ligent” and tempered leadership approach based on long-​term strategic incremental-
ism, legitimacy building, and opportunity taking in what March and Cohen describe,
somewhat tongue in cheek, as an exercise in “civic education” with long-​term unpre-
dictable outcomes.
The second example is provided in March and Sutton’s (1997) analysis of the schizo-
phrenia that besets business school researchers called upon, and yet skeptical of, provid-
ing certain knowledge and practical advice on the cultural and structural initiatives that
are likely to increase organizational performance. On the one hand, the success of busi-
ness schools, and the identities and careers of many within them, depends on their exist-
ence as a “culture of advice givers.” The success of this enterprise justifies the schools’
institutional status, generates institutional and research support because of their rele-
vance for business, attracts MBA students, and ensures the marketability of individual
and organizational consultancy services, lectures, and publications. On the other hand,
they are also a “culture of research workers,” cognizant of ambiguity, and committed to
a research agenda that critically interrogates all studies and claims to have identified
factors leading to organizational performance (which are often correlational and retro-
spective). And herein lies the tension. The adherents to the culture of advice givers have
to disconnect their work from much of the serious critical and qualified research under-
taken on organizations and the prescriptions they offer, or which are offered to them.
In tandem, the culture of research workers has to separate their research and insights
from the committed knowledge claims and prescriptive remedies provided by their
advice-​giving colleagues. Yet each are dependent on the other—​the research workers for
the financial inputs and institutional status that supports their research, and the advice

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 285 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

286    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

givers for the academic authority and expert legitimacy provided by the rigor and stand-
ing of their research-​worker colleagues.
In the face of this contradiction, March and Sutton (1997: 705) advocate resisting the
“temptation of finding a resolution,” arguing that there is “no neat solution for neatness
itself would be a claim that an essential dilemma has been overcome.” In contrast to
the twin “pathologies” of regarding rigorous academic thought as a “dispensable schol-
arly pretense” or the withdrawal of scholarship into the “relatively safe activities of prov-
ing theorems, contemplating conundrums, and writing poetry” (March and Sutton
1997: 204), they argue for a more elegant stance of accepting the tension between sup-
porting a social mythology that provides confidence and meaning and pointing to the
probable falsity of such beliefs, acknowledging rather than running away from an inev-
itable “tension between saying more than we know and understanding how little we can
know” (March and Sutton 1997: 704).

The Paradox of Meaning

While an understanding of the paradoxes of rationality and performance direct us

toward adopting a more reasonable, reflexive, and strategic approach to how we use and
talk about rationality, the paradox of meaning raises the stakes to include the challenge
of finding meaning in such activities when not only is intelligence restricted, but intelli-
gent action does not guarantee successful outcomes, a world in which “victory is elusive,
and virtue is not reliably rewarded” (March 2007). While the paradox of performance
addresses the tensions within modernity generated by the requirement to give two con-
tradictory performances, the paradox of meaning is created by the conflict between a
commitment to managing this performance as a means of intelligent and effective
action and, an equally intelligent, recognition of the limited intelligence of our action
and the lack of control that we have over events.

Of Plumbing and Poetry
In memorably pointing out, somewhat tongue in cheek, the more mundane “plumbing”
aspects of management as “making sure the toilets work and that there is somebody
to answer the telephone” (March and Weil 2005: 99), March lists a variety of routine
and sensible managerial activities required to keep organizations’ running. We might
also add to this list, the equally sensible and pragmatic “muddling through” advice that
he offers leaders from his observations on leadership in ambiguity (Cohen and March
1974). There is no space here to do justice to these reflections but they represent a valua-
ble contribution to reflections on the pragmatics of management and leadership. March
is at pains, however, to avoid any romantic “heroic” view of leadership. On the one
hand, he points to the role of chance and circumstance in determining organizational

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 286 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   287

outcomes, whatever activities leaders undertake. On the other hand, he challenges the
myth of individual effectivity, using metaphors of routine “light bulb” selection and the
relative equivalence of Olympians in the 100-​meter sprint to question reliance on singu-
larly bright “lights” or overemphasis on the exceptional talents of individuals.
While aligning with post-​heroic views of leadership in emphasizing the “prosaic
duties of leadership,” concerned more with routine and plumbing than heroic achieve-
ments, March is also concerned with the ability of leaders to exemplify and foster an
“exuberance for life,” deploying the “gifts of a poet, in order to find meaning in action
and render life attractive” (March and Weil 2005:  98; cf. Grint 2001; March 2006b;
March 2013). As he puts it, good leadership involves recognizing “beauty as well as truth,
the appreciation of complexity as well as simplicity, the pursuit of contradiction as well
as coherence, the achievement of grace as well as control” (March and Weil 2005: 121).
While recognizing that for many this “verbiage seems much too romantic for a cynical
age,” he goes on to argue “some recent observations of organizations suggest that such a
vision may be more common than we realize,” and it is to three sets of such observations
that we now turn (Augier 2004).

Of Language and Purpose

One of the most sustained features of March’s work is his well-​documented observa-
tion and analysis of the limitations of traditional rational theories of the goals governing
choice behaviour. In particular, he details (a) the inherently ambiguous, multiple, and
contradictory nature of individual and organizational goals and purposes, (b) the inher-
ent uncertainty involved in ordering our existing preferences and guessing our future
ones, (c) the endogenous rather than exogenous character of preferences and goals, that
our preferences or goals are not “external” to practice, but are modified, created, and
transformed in the process of action, and (d) that we, in a sense, “discover” our goals and
purposes in an unpredictable and emergent process of attempted realization of what we
initially took to be our preferences. Our actions are irreducibly creative in the formation
of our purposes. From a strictly rational point of view, therefore, part of the role of lead-
ership is to foster an appreciation of this creative dimension. When March refers to such
phenomenon as the need to choose between “stupid” and “sensible” foolishness in inno-
vation (March 1971: 179), or the role of the “naïve and the ignorant” in learning (March
1991: 86), such comments are grounded in pragmatic observation.
In this context, March highlights the importance of appreciating the “evocative ambi-
guity” of language as an “instrument of appreciative interpretation.” Just as information
is not a passive resource waiting for discovery but created through action and inter-
action, and goals and purposes are not pre-​formed and exogenous but endogenous to
action, so the language employed by leaders in forging a sense of collective purpose is
not simply about communicating prior meanings but stimulating meaning, expand-
ing awareness, and extending our horizons. Like the poet who admits to not wanting
the meaning of his work reduced to his intentions (March 1994: 259), the leader crafts

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 287 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

288    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

messages that not only inevitably mean more than (s)he intended to say but are created
and appreciated in awareness of this phenomenon.

Of Motivation and Appropriateness

As one of the contributors to creating a neo-​institutional view of organizations, March
(and Olsen) are well known for their observations on the value of viewing decision-​
making in modern organizations through the alternative lenses of what they term a
rule-​based logic of appropriateness, as well as the well-​established and more institution-
alized choice-​based logic of consequences (March and Olsen 2009). Traditionally, the
struggle of leaders with the paradoxes of rationality and performance are guided and
legitimated by a logic of consequences. What this means is that the focus is on strategi-
cally manipulating the balance between a public rhetoric of planning and certainty and
a private recognition of emergence and ambiguity in order to act effectively and bring
about the desired individual and organizational outcomes.
Realizing such a performance is, however, a complex, time-​consuming, and strenu-
ous exercise, combining multiple agendas, performing differently to varying audiences,
balancing contradictory rhetorics and actions, and all the while facing the ongoing chal-
lenges of organizational inertia, the ambiguous and fluid nature of organizational life,
and the force of circumstances outside one’s control. Persisting in this enterprise, as
March puts it, requires “great commitments” grounded in “great hopes.” Yet, as he argues
at length, what the evidence of decision-​making reveals is that such intelligent action,
based on rational analysis, is often far less intelligent than many think and with far less
impact on the achievement of intended outcomes than we expect. How, then, can what
he terms an intelligent decision-​maker generate the required enthusiasm necessary for
committed action.
It is at this point, that the deficiencies of the logic-​of-​consequences lens are addressed,
at least in part, by the logic of appropriateness. What can generate such enthusiasm is
a commitment to realizing a set of ideals and values, reflecting and reflected in identi-
ties, irrespective of the pragmatic consequences of action (although the achievement
of such pragmatic outcomes is, of course, desired and desirable). How the paradox of
performance is addressed, therefore, will be—​and, for March, should be—​guided by
identities and values that define what is an appropriate behavior in context—​over and
above strategic pragmatic considerations. As identified in studies of identification and
rhetoric, organizational identity, and institutional selves, this is exactly what occurs in
organizations (Bauman and Raud 2015; Gulbrium and Holstein 2000; Hatch and Schulz
2004; Sloane 2001). How people grapple with the dilemmas and tensions inherent in the
paradox of performance is only partly determined by pragmatic considerations. They
are also affected by identity considerations, as a matter of fact and also of value. A reli-
ance on a misleading and exaggerated logic of consequences to motivate and justify
action in the face of inherent uncertainty in outcomes is insufficient and likely to result
in disillusionment and deceit. In contrast, leaders and their followers require, as occurs

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 288 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   289

in practice and as is needed for motivation, some “poetic” or aesthetic appreciation of

actions worth doing for their own sake, grounded in conceptions of a life worth living
and aspiring to—​not simply as a romantic ideal but as a pragmatic requirement.

Of Elegance and Balancing Acts

An understanding of the paradox of performance arguably lends itself to a somewhat
romantic view of the desirable role of the manager or leader as an elegant Machiavellian
juggler, a tightrope walker, recognizing the contradictory nature of the performances
that he or she is required to give, to himself or herself as well as to others, and develop-
ing the poise necessary to manage the inevitable balancing act. As observed by Bateson
(1979) and re-​affirmed by Tsoukas and Chia (2002), the tightrope walker may appear
to be stable, yet his or her whole life consists of making ongoing minor changes and
responses in order to regain balance in the face of changing circumstances, changes
that the inexperienced do not see or know how to handle. In maintaining this balance,
the expertise is that of Gilbert Ryle’s (1949: 21) clown, the deliberateness, excellence,
and heedfulness with which the clown exhibits his cleverness in his tripping and tum-
bling: “He trips and tumbles just as clumsy people do, except that he trips and tumbles
on purpose and after much rehearsal and at the golden moment and where the children
can see him and so as not to hurt himself.” Such a conscious, reflective, and poised per-
formance is part of the elegance of the managerial performer in his or her response to
the paradox of performance.
March’s argument for an appreciation of such elegance extends, however, beyond that
of strategic success. Human existence, as acknowledged in the consideration of leader-
ship in great literature, is riven with dilemmas, including an appreciation of the limited
evidence of effectiveness and success in pursuing intelligent action. Modern cultures
provide support for both instrumentally rational and managerialist views of leadership
performance as well as recognition of the existential limitations and entrapments of
such pursuits (Bell 1996; Boltanski and Thevenot 2006; Taylor 2003). In a modern world
characterized by a “heterogeneity of dissensions” (Bauman 2013: 251), part of the reso-
nance and credibility of leaders requires an acknowledgment of such dilemmas. Rather
than a simple romantic critique of managerialism, what such a balancing act requires of
leaders is less dogmatic commitment to rational certainty, pragmatic consequences, and
economic performance, and more appreciation (and communication) of the values and
aesthetics of pragmatic action as well as those of its critics, promoting an awareness of
“the elegance, dignity, charm and beauty of decision rituals” (March 1994: 218) as well as
their human limitations.
In conclusion, what March reveals, through his appreciation of not only plumbing
and poetry, but also experience-​based and documented grounds for the poetry, is a
tempered and considered balance between pragmatism and romanticism, modernity’s
enduring commitment to both instrumentalism and expressivisim (Taylor 2003), in
crafting a meaningful response to the lack of evidence of guaranteed success flowing

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 289 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

290    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

from intelligent action. This is represented in his consistent refusal to avoid the twin
temptations of responding to this dilemma by either uncritically supporting or arro-
gantly dismissing either the rituals, rhetorics, strategies, and techniques of rationality or
romantic and existential critiques of dogmatic commitment to what March (2003: 205),
citing John Stuart Mill, terms the “completeness of a limited man.”

Conclusion

It would be a surprise indeed if there were not paradoxical tensions in how we under-
stand and approach paradox. One of the purposes of this chapter has been to draw on
the work of James March to stimulate reflection on such issues, with a particular focus
on how it addresses three embedded paradoxes of modernity—​of rationality, perfor-
mance, and meaning. In conclusion, we will draw out some tentative implications of
March’s analysis for those adopting a paradox perspective within organizational studies.
In regard to the study of paradoxes, what the paradox of rationality sensitizes us to
is the existence of pressures to provide a rational and certain view of the nature of such
paradoxes and the value of the knowledge that is produced about them, while simulta-
neously recognizing the ambiguous, uncertain, and provisional nature of such knowl-
edge claims and the fluid, contested, and emergent nature of the purposes for which they
are employed. There are pressures to avoid or deny this tension, rather than live with and
work through it, with all too understandable temptations to become either unreflective
paradox hunters seeking out, capturing, and taming paradoxes for domesticated view-
ing or consumption or indulgent paradox romantics celebrating absurdity, complex-
ity, and mess. Living with this paradox may be assisted by acknowledging the paradox
of rationality and, in awareness of the tensions it generates, providing a tempered and
self-​critical diagnosis of situational paradoxes and the outcomes of their surfacing and
recognition. Such a stance may pursue and celebrate the insights obtained while recog-
nizing that such findings represent at best “a modest beginning, as awareness of para-
doxes and their interactions . . . complicates our very understanding of management”
(Lüscher and Lewis 2008: 238).
What the paradox of performance prepares us for is the challenge of communicating
this understanding, to ourselves as well as others, as we (and others) wish to be moti-
vated by the certainties we assert and uncover but also have to be made pragmatically
aware of and communicate our uncertainties if we are to grapple effectively with the
issues involved and, ultimately, give a resonant social performance. As Lüscher and
Lewis went on to argue, adopting a paradox perspective in organizations requires cour-
age, as managers seeking to navigate flexibly and contribute productively to change in
adopting such a stance may be seen as inconsistent and unclear by their subordinates.
A similar challenge of reception and performance exists for those seeking to communi-
cate the paradoxical tensions in adopting a paradox perspective within organizational
studies. The schizophrenic tour de force that March notes in regard to business school

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 290 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   291

academics will, inevitably, be at play—​with tensions between a “culture of advice giv-

ers” advocating the provision of certain knowledge about how a paradox perspective
will enhance performance, and a “culture of researchers” skeptical about the validity of
the knowledge claims of a fashionable trend in organizational studies. Such tensions
extend beyond the academic/​practice domain, to include different views of academic
knowledge, with more or less recognition given to, on the one hand, precise analytic
contributions and synthetic generalizations and, on the other, the capture of situational
ambiguities and processual indeterminacy. Again, in living with and working through
such paradoxes it may be wise to avoid, as noted earlier, the temptation of finding a res-
olution as a neat solution would suggest that the essential dilemma has been overcome
(March and Sutton 1997: 705).
Beyond the paradoxes of rationality and performance, what the paradox of mean-
ing makes those developing and disseminating a paradox perspective aware of is what
Augier and March (2011: 234) describe as the relevance of relevance. Much of the legit-
imation of knowledge produced within organizational studies, whether academic or
practical, is in the grasp of what March et al. terms a utilitarian grip. This remains the
case, even though criteria for and evidence of relevance and impact on performance is
ambiguous, measurement imprecise, and meaning complex. As the paradox of mean-
ing highlights, the impact of intelligent thought and action on the course of events is far
more uncertain (and often less than) is hoped or assumed, and this opens up the ques-
tion of the grounds on which a paradox perspective should be justified. Whether or not
a paradox perspective is taken up and extended within organizational studies, whether
or not it continues over time, will be affected by factors other than its intrinsic epistemo-
logical qualities. If we pursue March’s argument for an aesthetic, even poetic, rationale
for intelligent thought and action, a case could be made for advocating an appreciation
of the elegance and poise involved in the balancing act of recognizing, holding on to,
and addressing the challenges of paradox, independent of performance outcomes and
success over time. Such a rationale may be grounded in an enjoyment of the serious play
of recognizing and handling paradox, and promoting the delights of a pluralistic cos-
mopolitan community respecting diverse perspectives and aware of contradictions in a
collective “world in which ends collide” (Berlin 1962).
It is important to note that this is not to come down on one (romantic) side of the
twin poles of the paradox of meaning. As creatures of modernity we inevitably seek
to expand the role of rationality and reason in human affairs and, as March is keen to
emphasize, there are many arguments for the value of such an enterprise. There is also
an aesthetic component to our technologies of reason that should not be ignored or
under-​estimated. A pragmatic and utilitarian wrestling with the challenges of paradox
can have a grace, meaning, delicacy, and elegance worthy of appreciation, independ-
ent of, and in addition to, its outcomes. If, however, we take seriously the limitations of
strictly utilitarian arguments, then advocacy for a paradox perspective could be made
into an example of what March (Augier and March 2011: 237) describes more broadly as
the “opportunity for making management education and business schools both more
useful and more meaningful and beautiful as well. That happy result is not likely to be

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 291 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

292    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

produced by some magical wand that eliminates conflict, but by unending confronta-
tion of the inconsistent voices of a demanding soul.”

A COMMENT
James G. March, professor emeritus, Stanford University
“Flattery”, my father used to say, “does not have to be believed to be enjoyed.” I am
not sure that Richard Badham intended his essay as flattery, but I certainly enjoyed
it as such. I have often quoted T. S. Eliot’s response to a comment on “The Love Song
of J. Alfred Prufrock”: “the analysis of ‘Prufrock’ . . . was an attempt to find out what
the poem meant–​–​whether that was what I had meant it to mean or not. And for that
I was grateful.”
I am similarly grateful to Professor Badham.
Professor Badham has identified a set of themes from my work, themes that
I  think I  would also identify. I  suspect he exaggerates the consistency of what
I have said in more than fifty years and fits me more into contemporary debate
than I am comfortable being fit; but I think he has read the writings carefully and
with understanding. It is, of course, somewhat embarrassing to see the extent to
which my many thousands of words can be compressed to a few thousand, and
I find it easy to imagine that not everything I have written finds precise expression
in the chapter.
As the Badham chapter suggests, I believe that life (including the life of scholar-
ship) is much too serious to be sustained without a healthy dose of amusement and
skepticism about our efforts to comprehend it. As I have observed from time to time,
the destiny of each of us is death, of the species extinction, and of ideas supersession.
Those destinies can be resisted with distinction and splendor, but they need not be
mourned, particularly in this context.
What Professor Badham describes is an enduring effort to celebrate schol-
arship as a monument to human foolishness, as testimony to the willingness of
ordinary humans to confront the paradoxes and contradictions of human exist-
ence with neither great success nor unbearable despair. As I  have engaged in
the struggles that make us human, I hope that I both have seen the elements of
absurdity in the struggles and also have taken pleasure, not only in our moments
of apparent triumph but also in the beauties (when they are such) of our appar-
ent failures.
February 2016

References
Alexander. J. 2013 The Dark Side of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Anderson. H. C. 1907. The emperor’s new clothes. In Fairy Tales. New York: Dent.

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 292 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   293

Ariely, D. 2010. Predictably Irrational. New York: Harper.

Augier. M. 2004. James March on education, leadership, and Don Quixote: Introduction and
interview. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3 (2): 169–​77.
Augier, M., and Kreiner, K. 2000a. Rationality, imagination, and intelligence: Some boundaries
in decision-​making. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(4): 659–​81.
Augier, M., and Kreiner, K. 2000b. An interview with James March. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 9(3): 284–​97.
Augier, M., and March, J. 2011. The Roots, Rituals, and Rhetorics of Change. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Business Books.
Badham, R. 2015. Theories of Industrial Society. London: Routledge.
Bateson, G. 1979. Mind and Nature. Toronto: Bantam.
Bauman, Z. 2013. Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. and Raud, R. 2015. Practices of Selfhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bell, D. 1996. Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. 1995. Pluralism and the Crisis of Meaning:  The Orientation of
Modern Man. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.
Berlin, I. 1962. Does political theory still exist? In Philosophy, Politics, and Society, Vol. 2, edited
by W. Runciman and P. Laslett. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Berman, M. 1982. All that Is Solid Melts into Air:  The Experience of Modernity.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Boltanski, L., and Thevenot, L. 2006. On Justification:  Economies of Worth. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brunsson, N. 1989. The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Brunsson, N. 2006. Mechanisms of Hope: Maintaining the Dream of the Rational Organization.
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Cabantous, L., Gond, J.-​P., and Johnson, C. M. 2010. Decision theory as practice:  Crafting
rationality in organizations. Organization Studies, 31(11): 1531–​66.
Christensen, L., Morsing, M., and Thyssen, L. 2013. CSR as aspirational talk. Organization,
20(3): 372–​93.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1): 1–​25.
Cohen, M. D., and March, J. G. 1974. Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President.
New York, NY: McGraw-​Hill.
Cohen, M., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. 2012. A garbage can model at forty: A solution that still
attracts problems. In The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice: Looking forward at
Forty, edited by A. Lomi and R. Harrison, 19–​31. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
Coutu, D. 2006. Ideas as art: The HBR interview of James G March. Harvard Business Review,
October: 83–​89.
Denrell, J., and March, J. 2001. Adaptation as information restriction:  The hot stove effect.
Organization Science, 12(5): 523–​38.
Grint, K. 2001. The Arts of Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gulbrium, J., and Holstein, J. (eds). 2000. Institutional Selves:  Troubled Identities in a
Postmodern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haraway, D. 1992. The promises of monsters:  A  regenerative politics for inappropriate/​
d others. In Cultural Studies, edited by L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P. Treichler, 295–​337.
New York: Routledge.

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 293 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

294    Reflections on the Paradoxes of Modernity

Hatch, M., and Schultz, M. (eds). 2004. Organizational Identity: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Kegan, R., and Lahey, L. 2009. Immunity to Change:  How to Overcome It and Unlock the
Potential in Yourself and your Organization. New York, NY: Perseus.
Khurana, R. 2011. From Higher Aims to Hired Hands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kundera, M. 1984. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. New York, NY: Harper.
Kundera, M. 1993. The Joke. New York, NY: Harper.
Lanham, R. 1995. The Electronic Word. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lindblom, C. 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review,
19(2): 79–​88.
Lüscher, L., and Lewis, M. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working
through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221–​40.
March, J. G. 1978. Bounded rationality:  Ambiguity and the engineering of choice. The Bell
Journal of Economics, 9(2): 587–​608.
March, J. G. 1980 How we talk and how we act: Administrative theory and administrative life.
September 25–​6. Seventh Henry D. David Lecture, University of Illinois: 1–​58. Reprinted in
1986. Leadership and Ambiguity, 2nd edn, edited by M. D. Cohen and J. G. March, 273–​90.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
March, J. G. 1988. The technology of foolishness. In Decisions and Organizations, edited by J. G.
March, 253–​65. Oxford: Blackwell.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2(1): 71–​87.
March, J. G. 1992. The war is over and the victors have lost. Journal of Socio-​Economics,
21(3): 261–​7.
March, J. G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making. New York, NY: Free Press.
March, J. G. 2003. A Scholar’s Quest. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(3): 205–​7.
March, J. G. 2006a. Rationality, foolishness and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management
Journal, 27: 201–​14.
March, J. G. 2006b. Poetry and the rhetoric of management. Journal of Management Inquiry,
15(1): 70–​2.
March, J. G. 2007. Management and Don Quixote. HEC Paris. September 16. https://​www.you-
tube.com/​watch?v=bztgYMoTEjM.
March, J. G. 2010. The Ambiguities of Experience. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.
March, J. G. 2013. In praise of beauty. M@n@gement, 16(5): 732–​38.
March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. 1983. Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization
tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77: 281–​96.
March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. 1986. Garbage can models of decision making in organizations. In
Ambiguity and Command: Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making., edited
by J. G. March and R. Weissinger Baylon, 11–​35. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. 2009. The logic of appropriateness. In The Oxford Handbook of
Public Policy, edited by M. Moran, M. Rein, and R. Goodin, 689–​709. Oxford:  Oxford
University Press.
March, J. G., and Sutton, R. 1997. Organizational performance as a dependent variable.
Organization Science, 8(6): 698–​706.
March, J. G., and Weil, T. 2005. On Leadership. Oxford: Blackwell.
McLoskey, D. 1994. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics. Cambridge:  Cambridge
University Press.

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 294 5/12/2017 2:24:43 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 12 2017, NEWGEN

Richard Badham   295

Meyer, J., and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–​63.
Moeller, H.-​G. 2011. The Radical Luhmann. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Padgett, J. 1992. Learning from (and about) March. Contemporary Sociology, 21(6): 744–​9.
Perrow, C. 1973. The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational
Dynamics, 2(1): 2–​15.
Pondy, L. 1977 Effectiveness:  A  thick description. In New Perspectives on Organizational
Effectiveness, edited by P. Goodman and J. Pennings, 226–​34 . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-​Bass.
Rueckert, W. 1983. Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations. San Francisco,
CA: University of California Press.
Ryle, G. (1949) 2009. The Concept of Mind. London: Routledge.
Schon, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Scott, J. 1999. Seeing like a State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Serres, M. 1997. Troubadours of Knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Simon, H. 1957. Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human
Behavior in a Social Setting. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Simon, H. 1976. From substantive to procedural reality. In 25 Years of Economic Theory, edited
by J. Kastelein et al., 65–​86. Leiden: Stenfert Kroese.
Simon, H. 1978. Rational decision-​making in business organizations. In Nobel Lectures:
Economics 1969–​1980, edited by A. Lindbeck. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Sloane, T. (ed.). 2001. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smart, B. 1999. Facing Modernity. London: Sage.
Smith, W., and Lewis, M. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of
organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381–​403.
Statler, M., Heracleous, L., and Jacobs, C. 2011. Serious play as the practice of paradox. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2): 236–​56.
Taylor, C. 2003. Modern Social Imaginaries. New York, NY: Duke University Press.
Tsoukas, H., and Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming:  Rethinking organizational
change. Organization Science, 13(5): 567–​82.
Wagner, P. 2012. Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Weick, K. 1993. Sensemaking in organizations:  The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 38: 628–​52.

03-Oxfordhb-9780198754428-part-II.indd 295 5/12/2017 2:24:44 PM