The octograph and the delight of understanding organizational artistry

How to enjoy social interaction and stimulate job performance?

Abdel Magid Al-Araki 1
  • 1 Oslo Metropolitan University, , Oslo, Norway


This paper proposes the Octograph, a cube-like model of leadership and organizational performance. Eight concepts, placed on eight corners of the cube, create eight triangular models and four processes of Decision-making, Communication, Production and Innovation. The eight concepts are nested together through one-arrowed dependency lines. Saying «Leadership» depends more on «employees» than vice versa, presupposes causal explanations of the how and why of the dependency.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Adams, M. 2006. Hybridizing Habitus and Reflexivity: Towards an Understanding of Contemporary Identity? Sociology, Volume 40(3): 511–528.

  • Al-Araki, A. M. 2005a. The Octograph and E-Learning by Labyrinth-Cases. International Journal on E-Learning, 4(3): 281–298.

  • Al-Araki, A. M. 2015. Models of Intercultural Communication: Identities, Styles of Acculturation, and Premises for Enjoying the Company of One Another—Empirical Data From the Public Sector in Norway. Sage Open: 1-13.

  • Al-Araki, M. 2005b. The Octograph and E-Learning by Labyrinth-Cases. International Journal on E-Learning, 4(3): 281–298.

  • al-Araki, M. 2006a. The octograph with cases in organization development and project management, leadership and human resource management. [Oslo]: Oslo University College, Faculty of Business.

  • al-Araki, M. 2006b. Oktografen en modell for forståelse av organisasjonens ansvarsområder og virksomhetsprosesser. Oslo: Høgskolen i Oslo.

  • Al-Araki, M. 2011. Oktografen: prosesser, ansvar, etikk og endringslogikk. [Oslo]: Høgskolen i Oslo.

  • Anderson, P. 1999. Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science, 10(3): 216–232.

  • Andrew, G. 1965. An Analytic System Model for Organization Theory. The Academy of Management Journal, 8(3): 190-198.

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1974. Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Beer, M. 1980. Organization change and development: a systems view. Santa Monica, Calif.

  • Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133-141.

  • Benson, S. G., & Dundis, S. P. D. J. 2003. Understanding and motivating health care employees: integrating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, training and technology. Journal of Nursing Management(11): 315–320.

  • Bergsma, H. a. K. p., Tomáš. 2013. The Octograph in the Triangular perspective Organisational Development and Project Management, Term-Paper 2013: 22.

  • Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. 2006. Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 577-594.

  • Bertalanffy, L. v. 1950. An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science(1): 134-165.

  • Bion, W. R. 1961. Experiences in Groups and other papers. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.

  • Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. 1992. A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change. Journal of Management, 18(3): 523.

  • Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. 2013. Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A Review and Re-evaluation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4): 408-425.

  • Burns, P. 2007. Entrepreneurship and small business (2nd ed.). Basingstoke England ; New York: Palgrave.

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

  • Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. 2008. On reference models for collaborative networked organizations. International Journal of Production Research, 46(9): 2453-2469.

  • Clarke, N. 2005. Workplace Learning Environment and its Relationship with Learning Outcomes in Healthcare Organizations. Human Resource Development International, 8(2): 185 – 205.

  • Cummings, T. G. 1980. Systems theory for organization development. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Cunha, K. M., & Sholl-Franco, A. 2016. COGNITION AND LOGIC: ADAPTATION AND APPLICATION OF INCLUSIVE TEACHING MATERIALS FOR HANDS-ON WORKSHOPS. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16: 696-700.

  • Davis, P. S., & Peri, T. L. 2002. Measuring Organizational Efficiency and Effectiveness. Journal of Management Research (09725814), 2(2): 87.

  • Dennis, M. C. 2014. Organizational Change Model in a Geometric Framework. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), 5(4): 51-78.

  • Dolson, M. S. 2005. The Role of Dialogue, Otherness and the Construction of Insight in Psychosis: Toward a Socio-Dialogic Model. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 36(1): 75-112.

  • Gilbert, A. H. 1928. Notes on the Influence of the Secretum Secretorum. Speculum, 3(1): 84-98.

  • Giltinane, C. L. 2013. Leadership styles and theories. Nursing Standard, 27(41): 35-39.

  • Hébert, M. 2014. Growing Yourself: Enlightened Leadership Through Personal Transformation. IDEA Fitness Journal, 11(5): 76-79.

  • Ibn, K., & al-Araki, M. 2012a. Al-muqaddimah : boken om lærdommene, med en introduksjon til verdens historie. Oslo: Pax.

  • Ibn, K., & al-Araki, M. 2012b. Al-Muqaddimah : boken om lærdommene, med en introduksjon til verdens historie : I : I. Oslo: Bokklubben.

  • Jonathan, R. B., Halbesleben, M., Ronald, B., Harvey, M. G., & Novicevic, M. M. 2006. Promoting Ethical Corporate Behavior in a Global Context. Journal of the North American Management Society, 1(1): 31-39.

  • Kennedy, C. W. 1987. A Suggested Model for Simplifying the Increasing Complexity of Organization and Management Theory.

  • Kornmeier, J., Wörner, R., Riedel, A., & Tebartz van Elst, L. 2017. A different view on the Necker cube—Differences in multistable perception dynamics between Asperger and non-Asperger observers. PLoS ONE, 12(12): 1-14.

  • Korunka, C., & Vitouch, O. 1999. Effects of the implementation of information technology on employees’ strain and job satisfaction : a context-dependent approach. Work & Stress, 34(4): 341–363.

  • Lawrence. P. R., L. J. W. 1969. Developing organizations: Diagnosis and action. MA.: Addison-Westey.

  • Leavitt, H. J. 1964. Applied organization change in industry: structural, technical, and human approaches: S. 55-71. New York: John Wiley.

  • Luhmann, N. 1985. Social systems (J. J. Bednarz, & D. Baecker., Trans.). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

  • Luhmann, N. 1990. Essays on self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. 2004. A Review of Instruments Assessing Creative and Innovative Environments Within Organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1): 119–140.

  • Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Morel, B., & Ramanujam, R. 1999. Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: The Dynamics of Organizations as Adaptive and Evolving Systems. Organization Science, 10(3): 278-293.

  • Morton, K. L., Barling, J., Rhodes, R. E., Mâsse, L. C., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. 2011. The Application of Transformational Leadership Theory to Parenting: Questionnaire Development and Implications for Adolescent Self- Regulatory Efficacy and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(5): 688-709.

  • Ostroff, C., & Rothausen, T. J. 1997. The moderating effect of tenure in person-environment fit: A field study in educational organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology(70): 173–188.

  • Pascale, R. A. 1981. The art of Japanese management. New York: Warner Books.

  • Pillow, W. S. 2003. Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2): 175–196.

  • Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S., Beck, T. E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M., & Travis, D. V. 2007. The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4): 341-356.

  • Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. 2013. Relationships among Coach Leadership, Peer Leadership, and Adolescent Athletes’ Psychosocial and Team Outcomes: A Test of Transformational Leadership Theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25(2): 265-279.

  • Probst, B., & Berenson, L. 2013. The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers use reflexivity. Qualitative Social Work.

  • Reddin, W. J. 1967. The 3-D Management Style Theory. Training & Development Journal, 21(4): 8.

  • Rockart, J. F., & Short, J. E. 1991. The Networked Organization and the Management of Interdependence: 212–215. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Sheng-Min, L. I. U., & Jian-Qiao, L. 2013. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SPEAKING UP: POWER DISTANCE AND STRUCTURAL DISTANCE AS MODERATORS. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal, 41(10): 1747-1756.

  • Steel, R. 2000. Culture and Complexity: New Insights on Organisational Change. Organisations & People, 7(2): 2–9.

  • Steel, R. 2001. Anxiety and incompetence in the large group: A psychodynamic perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(5): 493–504.

  • Sternberg, R. J. 2003. WICS: A Model of Leadership in Organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(4): 386-401.

  • Tichy, N. M. D. M. A. 1986. The rransfonnational leader. New York: Wiley.

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. 2006. Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. Journal of Management(32): 951–990.

  • Tulloch, D. L., & Epstein, E. 2002. Benefits of Community MPLIS: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Equity. Transactions in GIS, 6(2): 195.

  • Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. 1973. Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Wallner, J. 2008. Legitimacy and Public Policy: Seeing Beyond Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3): 421-443.

  • Yukl, G. A. 2006. Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

  • Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. 2011. The effect of authentic transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5): 801-817.


Journal + Issues

Open Economics is a peer-reviewed, open-access e-journal. It covers all areas of economics, presenting original quantitative and qualitative research and review articles. We are open to new ideas and interdisciplinary research, such as economics of science, game theory, economics of crime and more.