Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Adjusting blurred visions: A typology of integral approaches to organisations
University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
2005 (English)In: Journal of Organizational Change Management, ISSN 0953-4814, E-ISSN 1758-7816, Vol. 18, no 3, 230-246 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose - The growing interest in developing and applying "integral" approaches to organisations has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in different ways of interpreting this term. This article aims to present a set of criteria to help in defining the varieties of integral approaches to the study of organisations.

Design/methodology/approach - These criteria are derived from Ken Wilber's integral framework. The constitutive elements of Wilber's multi-paradigm framework are used to develop a typology that honours the many forms that integral approaches can take.

Findings - It is proposed that the key criteria for assessing integral approaches to organisational life are: the structural focus, the engagement with process, and the emphasis on spirituality or essential purpose. Four type categories result from applying the structural criteria. These range from a general type that utilises broadly holistic concepts through to type which employs the detailed application of developmental quadrant and level concepts that formally define the integral approach as conceived by Ken Wilber. The engagement and spirituality criteria are additional enriching criteria that establish the integrity of the methods and purposes used in truly integral approaches.

Originality/value - The proposed typology will help in understanding how different authors, researchers and practitioners represent and apply the term "integral" within organisational contexts.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2005. Vol. 18, no 3, 230-246 p.
Keyword [en]
Organizational behaviour, Organizational philosophy, Organizational theory
National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-32193DOI: 10.1108/09534810510599399ISI: 000230523900003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-20444462016OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-32193DiVA: diva2:1044052
Available from: 2016-11-01 Created: 2016-11-01 Last updated: 2017-04-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Edwards, Mark G.
In the same journal
Journal of Organizational Change Management
Business Administration

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 28 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf