The so-called rigor–relevance gap appears unbridgeable in the classical view of organization science, which is based on the physical sciences’ model. Constructivist scholars have also pointed out a certain inadequacy of this model of science for organization research, but they have not offered an explicit, alternative model of science. Responding to this lack, this paper brings together the two separate paradigmatic perspectives of constructivist epistemologies and of organizational design science, and shows how they could jointly constitute the ingredients of a constructivism-founded scientific paradigm for organization research. Further, the paper highlights that, in this constructivist view of organizational design science, knowledge can be generated and used in ways that are mutually enriching for academia and practice

This article reviews the potential of Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis as a contribution to organization theory. We consider organization theory to consist of three epistemological foundations, which we label equilibrium-based theory, process-based theory and recursivity-based theory. We review critically Luhmann’s autopoietic theory in relation to each of these three foundations. We suggest that whereas it deviates radically from equilibrium-based theory and deviates significantly from process-based theory, it holds potential in its complementarity with Giddens’s structuration theory in providing a promising basis for recursivity-based organization theory.

Key words: Organization theory, autopoiesis, systems theory, Luhmann

The model of ‘autopoiesis’ – originally a biological model of a living system – has stimulated some outstanding social and administrative scientists to creative thinking about possible implications and applications. In this paper, the applicability of the model to the science of (public) administration is discussed. Applying a natural scientific model to a social science is hazardous. The paper begins with a description of the original model and a discussion of its systems theoretical implications. Next a review of the various interpretations of autopoiesis in different fields of the social sciences is presented. Finally an attempt is made to perform a careful translation and cautious application. \\The autopoiesis model seems to offer new insights into the self-governance of organizations. The model opens a fundamentally different perspective on the relationship between organization and environment. From an organization science point of view the model seems intriguing enough to have a close look at it.

The term cybernetics comes from the Greek word for steersman or the helmsman on a ship. Words with the same root mean govern and governor. Norbert Wiener, who first used the term in English, defined it as “control and communication in animal and machine.” The term was subsequently extended to social systems. Numerous other definitions have been proposed. Stafford Beer defined cybernetics as the “science of effective organization.” Gregory Bateson said cybernetics deals with form rather than substance. Gordon Pask defined cybernetics as “the art of manipulating defensible metaphors.” Organization theorists may regard cybernetics as a science of information processing, decision-making, learning, adaptation, and organization, whether these occur in individuals, groups, organizations, nations, or machines.

The Viable System Model (VSM) was described by British cybernetician Stafford Beer in his books Brain of the Firm (1972), The Heart of Enterprise (1979), and Diagnosing the System for Organizations (1985). The VSM is a model of organizational structure that is based on the structure of the human nervous system. Beer notes that the human nervous system as a device for information processing and decision-making is the result of millions of years of evolution. Imitating it may have some advantages. The Viable System Model is based on Ross Ashby’s theory of adaptive behavior and his Law of Requisite Variety. For a further explanation of Ashby’s work, see the definition of “cybernetics.”