The conceptual range of organizations from a differentiating perspective in their scope and objectives

Abstract

The academy enjoys certain privileges by remaining a key piece to underpin the knowledge that it is capable of sharing and teaching. There are other circles in management and creativity such as research and trade groups of organizations. Together, they mention pronouns indistinctly to identify these entities of activity that in a certain sense revolve around a structural dynamism with defined objectives. The purpose of this document is to be and make the differentiator of the indiscriminate number of pronouns for the use not only colloquial discursive, journalistic or academic, and other scenarios, but also to serve to delimit the content and meet the conditions to be called such organizations with generic pronouns. To agree on some terms, it is necessary to contemplate the theoretical, conceptual and, if possible, hermeneutical singularity so that the daily use of each pronoun from organizations is strengthened or differentiates one from the other, and in their use, regardless of the circle or level of understandable interaction. In such a way that the classic generalities such as a public, governmental or parastatal organization, as well as intergovernmental, are not confused in their assessment. Thus, generalities must endure differences until they reach new concepts such as gazelle organizations or Unicorns, taking this as an example, which starts from generality until reaching singularities or particularities of new concepts that are impacted by technology or organizational evolution in their scope.