[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# Sameness, Otherness? Enriching Organizational Change Theories with Philosophical Considerations on the Same and the Other

## Details

**Authors** Durand and Calori

**Year** 2006

**Publisher** Academy of Management Review

**Discipline** Sociology

[Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379626) 
10.5465/amr.2006.19379626

## In authors' words

### Abstract

Our objective is to discuss, in the organizational change literature, the recurring use of what we call the “sameness principle,” along with another principle, inspired by contemporary philosophy and somehow present in the organizational ethics literature, called “otherness.” We review four classic organizational change approaches, underscore the limitations of the sameness principle, and position otherness relative to current organizational ethics literature. We then emphasize the role of powerful agents within the organization as potential conveyors of otherness and deduce propositions that relate these agents' posture to the observable type of organizational change processes.

### What they set out to do (purpose)

Explored the "sameness" and "otherness" principle.

### What they found (results)

The sameness principle has limitations which are mostly brought about by the "lack" of the other. The other was used in the form of "another me" and was used primarliy as a perspective, rather than in our use of identity and other. The otherness principle however, brought the organizations into a place of reality. Seeing the other reduced marginizalization and gives more power to the organizations to change.

## Commentary

### In short

The relationship between sameness and otherness is absolutely essential to the functioning of an organization. Without both principles working in tandem with each other there will always be limitations in the pursuit of organizational change.

### In more detail

This notion of identity and other was expanded to principles within organizational change efforts by Durand and Calori (2006). They explored the “sameness principle” and the “otherness principle” within organizational change. The Sameness principle is defined by the assumption that certain significant

traits and characteristics of an organization remain during times of change for organizations. This principle has limitations, many of which are due to the lack of an “other.” Even when the concept of an other is used, it’s used as “another me.” This is not allowing the thinker to get at the depth of what a true “other” can do. By framing the other using themselves as the point of view, they are just turning the other into another identity. This is not nearly as productive as an actual other to solving problems.

As a result, Durand and Calori introduced the otherness principle, defined as “what derives from the encounter with others and induces changes in an entity.” Working with the concept of an “other” is significant for organizations, as not recognizing the other in your organization can lead to marginalization of people and ideas. This is why Durand and Calori concluded that the relationship between sameness and otherness is absolutely essential to the functioning of an organization. Without both principles working in tandem, they warn that there will always be limitations in the pursuit of organizational change.

C.2: Distinctions are shaped by the Other Originally in Titchener, E.B. (1902), the Ebbinghaus illusion or “Titchener circles'' is an optical illusion in which the perceived size of a circle changes relative to the size and proximity of the other circles surrounding it. This means that the identity of the center circle is not only dependent on the characteristics of the central circle itself, but is intimately entwined with the other circles that surround it.

sizes.

Much like the circles, text and context have a similar relationship, as the meaning of a word or phrase is dependent on its context (or surrounding text). In other words, text gets its meaning internally from how it is defined (in a dictionary, for example) but also externally from its context. Yet, this context is not an amorphous cloud of meaning generating ether. The context itself is just more text. This can be seen in the imaginary text passages below. In this example, blue is the text being defined (i.e., the identity) and the yellow is the contextualizing text (i.e., the other). Note that the text in Passage B is merely part of the context in Passage A and vice versa (shown in green). In the second row of Table 2 you see an specific example using a homonym "rose" which can have different meanings depending on its context.

**Patterns it shows** D

**How to cite this** Durand and Calori (2006). Sameness, Otherness? Enriching Organizational Change Theories with Philosophical Considerations on the Same and the Other. Academy of Management Review.