EURASIAN JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

,


Introduction
offers a critical perspective for organizations and organizational theory without judging and uses the concept of pandemonium as a metaphor for human life and its organization.This metaphor offers the opportunity to look at organizations from a different perspective positioned in different periods.In fact, pandemonium is an organizational journey made within the time period considered.In this direction, Burrell (1997) sees the pandemonium as a shelter and emphasized that it is important to put science in the center of our perspective of the types of management and organization.At the same time, pandemonium focuses on an assumption which avoids linearity that includes old and new within the complex structures.As a proof of such an assumption, it is thought that the pandemonium metaphor will help us understand the modern, symbolic and postmodern periods in the field of organizational theory (Burrell, 2015).
Organization theory for the last hundred years has become a specific and unique social science discipline as a body of thinking and writing that tries to understand, define and explain what is happening in organizations and sometimes to influence the events discussed.At the same time, it can be stated that organization theory has reached a very rich and diverse situation in the last two decades due to the perspectives and approaches used by organizational theorists to examine this specific social phenomenon that affects and examines many aspects of our lives (McAuley et al. 2007).In addition, codes used and discourses developed to understand today's organizations are seen as valid features in understanding structures and functioning in the past.At this point, it is thought that the discourses developed about organizations depend on the rigidity and attitudes of the theories from the past.Therefore, the analysis of the developed discourses is seen as an important tool for dealing with symbolic and postmodern ways of thinking where linearity is not accepted (Burrell, 1997).
Social sciences have recently been experiencing a period of self-analysis and selfdoubt, in which the traditional discourses of liberal academic discourse such as reason, logic, reason and progress fall under a renewed critical thought.Accordingly, discourses concentrate around two epistemological positions.These discourses, within the framework of modernism, take place around the critical questioning of postmodernism with its belief in the fundamental capacity of humanity and its perfection with the power of rational thought, and its direct rejection of the ethnocentric rationalism often defended by modernism.Therefore, these discourses offer important implications for our understanding of the role and nature of organizations in the modern world, and that the entire process of modernization should be radically re-evaluated.In this context, we can say that organizational theory reveals an understanding from the existence of organization as a limited managerial and economic function to its formative role in the production of rational systems (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).On the other hand, it can be stated that organizational theory started to gain a different level of meaning around the issues of modernism and postmodernism.However, in the context of the pandemonium metaphor, it is possible to say that new conceptualizations in different periods gave the users feeling of transcending the limits of their discipline.In this respect, it is possible to state that the meanings to be attributed to metaphorical arguments are worth to consider (Burrell, 1994).
This study examines the organizations that emerged due to the interaction of modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches in the field of organizational theory in the pandemonium axis and the subjects on which organizational theory focuses on.In this direction, the main purpose of the study is to analyze the fundamental philosophical differences that constitute modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches and their effects on organizations and organizational theory in the context of epistemology, ontology, metaphor, nature of information, and pandemonium metaphor.Accordingly, it was agreed to deal with the information obtained about the pandemonium metaphor in general.Then, it is thought that it will be useful to examine organizational theories in the context of modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches.In this direction, modern, symbolic and postmodern organizational theories were examined together with their basic assumptions epistemologically and ontologically and tried to be explained by analyzing them within the framework of the pandemonium metaphor developed by Burrell (1997).Burrell (1997) described the concept of pandemonium as a shelter and metaphorically expressed an organizational journey about human life and its organization within this shelter.(Burrell, 2015).In fact, pandemonium is a form of analysis that is taken as a large city and questions the functioning of organizations and organizational theories.In this study area, pandemonium is addressed as a metaphor to question organizations and the subjects that organizational theories focus on in the axis of modern, symbolic and postmodern periods.Thus, in the context of organizational research, pandemonium metaphor is tried to be evaluated as a meaningful whole within the framework of organizations and organizational theories by associating it with all components.

"Pandemonium" metaphor
In the field of organizational theory, it is possible to choose the appropriate method with the help of various metaphors by conducting research with positivist epistemology and other similar approaches.However, within the scope of organizational theory to capture the range of epistemological positions and within the framework of organizational research; it is possible to present various positivist, critical, phenomenological, constructivist, interpretative, feminist, and postmodern perspectives (Buchanan and Bryman, 2007).In this context, one of the indicators that reveal the existential importance of organizations is that organizations are increasingly considered as a source of social system that ensures the functioning of society.Therefore, most of the assets of the society are managed and controlled by organizations (Pfeffer, 1997).Especially in recent years, it has been observed that there is an increasing theoretical level of pluralism in the organizational theory literature, partly reflecting an increased awareness of the complexity of organizations and partly the interests of organizational theorists.On the one hand, this helps researchers uncover new aspects of organizational life and deepen their critical research.On the other hand, at the theoretical level, pluralism encourages excessive theoretical segmentation and overlooks the ways in which various schools of thought are related, focusing on the different ways of thinking that underlie the major debates that structure contemporary organizational theory (Astley and Van de Ven, 1983).At this point, the conceptualization of organizational theory is based on the assumption of insights developed on epistemological and methodological foundations.Thus, as Latour (1988) stated, for a branch of science to be successful, the acting network generally tends to develop, and whether the field can develop fully as a discipline depends on hard work and political common sense among its guides.In this respect, it can be said that the first organizational theorists served a very important political purpose conditionally (Burrell, 1997).When we look at the management and organization behaviors in the axis of the Pandemonium metaphor, we can say that science exhibits a structural feature placed at the center.Science wants to obtain results by applying its dynamic features into a stationary structure.In this context, there are conceptualization efforts in order to examine the dynamics of corporate life in detail (Burrell, 1997).In fact, pandemonium is discussed here as a metaphor that represents a shelter and an organizational journey.In this context, with the pandemonium metaphor, there is a tendency to contribute to organizational theory in terms of developing a narrative, making inferences, making arguments and making suggestions for the result by staying within the boundaries of academic discourse (Burrell, 1997).
In addition to all these, pandemonium is a metaphor that tries to shed light on different periods in the field of organization theory, is in search and has different linguistic codes.In this respect, pandemonium offers a form of analysis that questions the progress and logic in the field of organizational theory and states that the importance of forming linear arguments should be reduced.Therefore, pandemonium can be considered as an important metaphor that helps us to understand modern and postmodern periods (Burrell, 1997).In this context, the dominant form of postmodern organizational analysis seems to overlook the deep tasks advocated by Foucault (1972), Derrida (1976), and Lyotard (1979), advocates of constant resistance to all established modes of thought and power relations, including those who establish organization as representation in a social practice and analytical inquiry.In contrast, most postmodern organizational analysis and explanatory approaches ultimately focus their attention on the traditional tasks of organizational problem solving for the established power elite.It can be argued that these orientations have historically led to the development of more conscious and distinctive styles abstracted from all kinds of materiality (Casey, 2002).In other words, the pandemonium metaphor is generally concerned with the back or invisible part of human life, that he strives to make supervision a focal point in his organizational theory, and it tends towards attempts that focus on the analysis of typical organizational life (Burrell, 1997).

Relation of organizational theory with modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches
Perspectives and paradigms in the field of organizational theory provide guidance on how researchers should approach the issues and conduct their research and present differences in preference.Accordingly, three perspectives dominated the field of organization theory especially in the last 50 years, as modern, symbolic and postmodern.These three perspectives surround the discussion of all concepts and themes to be presented in the context of different approaches (Hatch, 2018).The concept of modernism has concrete, precise, difficult to understand and contradictory aspects, which are the way it is used in different contexts.In this respect, modernism is used to describe a compelling and exciting world of order and rationality, and on the other hand it was used to describe an over-controlled world (McAuley et al. 2007).A symbolic (interpretive) discourse sees individuals who create meaning as co-creators of social structures, as participants who use ethnographic and hermeneutical methods to construct local meanings based on social and organizational practices.A postmodern discourse focuses on the role of language in the structured and polyphonic nature of social reality.(Buchanan and Bryman, 2007).Therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the relationship of organizational theory with these three periods as a whole in conceptual framework.Accordingly, the relationship of organizational theory with modern, symbolic and postmodern periods is shown in Figure 1.

Organizational theory and modern period
The periods covering the 1970s and 1980s in organizational research include modern and symbolic studies of organizational theory.Accordingly, the period covering the 1960s and 1970s is called the modern period, while the studies covering the 1980s are called the symbolic period (Hatch, 2013).In this context, researchers of that period working in the field of organization as a field of study that started to develop especially from the 1960s and 1970s and called the modern period in organizational research were Bertalanffy (1950), Trist andBamforth (1951), Boulding (1956), March and Simon (1958), Woodward (1958), Burns and Stalker (1961), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Thompson (1967).These researchers have benefited from the fields of political science, biology, ecology and social psychology in their research (Hatch, 2013).Historically, modernist organizational theory has its roots in the "European Enlightenment project" dating back to the 18th century.Enlightenment is, in essence, an intellectual and creative movement about a new understanding of humanity.It claims that people can be free from the authority of monarchies and the irrational power of religion.We can use our power of mind to obtain a correct understanding of ourselves, society and the natural world through science (McAuley et al. 2007).Therefore, the concept of modernism expresses the ideology and lifestyle in which the mental transformation that came with the Enlightenment Age was experienced, an anthropocentric and anthropocentric world view that liberates human beings and makes science the focal point (Erdemir, 2013).
In this context, modernism is expressed as self-discovery, instead of seeing oneself as a reflection of God or nature (Cooper and Burrell, 1998).Modernity is not just change or a chain of events; it is the dissemination of the products of rational, scientific, technological, and administrative activity.That is why modernity includes the increasing differentiation of various parts of social life (Touraine, 1995).In the modern period, studies have regarded organizations as systems organized according to the principles of rationality and efficiency that function in the real world.The main point of these studies was to develop universal laws, methods, and techniques about organizations (Sigri, 2017).The modern perspective defines the antecedents or consequences of the relevant phenomenon, as well as the factors that regulate or change the relationships between them.It produces theories with this definition that offer the necessary deterministic explanation.In a way, modernist theory tries to examine the factors that change the relationship between social structure and organizational performance (Hatch, 2018).In this context, it can be said that the basic discourse of modernism is transmissive in that it sees language as a means of expressing something other than itself.In other words, Lyotard (1984) modernism; dialectic is considered as a meta-discourse that legitimizes by referring to some grand narratives such as the interpretation of meaning, the liberation of the rational or working subject.However, it can be said that modernism is instructive in this sense by putting the answer in front of the question by implying an existing answer to questions by a mind formed within the framework of existing criteria.Thus, it is possible to say that modernism goes the way of controlling by integrating (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).

Organizational theory and the symbolic (interpretive) period
Researchers who were guiding in the field of organization in the symbolic period when organizational research was dealt with intensively in the 1980s were Schutz (1932), Whyte (1943), Herskovitz (1948), Selznick (1948), Goffman (1959), Berger and Luckmann (1966), Weick (1969), Geertz (1973).In the symbolic period, cultural anthropology, folklore studies and linguistics were used in the field of organizational theory (Hatch, 2013).In the studies carried out in the symbolic period, organizations have become cultural assets that contain values and approaches that can be produced and transformed with the participation of all their members, rather than being the facts that we can produce generally valid information about every society and culture with universal validity (Tasci, 2013;Ilhan, 2019).
In the studies conducted in the field of organizational theory in the symbolic period, subjectivism was taken as a basis when examining the organization, it was seen that the main actor in the production of knowledge was the perspective of the interpreter, and organizations were considered as entities that are constantly structured through interaction.The focal point of these symbolic period studies is the assumption that people can interpret organizations depending on certain conditions and contents (Sigri, 2017).However, symbolic perspective is the realities that are part of the interpretations themselves, examinations of symbolic researchers and how they examine it.In other words, the symbolic perspective produces the realities of a symbolic social life that permeates all organizations together with the interpretation and interpretation processes.Symbolic researchers associate interpretive phenomena such as meaning, symbols, and culture with organization theory.It is considered that, with this association, the information about the phenomena and how it is processed leads to a better understanding of organizational practices and processes (Hatch, 2018).

Organizational theory and postmodern period
Researchers leading and guiding those working in organizational research in the postmodern period were Foucault (1972), Bell (1973), Jencks (1977), Derrida (1976), Lyotard (1979), Rorty (1980), Clifford and Marcus (1986), Baudrillard (1988).Postmodern architecture, literature, cultural studies and aesthetic philosophy were used in the organizational studies carried out in the postmodern period (Hatch, 2013).Organization theory has become a relatively young and rapidly developing field.Especially in this period, postmodernism has attracted organizational theorists since the late 1980s and early 1990s, such as Burrell (1988) ;Cooper, (1989); Cooper and Burrell, (1988) in Organization Studies (McAuley et al. 2007).However, the postmodern period represents a structure in which the meanings cannot remain fixed and independent realities cannot exist.The focus of organizational work in the postmodern period is to demolish ideologies in administrative terms and to develop new discourses in these studies (Sigri, 2017).Postmodern thought objects the great goals of modernism, holistic theories, absolute reality, standardized knowledge production, and rational planning of social structures (Erdemir and Koc, 2010).
The postmodern perspective includes a critical revision of ontological commitments from the existential ontology to being ontology.These relationships imply priority over reality as a processual, heterogeneous, and emerging configuration.This also means that we cannot perceive established social categories such as individuals and organizations as they are.Instead, accepted categories need to be examined and explained.Therefore, it is argued at the theoretical level that our focus is no longer on organizational features such as structure, culture and ethics, but the concept of organization itself has become a problematic focus (Chia, 1995).However, the basis of postmodern research is to challenge the content and form of dominant knowledge models.At the same time, the postmodern perspective is an effort to produce new forms of knowledge by breaking the boundaries of discipline and addressing those who are not represented in dominant discourses at different levels.In other words, we can say that postmodern approaches focus on organizational areas that have not traditionally been studied or areas that can be marginalized (McAuley et al. 2007).As a result of all these, modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives; it is possible to evaluate them as important social movements that affect the development of organization theory within the framework of the approaches they adopt.In this context, the general cross-level key concepts that explain the characteristics of perspectives in determining managerial and hence hegemonic thinking structures towards modern, symbolic, and nihilistic postmodern perspectives are summarized in Figure 2.

Pandemonium metaphor analysis as a method
At this stage, using the metaphor of pandemonium, an analysis was tried to be carried out within the scope of metaphor tools in the field of organization, organization research and therefore organizational theory.In this context, by establishing a relationship between the pandemonium and metaphor tools, an organizational analysis was conducted and inferences were made.The inferences obtained are based on organizational principles and research in the field of organizational theory, depending on both the pandemonium features and the features of the metaphorical tools.Within the scope of the research method; the study is a literature review and the analysis of the metaphor of "pandeonium" has been used as a method.Because metaphors are qualitative data that allow us to see the realities and multiple meanings of human experiences (Koro-Ljungberg, 2001).In this way, pandemonium can both be an important tool in understanding organizations and organizational theories, and act as an actor in the formation of organizational realities as a variable used in analyzing organizational theories.With the organizational inferences developed as a result of this analysis, a different perspective can be suggested to the field of organization theory.

Using as rhetorical tools
The feature of this approach is to work with metaphors and to take individual metaphors out of context without a systematic reconstruction.They are critically used as evidence of an opposite position (Schmitt, 2005).Pandemonium as a rhetorical tool is a shelter where linearity is not accepted.In this context, pandemonium associates the organization with a straight line.Organizational principles incorporate linearity in building designs in order to communicate instrumentally as it is used.Thus; it is subject to vertical and horizontal communication, order chain, information transfer, timelines and control periods (Burrell, 2015).

Being part of a research strategy
It is a research approach that recognizes metaphors as a part of the material to be analyzed and helps in the analysis of events, but benefits other theories and procedures in data analysis (Schmitt, 2005).At this point, pandemonium can be used as a part of the processes of linearity of thought systems, timelines, ranking of staff and acting in predictable ways as a part of the research strategy discussed (Burrell, 2015).

Defining qualitative research results
Qualitative research provides many heterogeneous pieces of information containing complex meaningful structures.Metaphors can be used to reduce this complexity to clearly structured patterns (Schmitt, 2005).Accordingly, pandemonium can be used to define the results of events in which ideas, problem determination, problem solving, and organizational and individual approaches are addressed in the time span (Burrell, 2015).

Defining qualitative research process
Presenting the results of qualitative research also proves that the research process is often a complex attempt.Therefore, the metaphors used in the research process provide a guide to researchers in their analysis and efforts (Schmitt, 2005).In this context, pandemonium is a scenario describing the rapid circulation of subjects and objects and related processes in the universe and consequently the development processes of all of them (Burrell, 2015).

Searching identified metaphors
Researchers try to guide themselves through metaphors that are determined to be central to a particular philosophy (Schmitt, 2005).In this respect, it is possible to mention the process of searching and determining metaphors within the current structure in which we operate.Pandemonium revealed a confusion which identified itself with the metaphor of language which was determined in its back streets prevailed towards the completion of the process of building society or organizations depending on the language spoken (Burrell, 2015).

Metaphors from participants
Another possible way to work with metaphors in qualitative research is to get them directly from research participants.Using this metaphorical transformation, valuable and surprising inferences can be obtained within the scope of research (Schmitt, 2005).Pandemonium is a metaphor whose structure can be solved in different ways by the participant.Therefore, they can be used as structures that can be restructured and formed by the obtained metaphors and developed new discourses (Burrell, 2015).In this context, different and questioning perspectives related to the metaphor obtained can be developed.

Analysis of Organizational Theory in the context of modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches
In every stage that occurred during the occurrence and development of the field of organizational theory; various practices were formed in modern, symbolic and postmodern periods, which were shaped with unique theories, principles, values and traditions.In this context, organizational theories include approaches that include systematic integrity to ensure order and increase efficiency in organizations that have been redesigned in the process depending on the environmental developments experienced in different periods.Therefore, the approaches suggested in organizational theory have deep traces of the mentality of that period (Zencirkıran, 2018).

Focus of Organizational Theory
The assumption that organizations are entities with definite boundaries The assumption that people can interpret organizations depending on certain conditions and contents The best assumption that there is no single organizational structure

Status of Knowledge
Scientific knowledge is legitimate.
The transformed knowledge that ensures the social order with the participation of all members is legitimate.
The exchange value of knowledge is important and legitimate to the extent that it works.

Organism Culture Collage
In line with this information, an analysis of organizational theory in the context of modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches was carried out.The differences between the modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches discussed within the scope of the study were determined and a comparison was made within the framework of their characteristics.Analysis was conducted in the context of the pandemonium metaphor according to different variables within the scope of these periods.Within the scope of the analysis; a comparison was made in terms of ontological, epistemological, organizational theory focusing on the pandemonium metaphor, state of knowledge and metaphor variables with three different approaches, modern, symbolic and postmodern.The model in Table 1 that shows the characteristics of the variables in terms of the periods has been obtained in this analysis.
Accordingly, within the scope of the analysis shown in Table 1; it has been determined that the modern approach is realism, the symbolic approach is interactionism and the postmodern approach is ontological approaches in the context of nominalism.In terms of epistemology; it has been determined that the modern approach is positivism, the symbolic approach is interactionism and the postmodern approaches are epistemological approaches in the context of anti-positivism.However, in terms of the focus of organizational theory, its analysis in the context of modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches differs according to periodic conditions.According to this, the focus of organization theory in the modern period is that organizations are based on the assumption that they are entities with certain boundaries.This assumption, which is obtained within the analysis, is based on the argument that the modern approach conceptualizes organizations as limited definite entities (Jaffee, 2001).In the symbolic period, the focus of organization theory is to obtain the assumption that people can interpret organizations depending on certain conditions and contents (Sigri, 2017).In the postmodern period, on the other hand, the focus of organization theory is based on the assumption that there is no single organizational structure obtained within the scope of analysis (Erdemir, 2013).
Modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches have been compared in the context of the Pandemonium metaphor.In this direction, as a result of the analysis of organizational theory with the metaphor of pandemonium, it was concluded that organizations have linear, symbolic and postmodern structures in the modern period and nonlinear structures in the postmodern period.In obtaining these results about linearity in the axis of the Pandemonium metaphor; while dealing with a linear structure and modern approaches in which the organization is associated with a straight line (Burrell, 1997), it is taken into consideration that it deals with objective and external reality without our knowledge and defends universal rules and methods regarding organizations (Sigri, 2017).On the other hand, we can say that there is a nonlinear structure in organizations in the symbolic and postmodern periods in the axis of the pandemonium metaphor.In this context, it is seen that statement of linearity kills (Burrell, 1997) is used within the framework of the pandemonium metaphor.Especially in the symbolic period, the fact that organizations have ceased to produce universally valid information and become cultural entities that produce values that can be transformed with the participation of all members (Tasci, 2013), shows the fact that nonlinear structures have been adopted in the pandemonium axis.Similarly, developing new discourses in which meanings cannot remain constant and independent realities cannot exist in the postmodern period (Sigri, 2017) supports the inference that linearity kills (Burrell, 1997).The state of knowledge, in other words, its nature differs from each other in modern, symbolic and postmodern periods.In the modern period, scientific knowledge is seen as legitimate.Accordingly, scientific knowledge in the modern approach is based on verification, falsification and evidence (McAuley et al. 2007).In the symbolic period, the knowledge that provides the social order and transforms with the participation of all members is legitimate.Therefore, knowledge legitimizes itself through the function of social unity in the symbolic period (McAuley et al. 2007).In the postmodern era, it can be said that exchange value of knowledge is seen as important and legitimate to the extent it works.In this context, postmodern approaches regard information as a commodity to be sold and emphasize efficiency as the criterion of legitimation (McAuley et al. 2007).
The analysis of modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives in the context of organizational theory has been associated with different concepts and discourses in terms of metaphor.In this context, it has been determined that the modern approach treats organizations as a metaphor in organism form.The reason why the modern perspective sees organizations as metaphors in organism form can be said that it stems from the fact that they treat organizations as a living system that can fulfill the necessary functions for their survival (Alpaslan Danışman, 2015: 50;Hatch, 2013).On the other hand, within the scope of the study, it was determined that the symbolic perspective sees and evaluates the organizations as a metaphor in the form of culture.Accordingly, the reason why symbolic perspective evaluates organizations as culture is possible to say that organizations originated from a pattern of meanings created and maintained with humanitarian sharing elements such as values, traditions, norms and customs (Alpaslan Danışman, 2015: 50;Hatch, 2013).Finally, it was determined that the postmodern perspective included in the analysis addresses organizations as a metaphor in the form of collage.Accordingly, the reason why postmodern perspective sees organizations as a collage metaphor can be explained that organizations are based on the metaphor argument of a collage made of pieces of knowledge and understanding (Alpaslan Danisman, 2015;Hatch, 2013) in order to reveal a new perspective that takes its roots from the past.

Conclusion
This study discusses the position of modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches in organizational theory in the axis of the pandemonium metaphor at the organizational level, organizations designed according to that position and the issues that organization theory focuses on.In line with the main purpose of the study; the main periodic differences that constitute modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches and their effects on organizations and organizational theory were analyzed in the context of epistemological, ontological, metaphor, state of knowledge and pandemonium metaphor.Therefore, it is aimed to present the organizational theory approaches to the discussion by analyzing them in the context of various variables, without highlighting any specific thought.In this context, the study has a structure based on scientific realism.Despite of the fact that it is not against empirical studies, it was developed to explain facts that are difficult to observe concretely.Within the scope of the research, it has been tried to analyze organization theory in terms of modern, symbolic and postmodern approaches depending on various variables.These approaches were examined in terms of the subjects that ontological, epistemological, organizational theories focus on, pandemonium, the nature of knowledge and metaphor variables, and inferences have been tried to be obtained based on scientific arguments.
Within the scope of the study, an analysis was performed based on Burrell (1997) and narratives were developed by making various inferences.In this context, as Burrell (1997) stated, pandemonium was taken as a large city and used as a form of analysis questioning the functioning of organizations and organizational theory.Accordingly, within the scope of the study, pandemonium addresses the topics that organizations and organizational theory focus on as a metaphor to be questioned by associating with all components along the axis of modern, symbolic and postmodern periods.The study in this way is aimed to contribute to the organizational theory thinking system.In the study, by conducting a theoretical literature review and applying pandemonium metaphor analysis as a method, it was ensured that we identify multiple meanings and make various inferences in terms of understanding organizations and the issues on which organizational theory focuses on and revealing organizational realities.The output of the study is the analysis conducted according to various variables in the theoretical framework depending on the organizational literature.Accordingly, as a result of the analysis of organization theory with the metaphor of pandemonium as a field of study within social sciences, it was concluded that organizations have fundamental philosophical differences and linear, symbolic, and postmodern structures in the modern period and nonlinear structures in the modern period.
The modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives discussed in the study are supported by different ontological and epistemological approaches.They show a linear structure in the axis of the pandemonium metaphor, supported by ontological and epistemological approaches in the form of modern perspective, realism and positivism.However, it has been concluded that associating with an organism metaphor for organizations, based on the assumption that they are entities with certain boundaries (Jaffee, 2001), to survive can be effective in the emergence of a linear structure in the modern period, in the context of the subject of the organization theory (Alpaslan Danisman, 2015;Hatch, 2013).
It was concluded that the symbolic perspective is supported by ontological and epistemological approaches in the form of interactionism and anti-positivism, and it displays a non-linear structural feature in the context of the pandemonium metaphor.At the same time, in the emergence of a non-linear structure in the symbolic period, it was concluded that it would be effective to associate the culture metaphor (Alpaslan Danisman, 2015;Hatch, 2013) which is based on the assumption that people can interpret organizations depending on certain conditions and contents (Sigri, 2017;Hatch, 2018).
Finally, it was determined that the postmodern perspective, which is another approach handled in the analysis, is supported by ontological and epistemological approaches in the form of nominalism and anti-positivism and exhibits a non-linear structural feature in the context of the pandemonium metaphor.At the same time, in the postmodern period, it is possible to say that associating the collage metaphor (Alpaslan Danisman, 2015;Hatch, 2013) which is based on the assumption that there is no single organizational structure in the context of organizational theory (Erdemir, 2013) is effective in the emergence of a nonlinear structure.As a result of all these, we can say that organizational theory exhibits different features depending on the modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives in the axis of the pandemonium metaphor while dealing with organizations.These features can be listed in the context of different perspectives as; organizations have linear or nonlinear structural features, the legitimacy of scientific knowledge and the changing value and transformation of knowledge, organism, the emergence of different formal metaphors as culture and collage, and the determination and interpretation of the boundaries of the structural features of the organization that organizational theory focuses on.