The romance of wonder in organization studies

This article was downloaded by: [Lloyd E. Sandelands]On: 26 September 2013, At: 13:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Management, Spirituality &ReligionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20

The romance of wonder in organizationstudiesLloyd E. Sandelands a & Arne Carlsen ba Stephen Ross School of Business, University of Michigan , AnnArbor , MI , USAb Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior , BINorwegian Business School , Oslo , NorwayPublished online: 21 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Lloyd E. Sandelands & Arne Carlsen , Journal of Management, Spirituality& Religion (2013): The romance of wonder in organization studies, Journal of Management,Spirituality & Religion, DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2013.801024

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.801024

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.801024

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The romance of wonder in organization studies

Lloyd E. Sandelandsa* and Arne Carlsenb

aStephen Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;bDepartment of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI Norwegian BusinessSchool, Oslo, Norway

Wonder is the romance of all human study – a two-in-oneness of beautifulmystery and a rational inquiring mind. To wonder is to be open to mysteriesbeyond the known; it is to engage the largest questions of life; and aboveall, it is to come into being as a human person by reaching to the humanityof all peoples that resides in the transcendent. In this essay, we describe thewonder of organizational studies as literally a romance; a marriage of dis-tinctive forms of human reasoning that, while they may show up in one andthe same person, are essentially male and female. We look for wonder in acollection of stories about qualitative research in organizations in whichorganizational scholars at their best unite male and female aspects of humanreasoning in wonder. In their stories, we find the soulful mystery andromance that delights and enchants the study of persons and organizations.

Keywords: wonder; organizational studies; inquiry; transcendence;mystery; esthetic

Introduction

I see trees of green, red roses tooI see them bloom for me and youAnd I think to myself, what a wonderful world

I see skies of blue and clouds of whiteThe bright blessed day, the dark sacred nightAnd I think to myself, what a wonderful world

The colours of the rainbow, so pretty in the skyAre also on the faces of people going byI see friends shakin’ hands, sayin’ “How do you do?”

They’re really saying “I love you”

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.801024

� 2013 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

I hear babies cryin’, I watch them growThey’ll learn much more than I’ll ever knowAnd I think to myself, what a wonderful worldYes, I think to myself, what a wonderful world

“What a Wonderful World” recorded by Louis Armstrong,Words and music by Robert Thiele and George David Weiss

Why study organization? It is a question we students of organization rarelythink to ask, even though, or perhaps because, it has everything to do withwhat we bring to our subject and with what we take from it. We wrote thisessay to ask this first question of organization studies. And, we wrote thisessay to point to its most fundamental answer – an answer too often ignoredor cynically dismissed – namely, that we should study organization for its won-der. Wonder occurs when primordial questions of being show themselves inthe unusualness of the usual, when trees of green and grains of sand are nolonger just so, but traces of eternity and Divinity. Wonder occurs when we aredisplaced and moved towards the largest mysteries of life, to the irreducibledifference of the Other and to unattainable Truth about what is good and right.Ours is a wonderful world and we are blessed to be its students.

The first scholarly reference to wonder that we could find appears in antiq-uity, in Plato’s description of a dialog between Socrates and his student Theaet-etus, in which the latter attempts severally to define knowledge while theformer refutes each attempt in turn. When Theaetetus owns to feeling giddy bythe exchange, Socrates famously responds: “For this is an experience which ischaracteristic of a philosopher, this wondering; this is where philosophy beginsand nowhere else” (Plato, 360 B.C.). For Plato’s teacher, Socrates, philosophy– the love of knowledge – was a romance of wonder. For Plato’s student, Aris-totle, this romance was to seek particularly in the essences of things – themetaphysical “what it is to be” one thing or another – and in the causes ofthings – especially the final cause or telos that is the end or purpose of a thing(see Cohen 2008). Aristotle wondered about these to gain knowledge in com-bat of ignorance and for the joy to know. Fifteen hundred years later, medievalphilosopher Aquinas turned the wonder of the Ancient Greeks about the mys-teries of being and the thirst for eternity into a religious wonder about the ulti-mate or Supreme Being – God – in and through whom all being comes to life.Referring to Aristotle simply as “the Philosopher”, Aquinas shared his meta-physical realism and thereby his wonder about the world. But, Aquinas sawalso that Aristotle’s essences and telos, which announce a being beyond thehuman perceiver, must have an origin outside the human perceiver. This sug-gested to Aquinas the existence of an extra-human transcendent mentality, amind of God. According to Aquinas, everything real is so in its divine being(what he termed its “subsistence”). Finally today, with the changes and distor-tions brought by the Enlightenment, modernism, and now postmodernism, theDivine wonder identified by Aquinas has been diffused, reduced, and scattered

2 L.E. Sandelands and A. Carlsen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

in the worship of one or another ersatz idol, be it the god of “Mammon” or“nature” or “self ” or “science” or “new age consciousness”. Increasingly,wonder gives way to practical concerns (Quinn 2002) or else to a frantic curi-osity in search of certain knowledge (Rubinstein 2008). But even so, wonderendures as an appreciation and articulation of the transcendent, a sense of themysteries of being, and an interest in larger questions of life. According to phi-losopher Nussbaum (2001), to wonder is to take interest in what is beyondself, in what evokes our compassion and non-possessive love toward otherbeings. According to Levinas (1979), the irreducible indeterminacy and theinfinite uniqueness of the Other are the mystery of wonder. According toHeidegger (1937–38/1994), wonder is a clearing where being shows itself tous so that we are moved, displaced into a primordial “questioning that askswhat the most usual might be such that it can reveal itself as what is most unu-sual”. (Heidegger 1937–1938/1994, p. 148). And, according to philosopher JanPatočka (2002), humans are condemned to blind wandering in a world thatnever manifests itself twice in its awe-inspiring occurrence. Wonder was bornout of a fundamental thirst for truth and to wonder is to seek to cross thechasm of fallible knowledge and sin that separates human beings from theeternal divine.

Wonder’s reach beyond this world comes at a premium in a field oforganization studies that is today given over mainly to worldly problems ofmanagement and policy and to worldly values of finance and political legiti-macy. This is the dilemma of the organizational scholar’s quest that March(2003, p. 206) lamented as the threat of worldliness to scholarly values:

But in order to sustain the temple of education, we probably need to rescue itfrom those deans, donors, faculty, and students who respond to incentives andcalculate consequences, and restore it to those who respond to senses of them-selves and their callings, who support and pursue knowledge and learningbecause they represent a proper life, who read books not because they are rele-vant to their jobs but because they are not, who do research not in order tosecure their reputations or improve the world but in order to honor scholarship,and who are committed to sustaining an institution of learning as an object ofbeauty and an affirmation of humanity.

We can and must ask what call or place is there for wonder’s passionateinterest in the mysteries of persons and organizations, for wonder’s thrall inthe secrets of human being, and for wonder’s open heart to the mystery of theDivine (Barfield 1965). Few today ask Aristotle’s metaphysical questions ofthe essence or telos of a person or organization (of their being qua being);fewer still ask Aquinas’ theological questions of the existence or subsistence ofpersons or organizations (of how they can be at all). More common is an atti-tude that is either unaware of these questions or dismisses them as beside thepoint (if not inane); an attitude that regards the person matter-of-factly as aphysical or natural object and regards the organization matter-of-factly as astrategy, structure, or process.

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

In this essay, we try to do four things: (1) we look into the phenomenon ofwonder to better understand its romance (we find that wonder is literally andtruly a “romance1;” a nuptial meeting and melding of the human male andfemale in never-ending search); (2) in this light, we suggest why wonder canbe unwittingly and unintentionally discouraged in organization studies (we findthat thinking about persons and organizations runs to male or female dispro-portions and thereby away from the union of male and female in wonder); (3)based on a recent collection of stories about qualitative research in organiza-tions, we find an opening for wonder to celebrate and encourage (we find thatorganizational researchers are at their best – in their most generative moments– when they marry male and female qualities of reasoning in wonder); and (4)we consider practical, theoretical, and theological implications of opening ourresearch on persons and organizations to wonder (we find that in wonder wecome to our subject in a different way).

Wonder of wonderThere is something odd if not absurd in wondering about wonder – like play-ing at play or dreaming about dreaming. Moreover, it seems almost morallywrong to analyze wonder; as if to profane the sacred or, in poet Wordsworth’sturn of phrase, to “murder to dissect”.2 It is to break an indivisible whole intoparts in which individually there is no wonder to find. And, it is to limit ourreach to what we can grasp with words; in philosopher Scruton’s (2010) terms,it is “to eff the ineffable”. To analyze wonder is to treat our want and capacityto reach to mysteries above and beyond nature – that are literally “super-natu-ral” – as if our want and capacity were only natural. However, and as Scrutonalso points out, it is not in our human nature to leave well-enough alone. Thus,admitting folly, pleading mea culpa, and promising to tread lightly as we can,let us say what we can about wonder.

We unpack wonder along the metaphysical lines suggested by Aristotle andAquinas, as an experience that shuttles between a passive phase of awe andbeing “moved” and an active phase of interest and search for hidden truth. Theone is openness to and appreciation of beauty and life in all forms; wonder asan esthetic experience of being involved in or with something; what we mightcall wonder at. The other is venturing forth in search and discovery of hiddenessence or truth; what we might call wonder about. Wonder thus is a two-in-oneness; a romance of beautiful mystery and a rational inquiring mind. Weunpack this idea further to observe that wonder unfolds in four interpenetratingphases or moments of stimulus, expansion, immersion, and explanation.3 Thefirst moment of wonder is the stimulus, which is the peculiar combination ofawe and surprise that is felt at the beginning of wonder; something is encoun-tered as discrete, beautiful and puzzling. When reaction to a stimulus passesfrom blank astonishment into a seeding of interest, there comes a secondmoment of wonder, expansion, which is a more controlled agentic activity thatincludes exploration and search; it is a longing for and stretching toward


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

something outside of self. This exploration is not necessarily a harmoniousstate but may be accompanied by bewilderment and even anxiety. The thirdmoment of wonder is immersion of self in the occurrence; a participatory modeof consciousness in which objectivity and distance are let go in favor of know-ing that is affective, participative, somatic or implicit and that overcomes theordinary distinction between the experiencing subject and the experiencedobject. The fourth and final moment of wonder arrives when stimulus, expan-sion, and immersion are consolidated and articulated as an understanding orexplanation. Explanation is not an exercise of discursive reason, but is anesthetic of ideas coming into being. This, for Aristotle and indeed for philoso-phers since, is the dissipation and potential terminus of wonder; literally, itstemporary re-solution as the wonderer returns from the episode with a newunderstanding.

To say this much about wonder – recalling that to say anything is to saytoo much – is to tell a great lie and a great truth. The great lie is to say thatwonder is a natural phenomenon; an event or episode made up of moments ofstimulus, immersion, expansion, and explanation. Analyzing it so does notmake it so. Again, wonder is ineffable, an experience we cannot know com-pletely by its parts. While moments of stimulus, expansion, immersion, andexplanation can be discerned in it, the fullness of wonder is not to find in anyof these. The great truth is to say that wonder reaches beyond the human andthe natural to a transcendent and “super-natural”. Wonder therefore is not toknow by analysis or reason alone, but to know with the help of faith, not onlyfaith as a Jamesian (1896/2000) will to believe in the constitutive character ofself when facing indeterminate existence, or in truth as a regulatory ideal (Pop-per 1960/1985), but faith in a greater unseen order. Wonder is not a claim tostake, but a gift to receive. And so to faith we must turn.

We turn to the faith of Aquinas – the foundations of which support andunite the great Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – tosuppose that God made man to wonder so that man may know Him. And inthis faith, we learn that God did so in a particular way. According toRevelation, God created man in His image as male and female in one flesh(Genesis 1:27). This is the idea that the fullness of human being consists inthe spiritual union of male and female, both in body and soul. And this isthe idea that echoes across the canyons of human culture and history. Inwestern culture and history, human being has been conceived as a meetingand play of the Greek Apollonian – a principle of concept, order, andsystem identified with the male – and the Greek Dionysian – a principle ofpersonality and the flux of life and feeling identified with the female (Paglia1990). In eastern culture and history, human being has been conceived as ameeting and play of the Taoist yin – a principle of darkness, wetness, chaos,intuition and feeling identified with the female and the Taoist yang – a prin-ciple of light, dryness, order, creativity, and intellect identified with the male(Lao-Tzu 1891).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Almost 50 years ago, psychiatrist Stern (1965) made the profound remarkthat “all being is nuptial”.4 By this, he meant that the human begins and endsin the union of male and female. As to mind, wrote Stern, “the polarity of thesexes corresponds to a polarity in human intelligence – that of ‘discursive rea-son’ and ‘intuition’” (p. 41). At the male pole is the knowledge by analysis,externalization, and the subject–object metaphysic that we identify with science(it ex-plains, literally “lays outside”). At the female pole is the knowledge byconnatural union, sympathy, and feeling that we identify with poesy (it is inter-nal, a taking part or “involvement” in what is known). According to Stern, “…human knowledge has the best chance of truth when the two poles are inperfect balance” (p. 47). At the same time, as the absolute in experience isunderstood by involvement – female intuition – it is explained by differentia-tion – male conceptualization.

All these years later, we cannot but marvel at the depth of Stern’s insight.And so, the mind must be what it is – a union of female and male elements,of her involvement and his differentiation. Woman’s special creativeness is thatof motherhood and is tied up with her non-reflective bios – hers are biologicalrhythms and she is involved in nature in a way that man is not. Hers is anindwelling; a concentration and focus of matter and energy; and a maternity. Itis no etymological accident that the words mother (mater) and matter are clo-sely related. At the center of female reasoning is a non-rational, or better,trans-rational, power of the body. This power begins in the knowing relation-ship between mother and child, begun in the womb and maintained after theumbilical cord is severed, which precedes and anticipates reason. According topsychoanalyst Helene Deutsch, woman possesses a “form of knowledge orawareness which is not only independent of reason but goes beyond it” (citedin Stern 1965, p. 25). And according to writer Edith Stein, a woman’s “…strength is the intuitive grasp of the living concrete; especially of the personalelement. She has the special gift of making herself at home in the inner worldof others” (cited Stern 1965, p. 26). In contrast, a man knows not of suchthings. According to philosopher Ortega Y Gasset, “The more of a man one is,the more he is filled to the brim with rationality. Everything he does andachieves, he does and achieves for a reason, especially for a practical reason”(cited in Stern 1965, p. 25). Man’s creativeness is not in nature as is woman’s,but set against it, as a differentiation from woman. He creates by elaboration,by drawing lines and relating that which he has distinguished. He creates sys-tems – of language, logic, mathematics, engineering, art, social organization,and the like – which refer to and have the purpose of impressing and changingfeminine nature.

This nuptial image of mind is confirmed in wonder by the observation thatwonder’s moments are male and female – where stimulus and immersionevince female receptivity and involvement; and expansion and explanationenact male analysis and dominion. Wonder’s two-in-oneness of beautiful mys-tery and a rational inquiring mind is a living union of female and male respec-tively in the image of the one ineffable divine; God. This is the supernatural


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

truth of wonder that cannot be analyzed by reason alone. And, this is theromance of wonder that joins male and female in the life of mind. The four-in-oneness of wonder evinces and articulates the two-in-oneness of humancreation.

Furthermore, to see that wonder is nuptial – that it is the two-in-oneness ofthe human image of God – is to see that wonder is not a discrete and categori-cal phenomenon. Wonder is not only a form of human experience; it is theform of human experience that stretches out to mysteries of being that are maleand female in beauty, play, spirit, and love. Wonder is not simply somethingwe do purposively, not something to rein and delimit according to our instru-mental needs, but a basic disposition that comes to us, showing up in us andeven overtaking us. Wonder displaces us into an inherently ambivalent estheticexperience of dwelling in the unknown, an experience that we can see both asenchantment and as uncomfortable confrontation, and that we may not knoweither our way into or our way out of (Heidegger 1937–1938/1994). To won-der is to be a human receptive to and moved by questions of life. About thisAristotle was right; love of knowing – philosophy – is love of life. And aboutthis Aquinas was right; love of knowing and search for knowing are whatmakes us human, it is our essence and highest good. The philosophical puzzleis not why we wonder – in secular terms, we wonder to enter into the mysteryof being; in religious terms, we wonder to come face to face with the Onewho is the source of all being – but why we fail to wonder, which is a differ-ent question entirely, a question of frailty, dogma, ignorance and sin, of notliving up to our creation. In metaphysical terms, wonder is our share in thedivine. This is as true for atheists (who wonder in spite of their disbelief ) as itis for the devout (who wonder in light of their belief).5 And, this is why won-der comes more easily to the young (who may still be innocent “children ofGod”) than to the old (who may be lost to worldly concerns – not least thoseof self).

Want of wonderReturning to the study of organizations, to pause for even a moment upon thesubjects of organization studies – upon the human person and the humanorganization – is to dwell in wonders of wonder. As journalist–philosopherChesterton (1959) remarked: “The mere man on two legs … should be felt assomething more heartbreaking than any music and more startling than anycaricature” p. 42. Certainly, the same can be said of the mere organization ofmere men.

If we in organization studies today want of the wonder of Chesterton,perhaps it is because it is harder in our faithless age to own or live up to theidea that we are an image of God in the “one flesh” union of male and femalein body and soul. And indeed, to look over the field of organization studies isto find thinking about persons and organizations that does not unify male andfemale, but to the contrary opposes and polarizes them. While there are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

exceptions to prove the rule, our thinking generally inclines either to a mascu-line mentality of causal inference and logical system or to a feminine mentalityof personal experience and feeling, but not to both at once. In terms of themodel of wonder above, the one is too much expansion – of restless objectify-ing search – and too much explanation – of cause and effect determinism,while the other is too much stimulus – personal experience – and too muchimmersion – in feeling and relation. Each mentality suffers in want of theother. The male aim to master mysteries pushes to the margin female receptive-ness, self-awareness, and involvement with others. The female embrace of per-sonal feeling and sociality stifles male assertions of order, truth, and good.And wonder disappears into the gulf between them.

Our un-wonderful thinking in organization studies can perhaps be traced onthe one hand to the scientific management championed at the turn of the twen-tieth century by Fredrick Taylor and on the other hand to the human relationscounter-movement championed by Elton Mayo. Taylor was concerned not withmysteries of organization but with invariant scientific principles. He was drawnto male objectivity and reason – to the brute facts of work and the logic ofefficiency. That he had no truck with female intuition, feeling, or concern forpersonal relations is epitomized by his “task idea”:

Perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific management isthe task idea. The work of every workman is fully planned out by the managementat least one day in advance, and each man receives in most cases complete writteninstructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as themeans to be used in the doing the work. And the work planned in advance inthis way constitutes a task which is to be solved, as explained above, not by theworkman alone, but in almost all cases by the joint effort of the workman andthe management. This task specifies not only what is to be done, but how it is tobe done and the exact time allowed for doing it. (Taylor 1911, p. 29)

In this task idea, there is no acknowledgement much less integration ofmale and female aspects of human being. It is all male objectifying expansionand explanation of system without female stimulus of awe or surprise orimmersion in the life of the whole. There is no wonder, only the sober facts oftime, motion, purpose, and efficiency.

When Harvard psychologist Elton Mayo sought relief from Taylor’s inhu-mane scientism, he did so with an almost reactionary vengeance. “During thenineteenth century,” he wrote, “the rapid development of science and industryput an end to the individual’s feeling of identification with his group, of satis-faction in his work” (Mayo 1945, p. 6). This he saw in two symptoms ofsocial disruption:

First, the number of unhappy individuals increases. Forced back upon himself,with no immediate or real social duties, the individual becomes a prey tounhappy and obsessive personal preoccupations. Long ago, Bishop Butler said,“… a man may have all the self-love in the world and be miserable”.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Second, the other symptom of disruption in a modern industrial society relatesitself to that organization of groups at a lower level than the primitive … It isunfortunately completely characteristic of industrial societies we know thatvarious groups when formed are not eager to cooperate wholeheartedly withother groups. On the contrary, their attitude is usually that of wariness orhostility. (p. 7)

Seeking solution to the “problem of cooperation” in the workplace, hereversed the male disproportion of thought about organizations, to focus onhuman relations instead of on productive efficiency. Against Taylor’s malevalues for objectivity, final solutions, logical system, and material efficiency,he elevated female values for personal experience, compassion, and commu-nity. These values, he argued, called for attentive and genuine human relations,which in turn called for the services of a socially skilled therapist:

… situations of this kind in industry can be remedied, and to my knowledge,have been remedied by a skilled interviewer. Such an interviewer is trained tolisten with attention and without comment (especially without criticism or emo-tion) to all that such an unfortunate has to say, and to give his whole attention tothe effort of understanding what is said from the point of view of the speaker.This is a very simple skill, but it can have the most astonishing effects in indus-trial situations. (p. 29)

And so was born the so-called “human relations movement” in organizationstudies. It bears noting, however, that Mayo’s call for authentic human rela-tions in response to dehumanizing scientific management was equally lackingin the interplay of male and female moments of mind. It was all female stimu-lus – in awed surprise of social skills lost to industrialization – and femaleimmersion – in compassionate ministry to compromised social relations – with-out male expansion or explanation. By Mayo’s own account, what was calledfor was not the logical and systemic knowledge of academic social science(what psychologist–philosopher William James called “knowledge-about”) butinstead the immediate knowledge of experienced intuition (what James called“knowledge-by-acquaintance). And for this female bias, the human relationsmovement was equally lacking in wonder’s romance of beautiful mystery anda rational inquiring mind.

The wonder-less division between male and female thinking about personsand organizations that began at the turn of the twentieth century persists today.As philosopher and management critic Matthew Stewart (2010) points out, thenew organization theory largely replays the old:

According to my scientific sampling you can save yourself from reading about99 percent of all the management literature once you master this dialecticbetween rationalists and humanists. The Taylorite rationalist says: Be efficient!The Mayoist humanist replies: Hey these are people we’re talking about! Andthe debate goes on.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Thus, when organizational scientists today conceive of organizations asopen and/or closed systems (Katz and Kahn 1966, Thompson 1967), oras actors in structures of resource dependence (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978),or as population survivals of ecological selection (Hannan and Freeman 1977),or and perhaps finally as nexuses of contracts in financial markets (Davis2009), they do so in legacy of Taylor, in a masculine rationalism and scientismthat wants for wonder. They do not see organizations as embodying a mysticalor religious spirit that reaches beyond the here and now, but see them asworldly structures adapted by nature or by reason to mechanomorphic pro-cesses of technology, economy, and society.6 They expand upon and explainphenomena of organizations in time and space, but are not stimulated by orimmersed in them. And thus in contrast when organization humanists todayconceive of organizations as likely sites of psychological “frustration, failure,short-time perspective, and conflict” (Argyris 1964), or more positively andideally as possible sites in which “small men” “make themselves big” by “par-ticipation in heroic enterprises” (Maslow 1965), or as forms of “talk” in whichmembers “make some sense of the ‘buzzing and blooming world outside’ …in order to carry out their collective action” (Czarniawska-Joerges 1988), orand perhaps finally as “situated words, acts, and physical artifacts” known by“reflective interpretations” reached in “passionate humility” (Yanow 2009),they do so in legacy of Mayo, in a feminine posture that wants for wonder byputting subjectivity before objectivity and personal idiosyncrasy and localcircumstance before general systemic description. They do not see persons ororganizations as transcendent mysteries, but to the contrary as interpretationsof local origin in the here and now of immediate personal experience. Theyare stimulated by and immersed in people and organizations, but do notexpand and explain their experiences as rational truths (to their way ofthinking, “truth” is to regard in the quotations of personal standpoint).

And so today in organization studies, we come to wonder as a question:“Why wonder about organizations?” We hasten to return the answer that won-der we must if we are to come to our subject in the full humanity that is ourshare in the Mysteries of Being. To wonder, as we’ve seen, is to hold fast tothe “furious opposites” of male reason and system (moments of expansion andexplanation) and female intuition and holism (moments of stimulus and immer-sion). This wholesome and soulful union – this nuptial union – promises ourmost complete and penetrating understanding of human organizations.

Wisps of wonderImportant as it is know what wonder is, it is perhaps more important to knowwhen wonder is. Turning from the existential question to this ecologicalquestion brings us to the possibility and the prospect of an organization studiesrenewed in wonder.

We sought preliminary evidence for this possibility and prospect in arecently compiled volume of forty short (1000 word) stories about generative


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

moments in qualitative research told by organizational researchers from aroundthe world (Carlsen and Dutton 2011). We looked into this volume because itseditors expressly asked their contributors to describe in detail a moment ofspecial insight, “moments of deep inspiration, connectedness, bursts of insightand expansion of thought” (Carlsen and Dutton 2011, p. 13) in their researchwhen a new idea or understanding came suddenly into view. We speculatedthat in the heightened awareness of these descriptions, we might be able todetect the origins of wonder in the nuptial meeting of male and femaleelements of thought. Our intention in this investigation thus was not to test orto demonstrate a preconceived nuptial model of wonder. Rather, it was to seeif we could identify nuptial dynamics that might be an impetus for furtherthought and study. In view of what such dynamics would imply for both howand what we study of persons and organizations (see below), we believe thereis warrant for a preliminary study of this kind.

Method

To explore the nuptial foundations of wonder and to reach toward a theory ofthe dynamics of wonder, we looked into the 40 stories of generative momentsin qualitative organizational research with an eye to identifying occasions inwhich wonder occurred in the meeting and melding of male and female ele-ments of thought. The analytic strategy was to do a focused form of theorybuilding (of the dynamics of the nuptial in wonder) with the help of an empiri-cal sample that lends itself to such an investigation. Such theory building leanson the principle of constant comparison in grounded theory (Charmaz 2006) butdeparts from a purist-grounded approach in acknowledging the theoretical pre-decessors of the analysis (Suddaby 2006). Furthermore, our analytic focus wasnot on parsing individual words or sentences in researchers’ accounts of theirmoments of insight and discovery, but instead upon the whole of their accounts.In this way, we kept to the precepts of thematic narrative analysis (KohlerReissman 2008) to preserve the context of each narrative and the sequencing ofevents within each narrative. A narrative mode of thought (Bruner 1986) lendsitself particularly well to the phenomenon of wonder. Narratives specialize inthe links between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Characteristics of goodstories – like their beauty, oddity and indeterminacy (Bruner 1990, Kearney2002) – overlap with the conditions of wonder, making narrative ideally suitedto capture manifestations of the phenomenon and to build theory.

In each story we looked for three things. First, we looked for instances inwhich male moments of expansion and explanation and female moments ofstimulus and immersion came suddenly into union, looking on the one handfor instances in which male moments were joined by female moments, andlooking on the other hand for instances in which female moments were joinedby male moments. Second, supposing that wonder reaches beyond the mun-dane here and now, we looked for overt expressions of mystery. And third,supposing that we are most human when we wonder, we looked for expres-sions and/or imagery of the researcher himself/herself coming into being.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Findings

In the 40 stories, we found 41 instances in which male and female moments ofthought came suddenly into nuptial union (in four stories, we noted twoinstances; and in three stories, we noted no instance). Of these, we saw 26 asmale moments joined by female moments and 15 as female moments joinedby male moments. In the first category, researchers dwelling in male thought –in dry and orderly analysis, dominated by the moments of expansive searchand explanation seeking – opened themselves up to a stimulus outside theirformal theory or method, or immersed themselves in the phenomenon understudy. In some cases, the newly feminine imagery in the story was bodily; ofbeing taken over or “possessed” by a phenomenon or topic. An example is thisaccount given by Laura Morgan Roberts:

The Alignment Quest Seminar moment called for me to reach deeper. If I didn’thave anything to offer that could help someone I cared about so deeply, what couldI possibly offer to other scholars, students and practitioners that I didn’t evenknow? It was one of many moments I’ve had in my academic career that stretchedme to embody my analytical insight. In that moment, it was time for me to relin-quish my stance as a researcher who investigates “those people”. If I were to har-ness the potential of this moment, I needed to embody the essence of the storiesthat had already taught me so much about how to craft my own life. I openedmyself up to feel, at a visceral level, the yearning for an answer that could yieldeven a small kernel of wisdom about how to navigate life in a more empoweredway. I embraced the open-ended nature of the question from my heart through mygut. My ears rang and my heart fluttered while my brain searched at rapid pace forsomething, anything that would unlock a new pathway for alignment with my best-self that would also be generative for someone else. (pp. 121–122)

In other cases, the newly feminine imagery in the story was social; of beingdrawn into intimate relation with subjects. An example is this account givenby Mary Ann Glynn:

I had moved from observation to full-blown participation. I was “Living”. Itafforded me a window onto Martha’s world and I began to see how this world –even with its impossible perfectionism – was more expansive, intriguing, andseductive than anything I could possibly study in my laboratory world. And, inthat realization, I had my own “Martha” moment – a recognition, an “aha!” offelt conviction that this was worth studying … and that it had to be studied as itwas lived, qualitatively. (p. 45)

And this account given by Tyrone Pitsis:

My revelation was that engagement enabled me to build trusting relationships withthe actors throughout the alliance. It is remarkable how open and generativeresearch relationships can be when you engage in the process of research as anactive participant in the dramas evolving as people live their organizational lives,rather than as a by-stander observing from the outside. Research is, after all, ahuman act fed from our genuine inquisitiveness about life lived and experienced.(p. 57)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

In the second category, in which female moments of thought were joinedby male moments of thought, researchers dwelling in female thought – indisparate if not chaotic impressions, in feelings or intuitions of relation – cameto a structure or system that expanded their view of an idea or that explainedtheir feeling or intuition about it. In some cases, the newly masculine imageryin the story was of a shift in thinking or of an “aha” of sudden realization. Anexample is this account given by Natalie Cotton:

It was a shift one evening that allowed me to get beyond the stormy waters. Inhindsight, it seems elementary: What skill is indispensible for any intrepidexplorer? Map-making. … Using mind mapping software, I drew each person,with lines between people to symbolize formal and informal lines of authority. Iplayed with the diagram a bit, and soon enough, I realized that I could capturemore information about each person. (p. 37)

Another is this account given by Marlys Christianson:

Surprise guides some of my most generative moments around theory develop-ment – I think about these “aha” moments in terms of moments of confirmationand moments of disconfirmation. In my example of surprise as confirmation, thecomment “talking to the air”, was generative in several ways – first, it was apoetic turn of speech that captured the phenomenon that I had noticed but didn’thave the language for and, second, it helped me understand that other healthcareprofessionals were aware of this issue and talked about it amongst themselves.(p. 33)

In other cases, the newly masculine imagery of the story was of gut feel-ings coming to mind. An example is this account given by Kjersti Bjørkeng:

… situations in which I touch on empirical material later turning into juicyinsights are almost always emotionally very dense. This emotional density isn’talways frustration; moments of flow, beauty, or even laughter might be just asimportant. Whatever it is, when it involves gut, belly, and brain, it is good. … Iwanted to find order, causality, mission, and completion as drivers of the project.Only when accepting tension, daring to explore it, could I talk about misunder-standings, surprise, accidents, negations, and opportunities … (p. 71)

We also looked in the stories of generative moments for expressions ofmystery, and particularly for expressions that referred to a reality beyond thehere and now of appearances (of what has been learned so far). With some“reading into” the stories on our part, we found in nearly all of them a hint orintuition of a mysterious essence or truth behind immediate appearances. But,in nine of the stories particularly we found overt expressions of wonder beforethe mystery of an unknown but somehow knowable truth. As told byresearcher Arne Carlsen:

When Thomas said this to me I felt a warm streaming sensation run through me,one that persisted for hours … Thomas’s words confirmed things heard in other


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

interviews, albeit here with much more clarity. They also set up a type of interpre-tative deficit in me. I realized that there is something here that I really had notfigured out yet and I had to follow the truth that I think I heard in thisconversation. I had to pursue it, try to go down that pathway of understanding.(p. 32)

As told by Georg von Krogh:

But as I looked at the phenomenon, I became aware of an emerging data-theorytension that was difficult to overlook. I caught myself thinking that it might bebest to leave such problems behind, ignore some data, and perhaps focus on datathat fit the theory. I needed to finish my PhD quickly, didn’t I? The datasurprised me; they did not “speak” to me in the way that I had expected. Inshort, my own research was torn between theoretical rigidity and empiricalfluidity. (p. 93)

And, as told by Elena Antonacopoulou:

It is amazing how one question, at that particular moment in our collaborationcould have caused so many special moments of energy in the process of learningtogether. If I could freeze time to capture these moments I would have loved tobe able to do so. It is those rare moments where the power of ideas lies; whenthey vibrate energy that transcends time and space as their rippling effects gener-ate possibilities for action that could not have been preempted ex-ante. This Ihave discovered is partly what makes ideas timeless. (p. 103)

Lastly, we looked in the stories of generative moments for imagery of theself coming into being, and particularly of that authentic self that reachesbeyond the here and now of the body and ego to the everywhere and eternalhumanity of all peoples. This is the paradox of wonder that the self is to findin the not-self. In the 40 stories, we found 10 such images. As told by oneresearcher, Michelle Barton:

Experiencing another’s reality is energizing for me because it allows me to bothlet go of my self-focus and at the same time, to connect at a very fundamentalhuman level. … As soon as I begin the interview though, I begin to let “me” go.Instead, there is a moment in which I am suddenly confronted with the vast real-ity of another person’s life and being … and they are fascinating … In recogniz-ing and feeling our shared humanity, I am energized by this opportunity towitness and partake, in some small way, their reality. At the same time, my ownhumanity is reinforced, revitalized. (p. 29)

As told by Sally Maitlis:

I feel joy for these interviewees, but even talking with those whose lives are lessenriched still enriches mine. I am alive in my research again. I am studying whatI care about, having authentic conversations with people working to make newmeanings of their lives and of themselves, and engaging in a world where musicand art matter. (p. 55)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

And as told by Farzad Khan:

… if your stories moved your heart and you are convinced that such stories needto be told then you have what the Sufis called Ishq, a burning all-consuminglove, that stiffens your intention to not surrender. In that state of Ishq, you loseconsciousness about your own self, immersed as you are in that for which youhave Ishq. With the loss of self-consciousness you gain confidence that it will allwork out because all the doubts and uncertainties that attend the conscious selfare no longer haunting you. (p. 83)

Finally, in three stories, we came upon more or less explicit statementsof the joining of male and female moments of mind in wonder. In one,Carl Rhodes describes the act of discovery as beginning in feminine open-ness and receptivity and only then moving into masculine response andresponsibility:

The world is a world of other people, and to regard research as being primarilythe activity of an agential and self-sufficient self echoes the worst excesses ofhumanistic arrogance. We owe ourselves to that world – especially as researcherswho have taken on the task of describing or explaining it. This is a world wefind ourselves thrown into and comes to us like a gift. Research, then, is not amatter of the self’s generative or productive capability, nor a matter of narratingthe self’s glorious events, but of participation in, and response to, the world’sfecundity and unpredictability. (p. 120)

In another, Georg von Krogh compares the “pure” logics of female andmale thinking with the “middle ground” of wonder:

As social scientists we are taught a principle of purity: to follow either aninductive or deductive design in our research, perhaps neglecting the often fertilemiddle ground of abduction. On the one hand, if I had carefully selected adeductive approach in the earlier phases of my dissertation work, I would havediscarded important data that uncovered puzzles around information vs. knowl-edge. On the other hand, if I had focused on a more inductive design, I mighthave missed the important contradictions between the empirical setting and fun-damental theories. (p. 94)

And in a third, Haridimos Tsoukas advances an almost word for wordexplication of the male and female moments of wonder. Tsoukas describes anoccasion of wonder in reading the work of a colleague, Dvora Yanow:

The more I read, the more I was drawn to it; I was excited. Her prose was reflec-tive and lucid, having a certain tempo, the ideas intriguing and suggestive, thetone exploratory and open-ended. I connected with her; she moved me to action.My mind was buzzing with ideas about how the argument could be furtherextended. I started making notes and drawing diagrams that represented her argu-ment. I begun putting the argument in a philosophical context that I thoughtwould do justice to the ideas outlined in the paper. I wanted to continue theconversation. And we both did. (p. 124)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Here, the four moments of wonder appear in rapid succession. Tsoukasspeaks first of stimulus – “the more I read, the more I was drawn into it; I wasexcited;” then of expansion – “My mind was buzzing with ideas about howthe argument could be further extended;” then of immersion – “I startedmaking notes and drawing diagrams that represented her argument;” and finallyof explanation – “I begun putting the argument in a philosophical context thatI thought would do justice to the ideas outlined in the paper”. In a later para-graph, Tsoukas summarizes his thinking in movements that are strikinglyfemale and male; beginning with the female:

I connect with ideas that make me, literally, see the world differently; only thenam I moved, abducted, taken by an other or otherness to a place I’ve never beenbefore. In being struck, something other enters me and changes me in a way nothinking of my own can [emphases added]. (p. 124)

Coming then to the male:

I am moved to action – to construct meaning out of what I read or hear and, bydoing so, to invent new interpretative codes [emphases added]. (p. 124)

Arriving, finally, at wonder’s transcendent mystery:

There is a certain narrative density, recursiveness, and a holistic feel, evenoccasionally a quasi-mystical quality to writing and speaking that is inspiring:simultaneous affirmation and skepticism, assertions interspersed with gaps andreflexivity, a prose that is lucid and cryptic at the same time. A mark ofgenerative utterances is their incompleteness; it is for others to fully shape them.In Jerome Bruner’s apt phrase, “they keep meaning open, ‘performable’ by thereader”. (p. 124)

We strain to see how it can be put any better.

Implications: practical, philosophical, and theological

The stories of generative moments collected by Carlsen & Dutton lendplausibility to the proposition that wonder comes to organization studies in themeeting – indeed, romance – of male and female moments of reasoning. This isthe lesson of stories in which the feminine was incorporated into the masculine;in which male thought was softened by a female relaxing of strictures of positivemethod and objectivity. We saw wonder happen when reason opened and yieldedto passion and intimacy. And this is the lesson of stories in which the masculinewas incorporated into the feminine; in which female thought was stiffened by amale insistence on positive method and objectivity. We saw wonder happenwhen passion and intimacy were systematized by reason. What is more and sug-gesting that the generative moments were moments of wonder – “wisps of won-der” – we found stories that referred explicitly to mystery, to a reality beyond theappearances of here and now. And finally, we found stories that recounted


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

wonder’s paradox of being in which authenticity is realized in experiences thatreach beyond the self (toward something or someone that in religious termsmight be called divine or that in secular terms might be called “mysteries ofbeing”).

The idea that wonder comes to the study of organizations in the romance ofmale and female elements of thought has intriguing implications. Animmediate practical one is that what is wonderful about persons and organiza-tions – what distinguishes and ennobles them as human – cannot be describedeither by a masculine scientism that dwells upon matter, mechanism, and sys-tem, or by a feminine humanism that dwells upon feeling, spontaneity, andparticularity. Instead, these two approaches must be integrated in wonder; eachmust inform and condition the other. To open ourselves to wonder is bound tochange how we go about our research; and this in the following ways.

First, to wonder is to change how we relate to our subject. We let goof notions of objective distance and seek participatory modes of inquiry(Heshusius 1994) that augment the quest for rigor – we heed immersionalong with expansion. This was one of the calls of the tradition of apprecia-tive inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastava 1987), in which reverence for mys-tery was heralded as the escape from secular problem-solving and simplisticdiagnostic boxes. It is a call recently taken up in strands of dialogical actionresearch (Shotter 2010, Bushe and Marshak 2009) and particularly in suchnotions as “withness-thinking” (Shotter 2006) in which that which startlesand puzzles is shared and co-explored in dialogically responsive interaction(Shotter 2011). We need to wonder with our subjects, not only about them.We need to engage our subjects in co-wonder so that our science can liveup to its promise of generative capacity for theory and practice alike.One-sided reflexivity and analytic monopoly needs to be replaced with a rev-erence for the uniqueness of the Other and engagement in their reflexivecapability, a move from “we are analyzing you” towards “seeing together”(Bjorkeng et al. forthcoming).

Second, to wonder is to change how we regard and communicate ourresearch findings. If our interest is in the wonder of persons and organizations,we need to explain them in ways that evoke wonder in others – thus to conveythe stimulus qualities along with explanation. Arts-based research (e.g. Leavy2009, Barone and Eisner 2012) and the turn to poetics (e.g. Cunliffe 2002,Weick 2010) may be seen as current responses to such concerns. These areapproaches to research that consider experience indeterminate and inherentlyambiguous and see language is a means to discern reality rather than representit. Metaphors, analogies, the evocative, imagery and story are vital for grap-pling with indeterminate existence, and render it open to participation and withit, expansion of meaning.

Third, to wonder is to connect our inquiries, however small they may seem,to the larger mysteries of life. Again, this is perhaps the most affecting call fromthe field of appreciative inquiry, a call easily lost from view. Secularized prob-lem-oriented views of the world may not only inhibit our capacity to explore


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

the world and build theory about it, but may also deny the chance to marvel atthe world. In contrast, according to Cooperrider and Srivastava (1987, p. 129):

Serious consideration and reflection on the ultimate mystery of being engendersa reverence for life that draws the researcher to inquire beyond superficialappearances to deeper levels of the life generating essentials and potentials ofsocial existence.

This call from appreciative inquiry is joined by that of the burgeoningnew field of positive organizational scholarship, in particular by Dutton(2003) who advocates a turn to the life giving properties of organizations andsigns of life in them without being caught up in a problem-solving or dissect-ing mode (see also Sandelands 2003). Renewed attention to research fieldsof compassion, virtuousness, callings, high-quality connections, energy, resil-ience, and hope in organizations are all examples that follow from such a call(see Cameron and Sprietzer 2011, for a survey of the rich array of inquiriesalong these lines).

Such practical implications of the romance of wonder, and especially thelast, point to a more profound philosophical and indeed theological implica-tion that we believe is the most intriguing and important of all. This is thatit is not possible to come truly to terms with persons and organizations –who and which are actually wonderful – except by study of their metaphys-ics; by study of their very being. This returns us both to Aristotle, for whomthe questions of essence (What is man?) and telos (What is man for?) wereforemost, and (inevitably we believe) to Aquinas, for whom the question ofexistence (Why is man?) was foremost. As we have seen, these are the ques-tions of wonder that the field of organization studies does not ask. And aswe have seen, these are questions answered by the romance of female andmale thought. As summarized by Aquinas, the fact of essence, which isabstractly intelligible and always universal is known to the intellect by rea-son, whereas the fact of existence, which is always individual and singular,is known to the sense faculty directly and concretely as singular. In a word,“… the universal is grasped while things are being understood, the singularwhile they are being sensed”. This integration of inside-out intellect with out-side-in sensation, this all-at-once embrace of the universal and the particular,is the meeting and merging of the human male and female in mind.

A waning wordIf there is a lesson to draw from this essay, it is that we cannot get past thequestion of why study organizations. If there is a conclusion to draw from thisessay, it is that we cannot get past the answer that we study organizations sothat we may wonder. And as wonder is the spur to the rationality that makesus human, we can sharpen the answer to add that we study organizations sothat we may become more human.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Our essay of both the “what” and “when” of wonder finds it a romance ofmale and female in transcendent being – a meeting and merging of femininereceptivity to beautiful mysteries and masculine assertiveness in rationalinquiry. This is wonder’s romance and the deepest calling of organization stud-ies. To wonder about persons and organizations is to unite our male andfemale reasoning about them in the “one-flesh” of the nuptial bond. We cannotdo this if we are caught up either in an objectifying scientism that puts maleover female or in a subjectifying humanism that puts female over male. As ourlook at generative moments in qualitative organizational research suggests,wonder happens as male and female forms of thought are realized together.But, the deeper point at which our look at generative moments could only hintis the philosophical and theological one that male and female minds are joinedin the image of the greatest of mysteries, the unseen but certainly present orderof the Divine. As this essay has been at pains to argue, the nuptial unity ofmale and female in wonder is not a making of reason or nature, but is a mak-ing of that which is beyond reason and beyond nature. If we take away thistranscendent, we will lose the enigmatic opening that keeps us thirsty in ourstriving to reach the Other, Truth or God, and our wonder, like our love, is justa fling, not a lasting romance.

We in organization studies need the romance and mystery of wonder if weare to delight in and be enchanted by persons and organizations. But, wonder,as we have seen, is not only our way to delight and enchantment; it is ourway to being. And in this, at last, we find company alongside journalist–phi-losopher G.K. Chesterton and singer–songwriter Iris Dement. With Chesterton(1959) we see that the only way to be clear about a subject – our subject oforganization studies – is to embrace the mystery that makes everything aboutit clear. And with Dement we see that, whether we think about this mystery asbeing religious or not, its final resolve means the end of romance. In thissense, we do best to let it be. And so let us end as we began, in song:

Everybody’s wonderin’ what and where they all came from.Everybody’s worryin’ ‘bout where they’re gonna go when the whole thing’sdone.But no one knows for certain and so it’s all the same to me.I think I’ll just let the mystery be.

– “Let the Mystery Be” recorded by Iris Dement, Infamous Angel, words andmusic by Iris Dement.

AcknowledgementWe thank the our colleagues Arne Lindseth Bygdas, Jane Dutton, and Jim Walsh, aswell as the editor, Sandra Kauanui, and two anonymous reviewers of this journal fortheir helpful comments on this article.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Notes1. It follows from our argument that our use of the term “romance” is metaphorical

and that it does not favor one gender, sexual orientation or literary genre. To thelatter one may indeed hold that a romance of wonder is one that borrows frommany voices and genres and can involve elements of the grotesque, tragic, comedyand irony.

2. William Wordsworth, “The Tables Turned”, The Complete Poetical Works (London:Macmillian & Company, 1888), p. 20. The complete stanza:

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;Our meddling intellectMis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:We murder to dissect.

3. The theoretical justification and scholarly grounds for this typology of the phasesof wonder are described in detail by Carlsen and Sandelands (2011).

4. The wording in this paragraph and the next borrows from Sandelands (2012).5. Atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins today, who imagine

themselves concerned only with nature don’t see, as Saint Augustine saw long ago,that “nature is what God does”. Waxing scientific if not poetic about the mysteriesof nature they don’t see that they call God by another name.

6. Thus, organization is conceived to be the effect of: a bounded rationality that“involves not only the reduction of complexity by the elimination of uncertainty orprovision of certainty equivalents” (Thompson 1967, p. 162); or managerial actionthat “can adjust and alter the social context surrounding the organization or canfacilitate the organization’s adjustment to its context” (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978,p. 20); or a “rationality of natural selection” in which “the environment selects outoptimal combinations of organizations” (Hannan and Freeman, 1977, p. 940); orfinally the “gravitational pull” of financial markets and the cynical pragmatism inwhich “the commodity fiction” becomes the “organizing principle of society” andwhere “the capital fiction describes social organization” (Davis 2009, p. 236).

Notes on contributorsLloyd E. Sandelands is a professor of Management and Organization and professor ofPsychology at the University of Michigan. His research focuses on the social andspiritual elements of business. His recent books include The Nuptial Mind (UniversityPress of America, 2012) and God and Mammon (University Press of America, 2010).

Arne Carlsen is an associate professor at BI Norwegian Business School. His researchdeals with issues of individual and collective growth in organizations, often inspiredby narrative theory, pragmatism, and positive organizational scholarship. He haspublished about knowledge work, identity, becoming, hope, wonder, and positiveorganizational change. His most recent books include A collection of stories ongenerative moments in research, research alive (2011) co-edited with Jane Dutton andIdea work (2012) co-edited with Stewart Clegg and Reidar Gjersvik.

ReferencesArgyris, C., 1964. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: John

Wiley.Barfield, O., 1965. Saving the appearances. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Barone, T. and Eisner, E.W., 2012. Arts based research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bjorkeng, K., Carlsen, A., and Rhodes, C., forthcoming. Between the saying and the

said: from self-reflexivity to other-vulnerability in the research process. In: F. Coo-ren, E. Vaara, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas, eds. Perspectives on process organiza-tional studies, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bruner, J., 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Bruner, J., 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Bushe, G.R. and Marshak, R.J., 2009. Revisioning organization development:

diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of appliedbehavioral science, 45 (3), 348–368.

Cameron, K. and Spreitzer, G., eds., 2011. Handbook of positive organizationalscholarship. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carlsen, A. and Sandelands, L.E., 2011. Acts of wonder in organizational inquiry.Unpublished manuscript. Norwegian School of Business.

Carlsen, A. and Dutton, J., 2011. Research alive: exploring generative moments inqualitative research. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.Chesterton, G.K., 1959. Orthodoxy. New York: Image Books/Doubleday.Cohen, S. Marc 2008. Aristotle’s metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/.Cooperrider, D.I. and Srivastava, S., 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life.

In: R. Woodman and W. Pasmore, eds. Research in organizational change anddevelopment, vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 129–169.

Cunliffe, A., 2002. Social poetics as management inquiry: a dialogical approach.Journal of management inquiry, 11 (2), 128–146.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B., 1988. To coin a phrase: on organizational talk, organizationalcontrol, and management consulting. Stockholm: Economic Research Institute.

Davis, G., 2009. Managed by the markets. New York: Oxford University Press.Dutton, J.E., 2003. Breathing life into organization studies. Journal of management

inquiry, 12 (1), 5–19.Hannan, M. and Freeman, J., 1977. The population ecology of organizations.

American journal of sociology, 82 (5), 929–964.Heidegger, M., 1937–38/1994. Basic questions of philosophy. R. Rojcewicz and A.

Schuwer. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Heshusius, L., 1994. Freeing ourselves from objectivity: managing subjectivity or turn-

ing toward a participatory mode of consciousness. Educational researcher, 23 (3),15–22.

James, W., 1896/2000. The will to believe. In: J. Stuhr, ed. Pragmatism and classicalAmerican philosophy. Essential readings and interpretive essays. 2nd ed. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 230–241.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R., 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York: JohnWiley.

Kearney, R., 2012. On stories. London: Routledge.Kohler Riessman, C., 2008. Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Thou-

sand Oaks.Lao-Tzu (1891), Tao Te Ching. Tr. J. Legge, Sacred Books of the East, vol. 39: http://

www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm.Leavy, P., 2009. Method meets art: art-based research practice. New York: Guilford.Levinas, E., 1979. Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority, A. Lingis. Pittsburgh,

PA: Duquesne University Press.March, James G., 2003. A scholar’s quest. Journal of management inquiry, 12,

205–207.Maslow, A., 1965. Eupsychian management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm

Mayo, E., 1945. The seamy side of progress. Boston, MA: Harvard University.Nussbaum, M., 2001. Upheavals of thought: the intelligence of emotions. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Paglia, C., 1990. Sexual personae. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Patocka, J., 2002. Plato and Europe. Tr. P. Lom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G., 1978. The external control of organizations. New York,

NY: Harper & Row.Popper, K., 1960. Truth and approximation to truth. In: D. Miller, ed. Popper selec-

tions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 181–189.Quinn, D., 2002. Iris exiled: a synoptic history of wonder. Lanham, MD: University

Press of America.Rubinstein, M., 2008. Strange wonder. The closure of metaphysics and the opening of

awe. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Sandelands, L.E., 2003. Thinking about social life. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America).Sandelands, L.E., 2012. The nuptial mind. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Scruton, R., 2010. Effing the ineffable: how we express what cannot be said. Big

Questions Online, November 4 http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/roger-scruton/effing-the-ineffable.

Shotter, J., 2006. Understanding process from within: an argument for ‘withness-think-ing’. Organization studies, 27 (4), 585–604.

Shotter, J., 2010. Situated dialogic action research: disclosing ‘beginnings’ for innova-tive change in organizations. Organizational research methods, 13 (2), 268–285.

Shotter, J., 2011. Reflections on sociomateriality and dialogicity in organizationalstudies: from ‘inter-‘ to ‘intra-thinking’ in performing practices. Corfu: Paper pre-sented to the Third International Symposium on Process Organization Studies,2011.

Stern, K., 1965. The flight from woman. New York: Penguin.Stewart, M., 2010. The management myth. The Atlantic Online, June, 2006, p. 6

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200606/stewart-business.Suddaby, R., 2006. From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Academy of

management journal, 49 (4), 663–642.Taylor, F., 1911. The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Weick, K.E., 2010. The poetics of process: theorizing the ineffable in organization

studies. In: T. Hernes and S. Maitlis, eds. Process, sensemaking and organizing.New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 102–111.

Yanow, D., 2009. Ways of knowing: passionate humility and reflective practice inresearch and management. The american review of public administration, July 20:doi: 10.1177/0275074009340049.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Llo

yd E

. San

dela

nds]

at 1

3:58

26

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/roger-scruton/effing-the-ineffable

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/roger-scruton/effing-the-ineffable

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200606/stewart-business

Documents

The romance of wonder in organization studies