This study explores the legal implications of organisational theory, focusing on how different theoretical models inform management practices and compliance strategies. By utilising a systematic overview, the research analyses the application of various theories to enhance legal compliance and organisational governance. Key findings reveal that theories such as complexity, chaos, autopoietic, dialectical change, integral, and metaphorical analysis offer valuable insights for developing adaptive, flexible, and context-specific legal frameworks. These frameworks are crucial for managing unpredictability, fostering internal compliance systems, resolving organisational conflicts, and promoting holistic legal approaches. The study concludes with recommendations for aligning organisational theory with legal frameworks to support sustainable and compliant business environments, while also highlighting areas for future research, including industry-specific applications and the impact of emerging legal trends on compliance practices.
References
[1]
Acharya, V. V., & Richardson, M. (2009). Restoring Financial Stability: How to Repair a Failed System. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118258163
[2]
Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A Dialectical View. AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,22, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391741
[3]
Binns, R. (2017). Data Protection Impact Assessments: A Meta-Regulatory Approach. InternationalDataPrivacyLaw,7, 22-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw027
[4]
Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity Theories and Organisational Change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7, 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00107.x
[5]
Cilliers, P. (2002). Complexityand Postmodernism:Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge.
Cornelissen, J. P., Oswick, C., Thøger Christensen, L., & Phillips, N. (2008). Metaphor in Organizational Research: Context, Modalities and Implications for Research—Introduction. OrganizationStudies,29, 7-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607086634
[8]
Dooley, K. J. (2004). Complexity Science Models of Organizational Change and Innovation. In M. S. Poole, & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), HandbookofOrganizationalChangeandInnovation (pp. 354-373). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195135008.003.0012
[9]
Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2009). An Overview of Integral Theory:An All-Inclusive Frameworkforthe21st Century. Integral Institute Resource Paper No. 1.
[10]
Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2017). AComplexityApproachtoSustainabilityA: Theory and Application (Vol. 5). World Scientific (Europe). https://doi.org/10.1142/q0060
[11]
Financial Reporting Council (2024). UKCorporateGovernanceCode2024. https://media.frc.org.uk/documents/UK_Corporate_Governance_Code_2024_ofM100g.pdf
[12]
Gleick, J. (2015). Chaos:MakingaNewScience. The Folio Society.
[13]
Hall, W. P., & Nousala, S. (2010, June). Autopoiesis and Knowledge in Self-Sustaining Organizational Systems. In The 4thInternationalMulti-ConferenceonSociety,CyberneticsandInformatics:IMSCI2010.
[14]
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A Collective Action Model of Institutional Innovation. AcademyofManagementReview,31, 864-888. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527458
Levy, D. (1994). Chaos Theory and Strategy: Theory, Application, and Managerial Implications. StrategicManagementJournal,15, 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250151011
[17]
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Problems in the Neurophysiology of Cognition. In H. R. Maturana, & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and Cognition (pp. 41-47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4_5
[18]
McMillan, E. (2008). Complexity, Management andthe Dynamics of Change:Challengesfor Practice. Routledge.
[19]
Morgan, G. (2006). ImagesofOrganization. Sage Publications.
[20]
Oswick, C., & Montgomery, J. (2016). Images of an Organisation: The Use of Metaphor in a Multinational Company. ImagesofanOrganization,26, 772-792.
[21]
Profiroiu, M., Kaneko, H., Vlad, C., Dutescu, A., & Ishida, H. (2020). Toyota Motor Corporation’s Culture Strategy. ReviewofInternationalComparativeManagement,21, 458-489.
[22]
Schwaninger, M. (2001). Intelligent Organizations: An Integrative Framework. SystemsResearchandBehavioralScience,18, 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.408
[23]
Seo, M., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective. TheAcademyofManagementReview,27, 222-247. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134353
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. AcademyofManagementReview,36, 381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330958
[27]
Stacey, R. D., & Mowles, C. (2016). StrategicManagementandOrganisationalDynamics:TheChallengeofComplexitytoWaysofThinking about Organisations. Pearson Education.
[28]
Tohidian, I., Rahimian, H., & Nisar, T. (2019). Bringing Morgan’s Metaphors in Organization Contexts: An Essay Review. CogentBusiness&Management,6, Article ID: 1587808. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1587808
[29]
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for Organizational Adaptability: A Theoretical Synthesis and Integrative Framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
Wallis, S. (2010). Emerging Perspectives of Metatheory and Theory: A Special Issue of Integral Review. IntegralReview,6, 73-120.
[32]
Wilber, K. (2000). IntegralPsychology:Consciousness,Spirit,Psychology,Therapy. Shambhala Publications.
[33]
Zeleny, M. (1981). Autogenesis: On the Self-Organization of Life. In M. Zeleny (Ed.), Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organization (pp. 89-115). Elsevier.
