Armbrüster, T., and Gebert, D. (2002)
From 4open
Please insert questions regarding the text below. Remember to add an acronym with the first two letters of your first and family name respectively in brackets to your question (e.g., "HaMa" for "Hans Mayr").
- Popper warns against utopias, in the mean of continuous improvement, but isn’t the concept of permanent elimination of errors and moving forward to a ‘better’ society a way of creating a utopia that people can hold on? (JoAn)
- Popper suggests an open society and argues that people who can choose their own place in society can develop best. Therefore, he criticises the organicism and the accompanying attribution of fixed roles and places in society. Does this concept apply to all people, or are there people in society who can only develop their full potential with the help of authority and hierarchy because they cannot find their place in society themselves? (MiNi)
- Can organizations, even commercial ones, ever be fully apolitical or without inherent '-isms'? (SiYo)
- I was wondering if we [as a society] are currently developing in the direction of a closed society rather than in an open one, considering the neo-liberal agenda that has spread like wildfire in the last decades. With a ‘neo-liberal agenda’, I draw on Wendy Brown (2015) and some of her arguments from Undoing the Demos. Namely, a shift of responsibility to the individual, the economisation of everything (including the social sphere), and competition with everything and everyone. Considering this, the question that comes to my mind now is whether it is even possible to have a 'real/actual' open society, or, if at all, only the appearance of it with such a neo-liberal framework surrounding our society? (BeFa)
- In the article, collective-democratic organisations and bureaucratic organisations are talked about as opposites. Are these forms of organisations inherently mutually exclusive, and can we find forms of organising that combine democratic and bureaucratic approaches? (EvSc)
- To what extent can the idea of an open society described by Popper help to break up populist and authoritarian-driven political systems and make them more open? (JaBo)
- The text points Collectivist Organization of Work Viewed through the Popperian Lens. How do patterns of thinking within work organizations impact the broader societal patterns of thinking, and what are the potential implications for democratic societies in terms of openness or closedness? (SaSt)
- Are there certain aspects of organizations that make it more or less likely to adopt Popperian principles? Specially I was thinking about the industry, organizational size and organizational age. (NiGr)
- In my opinion the implementation of Popper's ideas, especially in the current times of crisis, would bring advantages, such as in ethical decision-making etc.. Regarding this (times of crisis), how can the principles of open society be promoted and protected? (EvYü)
- To what extent should we practice tolerance, pluralism and individual freedom to achieve a free and open society, specifically within organizations? (EvRe)
- Popper claims that the attractiveness of closedness results from the "human needs" for harmony, consensus, sense-making, and "law and order". Therefore, it is reasonable for employees to prefer a closed organisation to an open one. What explains the increasing demand of more diversity in organisations? How do these reasons reflect Popper's idea of an open society? (KaHe)
- How might Popper's ideas about constant improvement and adaption apply to organizational decision making processes? (AlWi)
- Can open government and society be seen as a luck of rules/regulations/no strict policies within the organizaiton and a regular continuation ? As we have discussed before that if there is not even one element of bureaucracy,an organization can be chaotic. Does this concept of openess opose this statement for sustainabillity ?( GlKu)
- Are there types of organizations for which Popper's ideas work better and types for which they don't work so well? (MiMa)
- In the paper by Nathaniel Tkacz, Wikipedia and Google, among others, are cited as examples of open technologies/products. In the paper by Armbrüster and Gebert, I would therefore be interested to know whether an open organization is a mandatory or supporting condition for the development of such products? (MaBe)
- The question I am facing here is if Popper's suggestions of an open society lead to a loss of traditions and customs in communities? (DeRe)
- Popper calls for equal opportunities in an open society, which can only be guaranteed by a bureaucracy. At this point I asked myself the following: To what extent does bureaucracy guarantee equal opportunities without being subjective? (KaWe)
- The article mentions that openness is a necessary condition for change and development, but is endangered by perceived hardships. To me, this raises the following question: Is it possible for organisations to be open to new things without endangering this openness? (BaWe)
- How can we ensure, according to Popper´s theory about openness in societies, that marginalised and underrepresented groups are not excluded from the conversation in this open society? (TaBü)
- How can the insights from Karl Popper's concept of the "open society" be practically implemented within modern organizations, and what are the potential barriers to achieving such implementation? (MeSa)
- What could be possible mechanisms organizations can use to mitigate or solve the problems that come with open organizations? I´m thinking especially of the so-called "human needs" like harmony, consensus, sense making, and "law and order" and how these can be fulfilled in an open organization. (PaHe)
- As mentioned briefly in the text Popper was characterized by the social and political development of his time (World-War I&II and National Socialism). No doubt, it was a special and horrible time, but it seems like philosophers always criticize the current system and write about another society or political system that would be better. Since that time our world and society has changed a lot and a some of Poppers ideas of an Open Society have become real. But was he satisfied about it, when e.g. the evolution of the internet made his ideas feasible? Did he develop new or additionally ideas about it? Have there been negative sides he never thought about in the first place? What happend after his death to his theories? Have there been other theories based on his ''The Open Society and Its Enemies'' ? (LeTi)
- To what extent is there empirical evidence today that supports the authors' argument for applying Popper's ideas to organizational research? (AnHe)
- Is Karl Popper's concept of an open society a relevant framework for understanding modern organizations? (JoKa)
- In the context of organizational research, how can corporate researchers balance the pursuit of knowledge with the responsibility to contribute to the common good, as advocated by Karl Popper's concept of an open society?(NaRa)
