The Interplay Between Organizational Theory, Metaphor, and Behaviour in Understanding Complex Organizational Phenomena: Navigating Digital Disruption, ESG, Hybrid Work, and Organizational Politics

Muhammad Ihsan; Herri; Syukri Lukman; Syafrizal

Authors

Muhammad Ihsan Institut Teknologi dan Bisnis Haji Agus Salim
Herri Universitas Andalas
Syukri Lukman Universitas Andalas
Syafrizal Universitas Andalas

Keywords:

Adaptive Systems, Digital Disruption , ESG, Hybrid Work, Legitimacy, Organizational Theory

Abstract

In an era defined by rapid technological shifts, sustainability imperatives, hybrid work models, and politicized internal environments, organizations must navigate complexity at multiple levels. This paper develops and applies an integrated conceptual framework that combines Institutional Theory, Contingency Theory, and the organizational behaviour lens of Psychological Safety, enriched by the metaphors of the organization as a political system and as an adaptive organism. Drawing from real-world cases across corporate, non-profit, and higher education sectors, the study examines how organizations respond to digital disruption, ESG pressures, hybrid work transitions, and organizational politics. Through this multidimensional lens, the paper reveals how legitimacy, adaptability, power dynamics, and psychological conditions shape the outcomes of change initiatives. The findings suggest that complex organizational phenomena cannot be understood through a singular perspective. Instead, theory, behaviour, and metaphor must be synthesized to account for both the formal and informal dimensions of organizational life. The study concludes by offering implications for leadership, design, and research, emphasizing the need for systems thinking, political literacy, and cultural sensitivity in navigating contemporary challenges.

References

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & de Wit, H. (2020). Responding to COVID-19: Higher education in a global crisis. International Higher Education, 102, 4–5.

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2022). Does working from home work? Evidence from a two-year randomized experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(1), 165–218.

Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2008). Power, politics, and organizational change: Winning the turf game (2nd ed.). Sage.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage Publications.

Eccles, R. G., & Klimenko, S. (2019). The investor revolution. Harvard Business Review, 97(3), 106–116.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Educause. (2022). The higher education hybrid work landscape. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2022/4/the-higher-education-hybrid-work-landscape

Financial Times. (2022, January 23). Unilever’s ESG push faces investor backlash. https://www.ft.com

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165.

Gond, J. P., Grubnic, S., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2012). Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 205–223.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University Press.

McKinsey & Company. (2023). The state of AI in 2023: Generative AI’s breakout year. https://www.mckinsey.com

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed.). Sage Publications.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.

NGO Advisor. (2023). Annual ranking of the world’s top 200 NGOs. https://www.ngoadvisor.net

Parker, S. K., Knight, C., & Keller, A. (2022). Remote managers are having trust issues. Harvard Business Review.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Shields, P. M., & Rangarajan, N. (2013). A playbook for research methods: Integrating conceptual frameworks and project management. New Forums Press.

Sundheim, D. (2023, December 12). How Patagonia became the most reputable brand in the United States. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.

Vredenburgh, D. J., & Maurer, J. G. (1984). A process framework of organizational politics. Human Relations, 37(1), 47–66.

Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 429–442.

Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.

Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3), 219–229