Journal on Policy and Complex Systems
edge we find Vienna . The two maps may be reasonably , indeed rigorously and objectively joined at that overlap .
We integrate maps because an integrated map is expected to be more complex , coherent , and complete than its component maps . Thus , each map may “ fill in the blanks ” of the other maps . And , the resulting map will provide a more useful guide to navigation , but in this case , a better understanding of organizational power systems . With that improved understanding , we may be able to design organizational systems that are successful and sustainable as organizations , and simultaneously support the development and fulfilment of their individual human citizens . Because those theories emerge from different traditions ( business , sociology , political science ), we may see this process of integration as an important work of interdisciplinary scholarship which accelerates the advancement of science ( Newell , 2007 ).
Begin by identifying those concepts which are most similar . For example , both employees and general populations experience “ fear .” Thus , fear is a concept that may be easily overlapped between models . Next , we look at concepts that are reasonably similar . For example , one model has “ trust ”, while another has “ trust across not-well connected departments .” These seem similar enough to see as an overlap — especially as the concepts are not mutually exclusive .
Some concepts may be reasonably identified as candidates for overlap based on the focus of the project .
Here , we are seeking to understand the similarities between businesses management and national management . So , for this case , “ workers ” and “ citizens ” might be reasonably overlapped . To help the reader find clarity among the many terms ( people , citizens , workers , leaders , etc .), we chose to identify each according to their position on the hierarchy or “ ladder .” Thus , in the integrated model , “ workers ” and “ population ” are identified as “ Low on the Ladder Individuals ( LLI ), while middle managers and low-level government officials are “ Middle Ladder Individuals ” ( MLI ), and the top echelon are the “ High Ladder Individuals ” ( HLI ).
It is also possible to identify overlaps where the concepts are essentially the opposite of one another . For example , where the Bureaucracy model talks about “ boundary spanning ” as a way to express collaboration , Deming talks about “ Adversarial relationships ” to describe conflict — or lack of collaboration .
In contrast , some concepts seemed not suitable for overlap . For example , “ exploitation of workers ” and “ exploitation of suppliers ” seemed ( based on the models and discussions within the text ) to represent very different situations . We recognize that an alternative interpretation might result in a more abstract map where the two are overlapped and re-labeled as “ exploitation .” Still , in general , we expect that other scholars following this process would arrive at a substantively similar map shown in Figure 6 .
188