• Home
• Articles
• Essays
• Add site

Operative Paradigm

This paper is written in order to develop the operative paradigm that determines the basic paradigmatic assumptions and concepts of organizational management. The focus in this operative paradigm is put on relationships, interactions, and actions and this means that the product of human activities in general, and within organizations and social boundaries in particular, needs to be studied. The concept of an action per se may differ from its definition as in the form of a relationship with another variable, or in the form of an interaction with another variable (another action or the outcome from an action). The criterion for treating an action within the parameters of this paradigm is that such an activity or "event" is not an isolated occurrence. Rather it has some form of outcome, or continuity, or consequence. These forms of outcomes may thus appear as relationships or interactions with the action (Barker, 1992).

Distinctions should be made between the actions and the actors, as well as the ethical aspects of actions and intentions. For the purposes of this operative paradigm, actions are a conceptual structure which encapsulates a given activity, bounded by the circumstances in which it occurs and by the parameters of its materialization. The actors may be at any level of analysis, such as individuals, groups, or entire organizations (Barker, 1992).

A paradigm can generally be elxucidated as a framework of thought, a sense for understanding and explaining certain aspects of reality" (Ferguson, 1980). Along these lines, the operative paradigm can be explained as that paradigm that allows or helps the researcher to actually "create a valid set of expectations about what will probably occur in the world based on our shared set of assumptions" (Barker, 1992, p. 31).


The Analytical Approach

Discussing the analytical methodology for the operative paradigm, it is understood as a fact that the analytical approach considers that parts constitute a whole. Cause and effect relationships are the area of study in the analytical approach. By the means of this approach, the research is able to study the setting separately from the entire system. The experimenter needs to study the scenario and then the variables, from which a hypothesis needs to be developed and proved or disproved from the setting and the situation involved. The proving or disproving of the hypothesis elucidates the cause and effect relationship in this case. In a business case scenario however, it becomes difficult to quantify qualitative aspects and then the study of such aspects becomes difficult in terms of cause and effect relationships (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997).


The Systems Approach

In this approach, the analytical approach is entirely negated since the systems methodology deals with the fact that the whole is not simply a sum of the different constituents. This approach is most widely used in order to evaluate and understand an organization. The analyst tends to study the organization as a system with its functions and strategies, along with the goals, rules and objectives. This, unlike the analytical approach tends to focus on the qualitative aspect, including ethnography, cases, observation etc. rather than simply focusing on the constituents of the organization, the entire focus is "for forces that influence the system as a whole" (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997, p.66).


The Actors Approach

Studying the Actors approach, the study is primarily on the different actors that form the complete picture. Therefore, in this case, the study is not on cause and effect relationships, nor is it on the entire system and its processes. Rather, the focus tends to be on perception of reality. However, issue of subjectivity arises here, since being objective, and remaining objective in this case becomes difficult for a researcher. Business research therefore, is not based on such subjectivity. Reality is therefore, "described by denoting conceptual meaning at various structural levels, which is based on how different actors (individuals) perceive, interpret, and act in reality (their ecological sphere)" (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997, p. 79).

Within the operative paradigm of organizational management, the assumptions and concepts have long pondered that the issue of intent and the causal link between actions and consequences, in which usually a moral parameter, plays a crucial role. Two opposing groups have emerged in this regard. The first group has been termed consequentialists, which argue that the right or moral action is to cause a maximized good for those affected by the action. The second group (non-consequentialists) argues that the most good is only one parameter to consider. Ethical issues are thus brought into the equation of the actions to be taken, the intent of the actor, and the resulting outcome (Barker, 1992). The inclusion of intent assumes that in the given action there was an intent, which is also a reasoned calculation by the actors of what he/she is about to do and the possible outcomes from this action.

These assumptions of operative paradigm may even go as far as distinguishing between those who are directly and those who are indirectly affected by actions. When actions inadvertently affect or harm bystanders, how is morality justified, they ask, and are there guidelines for choosing one action over another? Clearly, such moral questions and ethical considerations are possible where the actor is not only cognizant but also acts with preestablished intention to act. Another constraint to the philosophical treatment of this issue is the direct link between the action and the outcome, so that intent may be established and causality can be shown. This also includes those cases in which an intentional action has caused unintentional consequences, but within the limited framework of an established causality.

The concept of action in this operative paradigm is not confined to a causal link or to the parameters established by philosophers in their study of consequences. Actions are not limited to an individual frame, in which an activity occurs and consequences can be determined from it (Hayakawa, 1978). Actions are relationships and interactions that will usually transcend the individual frame to the extent that they may develop into multiple occurrences. This will ultimately form a process in which the original action has developed and evolved into consequential stages that are linked to the action by conceptual/logical and/or temporal ties (Hayakawa, 1978).

At this point it is worthwhile to turn our attention to the issue of existing frameworks and methodologies for scientific analyses. In his pathbreaking operative paradigm on scientific operative paradigms, Argyris (1998) had suggested that social sciences are much more apt to argue about principles and fundamentals than the natural sciences. He argued that operative paradigms may provide an answer to this difference (Argyris, 1998).
Another reason may be that social, managerial, and organizational sciences describe and explore human and social actions that generate complex consequences. This leads to issues such as difficulties in measurement of the phenomena under study and the presumed "softness" of the complex phenomena per its conceptual and empirical definitions (Argyris, 1998).

Although many writers referred to the unique characteristics of these sciences, in this operative paradigm the leading argument is that the emphasis in the managerial and organizational sciences has been on the behavior (hence the action), at the detrimental expense of the outcomes or consequences (Alavi & Carlson, 1992). The complexity of consequences and the manner in which they are described and analyzed in these sciences seem to me to be the key argument for a different approach, which is what is offered in this operative paradigm. The different approach is essentially a different architecture of analysis, in which the complexity of consequences is methodologically simplified for the needs of analytical goals (Alavi & Carlson, 1992).

Although there is dispute of whether science progresses in the form of Kuhn's operative paradigms, the introduction of the new architecture of analysis in this operative paradigm may be a new operative paradigm. In borrowing from other disciplines, the operative paradigm of operational management has attempted to formulate an architecture that helps to explore and explain by starting out emphasizing the methodology, not the phenomenon nor its scientific field or discipline. The emphasis is on the combination of relationships and processes.

A relationship is defined here as the interactive existence of more than one occurrence, in which there is a relative linkage marked by logic, concept, structure, or time. In this mode a relationship between or among occurrences is more than a proposition. Management and organization scientists generally define propositions on stating relationships between two or more concepts. In addition, assumptions of this operative paradigm include specific characteristics or modes of propositions. They include: (1) reversible-irreversible; (2) deterministic-stochastic; (3) sequential-coextensive; (4) sufficientcontingent; and (5) necessary-substitutable (Booth, Colomb & Williams, 1995).

In the category of sequential-coextensive, the sequential type of proposition suggests that there is a time dimension separating the concepts or occurrences (events) described in the proposition (Moser, 1999). An illustration would be the linkage between the effort expended on organizational management and the satisfaction of users of the new product which was thus developed. When a relationship is defined beyond the propositional boundaries, it would be similar to the chain architecture of propositions which compose an entire theory. In such a chain the variables in the propositions have a now, so that the label "independent" and "dependent" are mutable, as the chain evolves per the theoretical logic (Moser, 1999).

This flow and changeability of labels of variables are characteristics of a process mode, in which occurrences are linked by virtue of conceptual or temporal criteria. For instance, a theory of innovation would be explained in the form of a process, where research flows into development, into testing, engineering, and marketing (Moser, 1999). Processes are to large extent structural manifestations of theories where propositions may be ordered to form a coherent theory. Such attributes of multiple equations, dynamic models, or issues of complexity have been the subject of a continuing stream of research into analytical and computational models of organizations (Smith, 1975). This operative paradigm reemphasizes these attributes in the description of dynamic morphologies. Here it is sufficient to evoke this stream of research and the concepts and terminology it embraced, in order to posit some of the attributes of actions (as described in this operative paradigm). Another reason is to enumerate some of the key problems with existing methods, leading to operative paradigmatic differences with the concepts proposed in this operative paradigm.

Underlying the extant methods to the study of managerial and organizational actions are four criteria: (1) parsimony; (2) simplicity; (3) closeness and realism; and (4) balance and equilibrium. Let us examine each criterion and propose what appear to be their limitations and weaknesses (Smith, 1975).

In devising models of organizations and in other aspects of these sciences there is a concern with parsimony. The issue is to achieve economy in describing the phenomenon for the purpose of studying it, modeling, and data collection. Parsimonious explanations are a factor in determining the validity of computational models. Issues of elegance and economy that are basic criteria in mathematical explorations are thus transported into the unruly and "Messy" realm of human and social interactions.

Parsimony becomes a problem when it contributes to capricious modeling in the quest for economy. Variables that may be factors in alternative explanations and should be measured (though not always controlled) are left outside the research design for reasons beyond the logical or conceptual linkage. In the transition from theory to modeling, then to experimental design, the quest for parsimony is additive, hence sequentially and deleteriously compress the universe being investigated (Tubbs and Schulz, 2006).

Issues of construct validity are to be considered in nonadherence to parsimony. That is, in defense of economy and elegance it may be said that by clearly defining the phenomenon the validity of the design is increased, but at what price? Largely at the expense of a more productive and comprehensive approximation to a more viable representation of the phenomenon, the result is akin to the problem of accuracy versus useful information (Tubbs and Schulz, 2006).

A similar criterion is the quest for simplicity. As in the case of parsimony, simplicity leads to slicing the phenomenon under study into a maneuverable portion, under criteria such as construct validity. Threats to validity are anchored in both the research design and in the field experimentation and the nature of data available and collectable. Simplicity reduces some threats in as much as the well defined phenomenon may be investigated with precision. Design elements may thus be ascribed, relationships (particularly causal relations) may thus be proposed and studied (Luthans, 1997).
Managerial and organizational actions and their consequences are complex phenomena, so that an architecture of analysis that relies on simplicity is bound to distance the results from the "reality" of the phenomenon (Luthans, 1997). Simplicity leads to discretionary delimitation of the phenomenon. As mentioned earlier, such a constraint is capricious, as it is the product of the individual researcher's biases and predilections.
How much of the phenomenon do we want to understand and to effectively explore? This basic question haunts social, managerial, and organizational scientists who find themselves in the perennial chase after methods and techniques that will permit more adventurous explorations, while venturing beyond established operative paradigms in the hope of forcing innovations in their techniques. Rules and criteria such as simplicity and validity had been devised to facilitate research and to enable scholars to make these hard choices. These rules and criteria provide boundaries as well as "rules of the game" to allow for some measure of accountability, replication, and comparison (Luthans, 1997).
The price paid is similar to that discussed above in the case of parsimony. Doubts persist whether the model proposed and the study thus conducted indeed provide approximation to the "true" phenomena beyond just workability and measurability. Phenomena in the management arena continue to be complex, and although simplicity allows for additive knowledge, doubts persist whether these incremental pieces of knowledge lead to a tapestry that brings us closer to the true phenomenon.

It should be emphasized that there is a distinction between the two types of "realism" discussed above. If researchers opt to engage in Model II (action-research), their choice leads to research that is different from the choice of slices of phenomena because they are more action-oriented, in the sense that they are more manageable (Shain, 1996).
Both models include the quest for research that can produce propositions which are maneuverable, yet lead to research that may be useful to some but lacking in its adequate representation of the phenomenon under study. This is because the "reality" discussed by these scholars is a subjective slicing of phenomena, as much as the quest for action research starts out with discretionary "relevant" aspects of social, organizational, and managerial sciences (Shain, 1996).

In an effort to strengthen such conventions, these phenomena are visualized and described in terms usually reserved for natural phenomena. This is also the case with the creation of models in the organizational/managerial sciences and with their description in terminology applicable in the physical sciences.

The results are the call for balance in the criteria used to model and to research these sciences, and for equilibrium in the phenomenon being studied (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997). Approaching such phenomena as "systems" has been a way to capture a certain level of complexity, while maintaining a balanced set of attributes (e.g., simplicity, validity, and equilibrium). If balance is primarily defined as the effort to approach the phenomenon from a parsimonious yet comprehensive perspective which covers the variables of concern, equilibrium is a different concept. In following the precepts of systems theory, organization and management scholars are inclined to study phenomena in a state of equilibrium, or to approximate dynamic models to their state of equilibrium. The problem with this criterion of extant methods is the oversimplification of the phenomenon (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997).

The resulting situation is inadequacy in the methodological treatment of human actions and of organizational phenomena, due to the combined influence of the aforementioned criteria. This is done with the exemplars of two major research issues in the organizational and managerial sciences: evaluation of technology and contributions of health care to patient value. As these issues had been addressed by organizational scientists and methodologists, traditional arguments for using the four criteria have included the lack of adequate measurement instruments and techniques (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997). There are obvious links between theoretical constructs and the degrees of difficulties in empirically measuring their variables and indicators. However, the architecture of the theoretical constructs and the design of their empirical study have a considerable impact on measurement facility. This operative paradigm argues that such a modified architecture, in the form of the dynamic morphologies, boosts the possibilities of more available means of measuring the variables and indicators (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997).

The concept of actions will comprise human actions within the context of organizations and the managerial framework, as well as describing organizational and managerial phenomena in general (Warwick Organizational Behavior Staff, 2001). There are of course differences among actions in terms of magnitude and complexity. As defined earlier in this operative paradigm, actions become a generic term, describing human activities that produce outcomes and have consequences within the larger range of social occurrences.

Most, if not all, human actions and organizational phenomena appear in the form of processes. When actions transcend the bounds of individual and isolated occurrences in time and space, they are bound to be part and parcel of processes. A broad definition of processes is that they are chains of events linked together by an association based on one or more of the following: rationale, time of occurrence, and/or the product of transformations (Warwick Organizational Behavior Staff, 2001).

Processes are multi-events and dynamic descriptions of a complex set of actions. They describe reality in the form of various occurrences and their degree of linkage. The paradigm defined simultaneous-equation dynamic models in theory construction as the "most realistic models of real world processes". It has combined in their treatment of such complex models the discussion of processes and systems. In this case there is ample use of attributes of systems, such as stability and feedbacks (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997).
But the main principles guiding the linkage events in a process model of social actions and social reality are: rationale, time, and transformations. The first principle is rationale, which includes the variety of possible reasons or purposes for the association of events (or actions) in the form of a process. Reasons include a relationship between events, based on assumed cause and effect. For example, a social policy of welfare, law enforcement, or health care investments produces certain results that are positioned as cause and effect in a process-like relationship. Another reason is provided by social scientists who assemble events and link them as processes because of a conceptual association, based on theorydriven rationale. Motivational and leadership theories are sometimes posited in the form of processes, as are other organizational phenomena. Cause and effect may not be necessary in these cases, but it is essential that a theoretical basis be established for inclusion in a process mode of description and explanation (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997).

Time of occurrence is a different principle of the process mode of association of events or actions. When events occur in a sequential mode, so that one precedes the other, the subsequent chain of events is a process. These chains may be linear or appear in the form of a web or network (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997). Administrative actions are examples of such processes, as are manufacturing phenomena.

A third principle is the workings of transformations in the events of the chain of occurrences. Processes are formed when events transform themselves into different entities. The transformation means that actions produce consequences that contain some basic elements of the transforming action, yet are somewhat or radically different from their predecessors in their form or functionality (Scott & Davis, 2007). Many organizational phenomena are illustrative of such transformation, as for example, industrial innovation and organizational change. In the former case, research and development undergoes transformations to form new products and services, which contain elements of the organizational management that originated them, but are now distinct and transformed entities (Scott & Davis, 2007).

In the latter case, change phenomena such as reengineering activities transform focal units into different entities with some aspects remaining of the original form. Processes may benefit from a combination of the aforementioned principles. They are a powerful representation of how events are associated, so that such an association may be interpreted in a wider sense, to ascribe an overarching meaning to the set of singular events. In cases where processes are not the preferred mode of description, the alternative is to associate distinct events without a comprehensive view of how and why they are related.

Processes are a convenient design architecture that allows for a varied association of events based on several principles – as delineated above (Beitler, 2006). Hence, the use of other architecture such as relating two distinct events as descriptors of an entire phenomenon is a primitive mode of research design. Nonprocess architectures are not necessarily opposite formats, but they tend to facilitate the loss of valuable and sometime crucial knowledge about the phenomenon.

What, then, are the advantages of representation of the reality of phenomena by processes? First, unlike the dyadic format of relating events, processes offer a format that allows for the dynamics of the interaction among events (Beitler, 2006). In cases where transformations are occurring, processes offer cells or situational constructs into which such transformation may be inserted to form stages or steps of the process.
Second, processes are a construct of a chain of events, hence creating an architecture which covers a larger portion of the phenomenon. By capturing antecedent events as well as consequences to, for example, a dyadic architecture, processes provide additional building blocks to make the phenomenon under study more descriptive and explicative (Beitler, 2006).

For example, comparisons among organizations or countries with one variable or dimension, such as competitiveness, need a leap of faith. Another example is the relation between announcements of the firm of its organizational management projects and the market value of the company's stock. There is a "void" in between these events which may be filled by the use of process architecture, thus providing explanatory power and diminishing the need for the leap of faith (Schein, 2003).

Finally, processes provide the advantage of the building blocks necessary for the design of dynamic morphologies. They are designed to fill the gaps and to offer a more solid explanation, grounded on interactions among events that can be reasonably explained, as well as measured. Decision making in organizations has long been a phenomenon favored to be studied as a process in organization and managerial research (Davis, 1996).

The process of decision making in organizational management, as other processes in which actions are described, can be further extended to conceptually include other variables. The phenomenon thus investigated is essentially the same, yet extended, amplified, and better understood. The organizational management paradigm devised an integrative framework, it added to the strategic decision process such variables as context (e.g., environmental influences, size, and control), and senior management characteristics (Davis, 1996).

The components of a process are of two complementary types: structure and content. Structure is characterized by stages in the process, which are arbitrary steps or elements of the chain (Babbie, 1995). Much of the rationale to establish stages as the structural architecture of a process comes from the quality and genesis of both conceptual and empirical data, thus subjected to a diversity of possibilities and biases. Different studies of decision processes, for example, have arrived at dissimilar findings because of different structures of the processes they investigated, primarily the type and ordering of stages (Babbie, 1995).

Reasons given for entering a given event into the framework of a process may also be used to identify and isolate structural elements such as stages. In this way, rationale such as causality, temporal reasons, and transformations are adequate criteria to establish stages. Yet, the flow within processes may not obey the artificiality of stage formation (Babbie, 1995).

As organization and managerial scientists build their research upon prior art, much of the research designs employing process architecture rely on the conception of structure and stages provided by other scholars and accepted as being adequate. The aforementioned case of decision-making in organizations illustrates the assignment of stages to the process in an incremental fashion. Although this is the method of science, and subsequent research tends to substantiate and verify the adequacy of such architectures, the bias in the original designs is perpetuated, albeit modified, perhaps even improved. Events are the contents of the stages in a process design. The combination of stages and contents makes a process (Robbins, 2001). There are different forms of processes, such as networks, but whenever there are multiple events to be linked, some form of a process will be constructed to accommodate these links. Even in cases of conceptual or temporal interruptions and discontinuity (as for example in the case in modeling technological development), the main attributes of a process-like representation are maintained.

In addition to the advantages that the process architecture for research and understanding of actions offers over primitive dyads, there are also advantages over multiple distinct occurrences that are theoretically connected (Kreitner, Kinicki & Buelens, 1999). Such linkages, unless modeled in a process architecture, would become conceptual "islands," lacking the power to explain actions and social phenomena.

If we arbitrarily select and cut a portion of a process and concentrate on a dyad of stages as the focus of our research, we would fail to adequately understand the phenomenon. At least two errors will be committed. First, we would fail to understand the "big picture." (Kreitner, Kinicki & Buelens, 1999) Although sometimes researchers focus on such a dyad – for reasons such as methodological convenience and measurement facility – only a small portion of the phenomenon is explained. There is a constant risk that it may be the least important or relevant portion, or even the portion with the least explanatory or predictive powers.

Second, by focusing on a dyadic portion, we would disattach the dyad from its framework in the hope that what we are researching is equal to or equivalent, or at least a similar phenomenon to the entire process. Consider for example the study of the research component of the innovation process. The research activity in itself is not innovation, yet may lead to it (Blake, 2000). This is hardly an issue of simple nomenclature. In such a case a piece of cheese parceled out of a large log is not equal (in its characteristics, such as color, taste, function, nutrition, etc.) to the whole log. Research in itself is not innovation however we decide to label it. Only the linkage of research with downstream activities in the process would qualify it as a component of the innovation phenomenon (Blake, 2000).

Another issue of concern is the kind of research questions being asked in the organization sciences. Comparison with the natural or physical sciences clearly shows that in the latter the research questions dig into fundamental issues. Physical scientists inquire as to the very nature of atoms, and the origins of the universe. Organization scientists explore research questions that indulge in the very top layers of the surface of the phenomena they investigate. Compared with physical sciences, this would be akin to drawing inferences about a material, or an astronomical body, based solely on its being part of a class of such entities.

This paradigm also exemplifies the issue of relating variables across a spectrum of other actions and their consequences. This practice allows researchers to avoid asking much more incisive questions on the nature of strategy abandonment, why and how it occurs, and what is its relation to the fundamental issues in organization and management phenomena (Quincy, 2004). Comparison with some natural sciences, such inquiries are akin to exploring the behavior of a given planet in light of its relation to a larger planet nearby, without the benefit of such laws as gravity and thermodynamics.

Finally, processes offer a flow and dynamics which emerge from the internal relationships among stages (Quincy, 2004). As actions are dynamic occurrences and can only be adequately explained by incorporating both their antecedents and their consequences, the process architecture houses all of the above.

Perhaps the failure of organization and management scientists to explore more fundamental questions is partly the result of inadequate or underdeveloped methodological tools. So, whether it's because of methodology or due to adherence to existing operative paradigms, more fundamental questions are not explored, although they should be.
In summary, process-like architectures are advantageous in researching actions and organizational phenomena. They provide a more realistic and comprehensive approach to the phenomenon under study, and they are better equipped to provide the basis for dynamic morphologies.




References

Alavi, M. & Carlson, P. (1992). "A Review of MIS Research and Disciplinary Development", Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 8, issue 4, pp. 45-62.
Arbnor, I. & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge, 2nd ed.
Argyris, C. (1998). Organization Behavior and Culture. Athens University Press. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research, 7th ed. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Barker, J.A. (1992). Paradigms: The Business of Discovering the Future. New York: Harper Business.
Beitler, M. (2006). Strategic Organizational Change, 2nd edition. Practitioner Press International Greensboro NC.
Blake, R. (2000). Historical Background of Organization Theory. Winston press.
Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., & Williams, J.M. (1995). The Craft of Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Davis, D. (1996). Business Research for Decision Making. Boston: Duxbury Press.
Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian Conspiracy. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
Hayakawa, S.I. (1978). Language in Thought and Action, 4th ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc.
Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A., & Buelens, M. (1999). Organizational Management: European Edition. 2nd Edition. Chicago Press.
Luthans, F. (1997). Concept of Organization Management. Alabama Press.
Moser, H. (1999). Thick Description and Abduction: Paradigm Change in Social. Last retrieved on February, 8, 2007. Web-site: http://www.schulnetz.ch/unterrichten/fachbereiche/medienseminar/paradigms.htm.
Quincy, L.K. (2004). Theory of Operation Management. Cambridge Univerity Press.
Robbins, S. (2001). Organizational Management and Behavior. 9th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schein, E. (2003). Organizational Psychology. 3rd Edition. London: Prentice-Hall.
Scott, Richard W. & Davis Gerald F. (2007). Organizations and Organizing. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Shain, U. (1996). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Arizona University Press.
Smith, A. (1975). Power of the Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Tubbs, S. L. and Schulz, E. (2006). "Exploring a Taxonomy of Global Leadership Competencies and Meta-competencies," The Journal of American Academy of Business, vol. 8, issue 2, 2006, Dissertation Paper presented at the Eastern Michigan University. Eastern Michigan University: Michigan.
Warwick Organizational Behavior Staff. (2001). Organizational Studies: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management (Critical Perspectives), 1st edition. Routledge.
9531

Posted by: Jeffrey J. Thomson

Best Custom Writing Sites

Sites that provide custom writing services are better alternative to downloading pre-written paper samples, especially if you temporarily can't handle writing your own paper for some reason, and can not afford risking your course and reputation for plagiarism detection failure. The prices for custom written essays are affordable, but if you need 15-pages long master level report overnight, you better prepare to spend a noticeable sum.