Making graphic management models smarter

In management, graphic models are an undervalued and poorly used form of theory-building and communication that should be treated with the same rigor that is commonly demanded of text. Graphic models are highly effective for depicting and explaining organizational complexity when designed appropriately. Using two mutual influence models in accountability as an example, we point out common flaws in modelling, and suggest guidelines on how to make graphic models smarter.

[1]  M. Knight.  Writing and Other Communication Standards in Undergraduate Business Education: A Study of Current Program Requirements, Practices, and Trends , 1999 .

[2]  K. Weick.  The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[3]  A. Staats.  Unifying Psychology Requires New Infrastructure, Theory, Method, and a Research Agenda , 1999 .

[4]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[5]  Marsha L. Bayless,et al.  Content of the Business Communication Course: An Analysis of Coverage , 1999 .

[6]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Organigraphs: drawing how companies really work. , 1999, Harvard business review.

[7]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives , 1995 .

[8]  C. Hempel,et al.  Studies in the Logic of Explanation , 1948, Philosophy of Science.

[9]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  Envisioning Information , 1990 .

[10]  M. Jones,et al.  The Use and Abuse of Graphs in Annual Reports: Theoretical Framework and Empirical Study , 1992 .

[11]  Randall S. Schuler,et al.  Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity: Integration of the Literature and Directions for Future Research , 1981 .

[12]  G. Yukl,et al.  Leadership in Organizations , 1981 .

[13]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1986 .

[14]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Chartjunk or goldgraph? Effects of persenataion objectives and content desirability on information presentation: effects of presentation objectives and content desirability on information presentation , 1999 .

[15]  Richard J. Klimoski,et al.  Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. , 1998 .

[16]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[17]  M. Knight.  Management Communication in US MBA Programs: The State of the Art , 1999 .

[18]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[19]  Jon Barwise,et al.  Heterogeneous logic , 1996 .

[20]  Jean Trumbo.  The Process of Critique in Visual Communication , 1997 .

[21]  Richard Laughlin,et al.  Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for “middle‐range” thinking , 1995 .

[22]  David A. Freedman,et al.  Statistics and the Scientific Method , 1985 .

[23]  Edward Tufte,et al.  Visual Explanations , 1997 .

[24]  Colin Ware,et al.  Information Visualization: Perception for Design , 2000 .

[25]  G. Kleinman,et al.  A Negotiation-Oriented Model of Auditor-Client Relationships , 2000 .

[26]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Statistical Graphics: Mapping the Pathways of Science , 2001 .

[27]  R. Kahn,et al.  Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. , 1965 .

[28]  Patricia Murranka,et al.  Developing a Competency-based Fundamentals of Management Communication Course , 1999 .

[29]  Mary Hesse,et al.  Models and analogies in science , 1970 .

[30]  Robert W. Keidel.  Seeing Organizational Patterns: A New Theory and Language of Organizational Design , 1995 .

[31]  Z. Pylyshyn.  Computation and cognition: issues in the foundations of cognitive science , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[32]  David A. Nadler,et al.  Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations , 1992 .

[33]  David W. Britt,et al.  A Conceptual Introduction To Modeling: Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives , 1997 .

[34]  David R. Maines,et al.  Conceptual Modeling as a Toolbox for Grounded Theorists , 2001 .