Why study organization theory?

7/21/2019 Why study organization theory?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/why-study-organization-theory 1/31

Part

Wh.at

5

Organization

Theory

theorist

9 ~ n S [ n. a holder or inventorof a theory or theories.

theorizc /,araralz{ v.íntr. (also -be evoive or indulge in theories.

oc theorizer n.

theory ralan/ n. pI. -ies) t a supposition

or

system

of

ideas

explaining something. esp. one ha'sed on general principies

independent

of

he particular things

te be

explained (opp.

HYPo-

mEsls CIlOmic

I:htory; úu ry

of

twlutionl. 2

a specul.ative (esp.

fanciful) view

c= of

my

p

worUs .

3

the

sphere

of

bstr et

Jcnowledge

or

speculative thought

(thts

s

ll

vrry weIIln

theory

bul

howwill

t wori: in practict?). 4

the exposition ofthe principies

of

a science etc. (the

theory

of ,music). S MatIL a collection of

propositions to illustrate the principies of a subject proba1n1try

tJuory: luory of equations).

ll

theoritl f. Gle luiiria

f.

thclros spec

tator f. lulmo loolc at]

Oxford Encyclopedíc English Dietionary

1

Why Study

Organization

Theory

1

WANT

ro

admitsomethingro

you righru p fronr: mosr people are predisposed

ro dislike organization theory. Sorne think rhar theory

is

impractical and

over1y

academic. Others, espedally those who have never srudied

sodal sa

ence before, find ir exrreme1y difficulr. The very word "rheory" sounds preren

tious

or

intimidating ro many people, and "organization"

is

another horribly

abstract sounding rerm. Why nor business

or

fum

or

company? Pur

them

rogether and "organization theóry" sounds unb.earably dry and nor th e least bit

inviting-unless you

are one

ofthe

extreme1y rare people who come naturaliy ro

this subject matter. I wasn'r one of mose and, ro tell the truth, I didn't like orga

nization t heory when 1began

my

studies.

In

a way, rny initial disaifection with organization theory inspired this book.

Once I began using organization the ory in organizations and life in general, roy

experiences convinced

me

thar this fie1d of study opens up powerful ways of

thinking. Organi zation theo ry has he1ped me time and again ro analyze compli

cared situations

and

discover effective means of dealing with them. It has also

opened

my

mind ro many aspeets oflife, both inside and outside organizations,

tha r I previous1y

rook

fur granred. My amazemenr ar

how

re1evanr and valuabie

this subject

matter is

caused me ro reverse complerely my inítial opiníon of orga

nization

theory and

find enthusiasm for ir. T he contrast betwee n

my

inítial opin

ion and rny experience

usin

organization tbeory made me wanr ro write

this

book. Through it I

hope

ro share roy enthusiasm with you by he1ping you ro

dis-

cover the benefirs

and

arrractions

of

organization theory for yourself.

There ar e a few

more things

I should mention while we are ar

ir. One is

thar ir

is

somew hat ironic ro call tlús

fie1d

of srudy organizarion theory. While the name

organizatibn theory suggesrs thar there is omy

one-a

singular, inregrated,

3



What

s

Organization Theory

overarching truth aboue organizations-in

facr

rhere are many organization rhe-

ories and they do nor always

fir

neatly together. Sorne people see

chis

diversity

as

a stumbling block. for

an

academic discipline because, in their

view

if no

agreement on what we have to

offer

then we have nothing ro offer ar

a11.

Others

try

to

excuse

the

situation, arguing that organization theory is a very young field

that will eventually work

out

¡es differences and come around to the singulár per

specúve that (they believe) defines a mature academic discipline. 1

cake

an alto

gether different

view.

Along with a number of other organization theorises, 1

believe that organization theory always

has

been and always

will

be multiplici

tous because

ofthe

variety of other

fieJds of

studythat it draws on for inspiration

and because organízations cannot be explained by any single theory. J

Sorne

of

the influences from which organization theory draws inspiration are

displayed in Figure 1.1. The top part of the figure shows the academic disciplines

that have contributed to organization theory and the borrom part shows the

names

of

sorne of the major think.ers from these disciplines. Notice that these

influences range froro t he natural. and social sciences to the arts and humanities.

NoW;

1 acknowledge

that

it

is

a stretch to contemplate contributions from all

these different fields

of

knowledge,

but

1 ask you. where else will you grapple

with so many ideas? If like me, you are fascinated by ideas, then 1don t know any

other field of study that

will

present you wi th greater variety. Even if you aren t

particularly taken with ideas, the diversity of organization theory will teach you

flexibility and adaptiveness which can t

hurt

you in times of complexity and rapid

change like those we face as we enter the twenty-first century.

1should also explain the middle part ofFigure 1.1. The four boxes

label1ed

das

sical, moderno symbolic-interpretive, and postIDodern represent one way

of

sort

ing

out

sorne of the diversity that organization theory offers. These boxes

represent different perspecúves on organizations, each with distinguishable

assumptions. vocabularies, and, to sorne excent, theorises. In a

way

the boxes give

a sense

of

change over time

as

new influences on the field invite new theories

which become aligned

groups

of

ideas that seem to belong together.

Although there is a sequence to the development of these perspecúves, it .0 •

be a mistake ro think that newer perspecúves replace older ones. n organizanon ..

theory, perspectives accumulate, and over time they influence one another as

organization theoriststake inmore and more

of

the ideas thisfield

of

study offers.

J

This interacúon among perspectives produces continuous change which iS one

reason why it

is

so difficult to make a case for any particular way of sornng

.through the ideas and perspecúves of organizanon theory, induding the one 1

presented to you in Figure 1.1. However,

as

a newcomer to the field, you will

probably appreciate a litde order; most people find it useful to hear about how

others have come to terms with the diversity. This book

is

buile around the theme

4



.......

.

Culture

SllId

Llterary Theory

Poststrueturalist

Theo

.

Postmodem Architeeture

ry

Linguistics

Semiotics

Folklore

. Cultural Anthropology

Soaal Anthropology

. Industrial Sodology

BIOlogy-Ecology

Political $dence

Sodology

Engineering

Economics

19005

19505

19805

19905

SYMBOUC-

_C_L_ASS_I_CA_L

M_O_DE_R_N I__

INTERPRETIVE

POSTMODERN

Adam Smilh

(1776)

Herbert

Simon (19'5. 1958)

Alfn!d Schutz (i932)

art Ma", (1867)

Iale.tI Parsons (1951)

Michel

Foucault

(1972. 191'.

PhiUip Selznidc 19-l8

Emile Durkheim

(1893)

Alfred Gouldner (195')

Chartes

Jend,s (1977)

i

Peler

8erger

(1966)

F W Taylor (1911)

James

Marth (1958) Jacque.s Derrida

(1978.

Thornos

ludcmann

(1966)

Hen"

Fayo!

(1919)

MelviU. Dall.n

(1959)

Hikh.Jil

Sakhtin

(1981)

Max

Weber (192')

Qifford Geertz (1973)

Ludwi9

YOn Sertalanffy (1968)

J e a n F r a n ~ ¡ s

lyolard (1914:

Erving Goffman (1971)

WiUiam

Foote

Whyte (19'3)

(]¡esler Sorn.n! (1938)

Richard R.rty (1989)

Je.n BaudriUan! (1988)

Paul Ricoeur (1981)

Vladimir Propp (1828)

Robnd

Barthes (1972)

Ferdinand de

Saussu",

(1959)

Kennelh

Surb! (195')

FIGUliE 1.1.

SOURCES or INSPIRATION ro

ORGANIZATION THEORY

rhe boxe5 indicate four rnajor per5pectives on organízatio d fr

~ ~ : ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ : ~ ~ ~ o : ~ u = c : ~ ~ e d e ~ h 7 n ~ ~ ; e ~ : c t i : ~ : : : ~ : :

of their inftuential

think

Clp

es

are mdicated above the boxes and

sorne

th . .

ti.

. ers.are

mdicated

below. Notice

that

sorne

contributions predate

c i p ~ :

uence on orgaruzation theory indicating the lag in cornmunícations between dís-

l

of

multiple perspectives, and

what

1call

modero

symbolic-interprel:ÍVi d

modern perspectives will,

.

. e, an post

. . ID

parnrular, frame

our

díscussion as

we

work

through

u:

e

vanety of theones

and metaphoric

appredations of

org:ulizations

that

con.

SUtute the field of organization theory and the chapters of this book.

One

last issue ofintroduction. Until very

recend

.

took

the

view tha th

. Y

most

orgamzauon theonsts

.

eones

represent truth,

that

sorne do a

betterjob

than others

d

n that saence 15 ID

the business

of

dete

....... ; ~ ; ~

hich

th

. . ,

•••~

W eones

are the

most

What is Organization Theory?

accurate. From this modernist point of view, judgrnents about the--accuracy and

rruth of theories are based

on

empirical comparisons of the predictions of a

theory wit h relevant facts collected

abom

the world. Incorrect or e f i c I ~ t theo

ries can be identified

when

compared

ro

this empirica! evidence, and removed

from the collective body of knowledge. This describes the scientific method

developed

ro

its zenith in the natural sciences and applied dísdplines·like engi

neering and technology. Mode mist organization theor ists still hold

this

view.

1

One problem with testing organization theories in

this

way is that the phe

nomena

of

interest are

not

often direct1y verifiable.

That

is, what can be observed

is

far removed from the theoretical concepts and relationships that we want to

test. Consider the ex·ample of organizational performance. Theorists cannot

agree

about what

constitutes performance or

how

it should be measured. For

instance, should performance be defined as efficiency in production, market

share, s.trategic effectiveness, quality.

sodal

responsibility, ecologica! sustainabil

ity. or is

it merely finandal gain?

If ir

is finandal gain.

is

it over the

long or

short run? Withín each of these possibilities lies other dilemmas. Take profit.

Profit seems objective enough until you begin ro consider the many subjective

faetors

that enter

into its

computation-dedding

what is

a cost versus what

is

a

capital.expenditure. to give

just

one example. Thus, even a faet so seemingly

objective as profit is open

to

considerable debate.

The

debate

about

profit is ultimately resolved, bm only wit h reference

to

a

set

of

practices such as general accounting prindples which are themselves

influenced by

theory

(accounting theory) and a

set

of rulturally influenced

norms (such as listening t the advice

of

accountants).

There

is very little objec

tivity in

management when

you get right down

to

it. And it

is

diffirult to imag

ine

how

any

theory

of organizational performance can ever

be

proved right

or

wrong

by

a comparison with empírical evidence

when the

evidence is itself

me

produet of

other

theories m

this

case the

theoty ofhow to

compute the profits

of

a

firm

and

of

social practices that are developed by

other

organizations (gov

ernment

regulations concerning accountability to shareholders and to tax

authorities).

This is

the symbolic-interpretive view;

and

according to symbolic

interpretivists, these are matters of sodal convention,

not

namrallaw; .

Today

itis

increasingly

common

to

find organization theoris!s

who

regard

sodal theori es as perspectives

on

a reality th at is as

much

construeted by theories

as it

is

represented by them.

That

is, sodal

sdentists

work

with realities created

by social forces

that

are themselves the subjeet of study. This drrul arity sets sodal

saences ,like organizati on theory, apart from the traditioris of natural science and

presents complicated issues for

sodal

theorist s to considero

It

also helps to explain

why you should

smdy

organization theory. If theories are implicated in the pro

duction

ofknowledge

and thus in our constrUctions of reality (e.g., organization-,

6

5



hy Study Organization Theory?

What

is Organization Theory?

performance, profit, management), then

yOu will

wam to know the theories that

omers

are using and

how

ro create yo ur own so that you can mor e consciously

(and consdentiously) participate

in

these processes.

J

Tlús book

is

about organizatíon theor y and in it you

will

read about many dif.

ferent ways in which organizations are understood. These differem meoríes of

organization can guide your actions by giving you abstraet images

of

what an

organization is,

how

it funetions, and how its members and omer interested par

ties interaet with an d within it. But this book

will

do more than introduce you to -,

the0ríes of

organization, it will offer you insight into the ways that theorists

develop their theoríes and will help you to develop your own theorí zing skills of

abstraction,

ana1ysis,

and reasoning.

If

you ma ster these skills, you will be abÍe ro

make significant connibutions

tO any organization in which you take member

ship. Knowing organization theories

will

help you to understand how the'orga

nization works and to diagnose its problerns. Knowing

how

to theorize

will

help

you to develop, maintain, and change your understandings

of

organizations and

what you are doing with and within m e m ·

..J

MUlTIPLE

PERSPE TIVES

Organization theorists often justify the diversity of organization theory and its

multiple perspectives by pointing out the complexity

of

organization.

2

Organizational comple.xity can be colorfully illustrated by the Hindu parable of

the blind men and the elephant. Six blind men ofHindustan, so the parable goes,

met

with an elephant one

day.

And, a fter their meeting, each described

what

he

had encountered.

The first said tha! an elephant was like a leaf. The second

adamantly disagreed, clairning that it was certainly like a wall.

The

third

described the elephant as a

mighty

tree, the fourth a spear, the fi.fth a rope, and

the las! one thought it was real!y a snake. Each of them had gotten hold of a

dif

. ferent part

of'the

elephant and so

had

come away with remarkably different

understandings

of

his creature.

The point of retelling the story here is that organization theorists are a lo!

like

-,

those blind men, and organizations are their elephant Like the blind men, orga

nization theorists encounter a large and complex phenomenon with perceptual

equipment that handicaps them with respeet to knowing in· a holistic or total

way. Thus, they develop perspeetives t hat have sorne be aring on organizations,

but

mat

are

each

inadequate in their

own

way. Only when viewing these numer

ous perspectives al at once do you

get

any sense of the magnitude of the prob

lero you face when confronting the study of organization.

..J

The complexity and multiplicity of organizations fur mer suggests that me per

spectives you use

will mect

your perceptions of organizational reality. Focusing

attention on particular aspects

of

organizatíon means ignoting other asped:s-;

Although adopting multiple perspectives does not remove the problem of

ignored aspeets, it does expose you ro more aspects man would a single point of

víew.

Tlús

reduces the chane

es

that you are ignoting something important and

. encourages you to become cornfortable with a new type of understanding, one

that holds the promise of

new

sources of inspiration and innovation.

Of course, multiple perspectives come w ith thei r own problems. For insrance,

because theoríes mal' be built

on

a variety

of

assumptions, concepts and

perspectives can compete

or

confliet with each other. As a resulto you mal' experi

ence organization theory as uncertain, ambiguous. contradictory, and paradoxi

cal.

Prepare to be confused. At first the study

of

organization theory mal' see'11

easy.

A few concepts, a few theories-big deal. But

as

you progress in your devel

,

opmentofconcepts and understandi ng, and particularly as you !1ttempt to recon

cile your gro wing theoretical knowledge with you r personal experience, you

will

discover that the tas k is as complex

as

organization itselE

To give you

ataste

bf

the contentious nature

of

organization theóry, I should .

point

out

that the view that multiple perspeetives will map more of the territory

and therefore provide you with greater and better knowledge is a stríctly mod

ernist interpretaríon

of

the blind men and the elephant parable.

The

modernist

view

is

based

on

the belief

that

there

is

an objective, physical reality

in

question

and thus any perspective

is

but a different view of the same thing (whether that

be an elephant or

an

organization).

In

contrast, many symboL::-interpretivists

and postrnodernists assert that knowl edge cannot be tested against the real world

because the real world is construeted from our experiences, ideas, and statements

(e.g., our theoríes

about

the world).

That

is, reality

is

subjectively defined, there

fore different

~ e w s

construet different realities and these realities may'.be

c ~ m -

plementary, conflicting, or conttadietory. Multiple perspectives mal' províde you

with diverse possibilities for constru eting your wórld and for underst anding the

cOnstructions

of

others,

but

there

is no

guarantee of greater and bett er know

ledge because there is no universal standard against which greater and bett er can

be measured.

We

will

return

to tlús

and other differences between perspectives in the next

chapter, but before we begin ro explore orgaDization theory, it will be helpful to

explain what a theory is, and to define two important terms- concept and

'0abstraction"

of

wbich are basic to theorizing. Followingthis, I

will

bríefly

describe the plan of the rest

of

the book. The chapter

will

conclude with a con

ceptual mode1

of

organization

that will

help you t.o remember the strueture of

the book and at the same time remind you of the core concepts of organization

8

7

r,. 1' ~ , ; • .

,.-:,-,

•.• ' : " . . )

..

;

.J .:

• 4 h.)

.

"1'"'..,

.

-

o;

\.:(

. .0:,;1 l , ó ~ •• • (..(1"\00 \ , ...

¡ ,c..



hy

Study Organization Theory?


theory: environment, technoJogy, social snuctUre, organizational culture, and

physical structure .

THEORY ND

CONCEPTS

Theory rests on a set

of

assumptions that forms the foundation for a series

of

Jogically interreJated claims. For instance, some theories assume that reality

is

objective (out there) whereas others assume that it

15

subjective (in here). Many

objectivists reason that since reality

15

out there it can be studied by observers

who .are independent of their subjeet

of

interest. Subjectivists argue that siIÍce

rr:ality

15

in here it

15

personal an d reIative, and, therefore, índependen t observa-

I

tion

15

impossible. They reason instead that knowledge

15

mediated and thus

i

1

altered in significant ways by th e aet

of

observation. Different assumptions Iead

to different theories.

Because of these differences. it

15

important to identify the assumptions on

which a particular theory rests.

In

organization theory when a set

of

basic

assumptions underlies multipIe theories, the theories come to be recognized as a

distinctive perspective or paradigm.

3

Familiarity with these different perspectives

will

heJp you

to

comprehend the multipIe ways

of

theorizing abollt organiza

tions. Furthermore, because the assumptions underlyíng a given perspective or

paradigm were typically introduced into organization theory at different times,

perspectives often have historica1 associations. In the

nen

chapter I

will

discuss

several different views of the history

of

organization theory and

of

the three

major perspectives that forro the framework for

this book: modero, symbolic

interpretive, and postmodern.

Theory

A theory

15

an expIanation, that 15 it

15

an attemp t to explain a segment of experi

ence in the world.

The

particular thing that a theory expIains

15

called the phe

nomenon

oí

interest.

In

organization theory the primary phenomenon of

interest

15

the organization. However, organizatión can be

ddined in

many

dif-

ferent ways, for instance, as a social strueture, a technology. a culture, a physica1

strUeture, or as a

pan oí an

environrnent. Orgapization can also be studied in

terms

of the central issues and recurr ing themes of organizing including control,

conflicr, decision making, powe r

and

polities, and change.

This book

will

intro

duce you to theories concerning each of these topies.

A theory consists of a set

of

concepts .and the relatioúships that tie. them

rogether into an explanation of the ph enome non of mterest. For exampl.e, orga.-

nization can be theorized as a social strueture created through confhct oW!r

ower relations that

15

expressed in physical structure, teehnology, and eultun:.

~ t e r n a t i v e l Y it might be theorized as

a

technology c o n s t r l ~ e t e d through deo

. that demand eertain snuctu ral, cultural, and

phYS1Cal

arrangements.

SlOns

will

d

However, before you can be expected to tack.le theorizing,

you. nee.to

develop your understandi ng of the basic eoncepts.

In this book

we

will

s:art .W1th

. t and build up ro the larger abstraetions that form orgarnzaoonal .J

b

as

le coneep

·

.

theories.

.

Concepts

and the

Process

of Abstraction

. .

. ganizing and storing experience. '

Concepts

proV1de

categone s lor sortmg, or . . .

They are ideas formed by the process

of a b s t r a e t l ~ n

Webster s

Ncw ~ r l d ..

ictionary defines abstraction as the "formation of an Idea by m.enta! sePa:anon

ul

ms'

tances " This means that you build coneepts m your mmd on

J

fr

om paroc r· . . .

the basis

of

your aequaintance with instances that are familiar

to

you, elther

as

the result ofpersonal experience, or

on

the bas15 ofwhat others havetold

For

example, your conce pt of"dog"

15

built upon your personal encounters W1th re?

resentatives

ofthis

class of anima! such

as

dogs you have owned

or

that have

ten you; upon stories you have heard others tell; and upon encounters

Wlth

non-dogs that,

when

you were a

YOUl:g h e l p ~

you

understand what a

dog

was

by knowing wha t a dog was not ( No, mat s a eat ).

Concepts are like empty baskets to be filled with experienee.

lf yo.u

i ~ s t

eneounter a concept through academic study, it

15

empty. You must filllt W1th

. ¿

meaning by relating personal experienees

tO

it so that me concept beeomes

enriched in much the same manne r as oceurred when you learned the coneept of

dog as a young

child. That

15 you must gather specific examples

t ~ a t fit

cept until it

15 more

or less fully formed.

Of

course you can eontmue

enn

g

your concepts for the remainder ofJour life.

This 15

what experts do. For exan:

ple, a person

who

trains dogs learns more abollt

them al1

me time, and so thelr

concept of dog

15

continual1y enriched and x p a ~ d e ~

~ e r e

is no end t o the sub

tlety you can develop

in

yout understanding by ennching your

c ~ n c e p t s

and, of

course, by adding

new

concepts to yo ur knowledge base. The

tnck. IS

ro get the

proeess

of

abstraction staned .

In

this

book

you

will

eneounter other peoples' coocepts ~ e i r gen:ral

descriptions an d definitions based

00

meir experiences of, and ":'lthin, organlZa

tions. Your task

willbe

to make these concepts your own by relatmg them to your

9

10



Why Study

Organization

Theory?

own experience; any conceptS mar you deve10p using only omer peoples' experi·

e n ~ e s .will never be enrn:ely yours.

To

make a

~ n c e p r

your·own.requires

you .

;[

build

Ir

upon a foundauon

of

your own expenences and meanmgs. Larer m

rhis ,

chaprer 1will describe srraregy for using me examples in rhis boo k ro help you '

with

rhis pan of

your learning process.

Almough conceptS are associared wim specifi.c cases, a concepr

is

nor a simple

aggregation of all me informanon you remember abour specifi.c examples. Acon-

i

cepr

is

much more compaa

man rhis.

ConceptS are formed by removing sorne of

me derail of partirular insrances so mar whar remainsis only me essence of me ;

rhing, trirnmed of non-essential informa non. In forrning a concepr, unique ele-

mentS or fearures of speáfic examples are ignored; only mose fearures mar are

cornmon ro all examples of a concepr are ineluded. Thus, rheconcepr dog is asso-

dared wim four legs,

..

r:iil, a cold nose when ir is healmy, and rwo ears, bur nor

)

black spotS, big paws, or a habir

of

jumping on strangers, which are fearures of

I

particular dogs, bur nor all dogs.

The

process

of

removing unique di:rails so mar '

¡

essential qualities remain is

cal.led me

process of abstraction.

Of

course

rhis

does

J

i

nor

happen in one leap; mere is much trial and error learning involved in me

J

abstraction process . "

1 ..

>;

!

You

may wonder why you woul d wanr ro drop all the inreresting derails our

of

1

I

your dai1y experiences in order ro build conceptS. One reason is thar ir gives you I

1,

an increased abiliry ro process information. Wh en you en counrer a new example

JI

!

of a well-developed concepr, you have nume rous bits of information abour mar

objecr ar you r fingertips. For instance, you recognize

me

objeer as a dog, you

may instanrly be aware

of me

possibiliry mat ir will growl ir feels threarened.

TIlis information

has

iminediare value. ConceptS also riIake ir possible ro com

municare knowledge. Forinstance, you can rell your

chilclren

thar sorne dogs bire

and so they should nor reach out rheir hands ro strange dogs until mey are

confidenr mar the

dog is

friend1y.

In

addition ro giving you

me

abiliry ro generalize your knowledge and ro com

municare ir ro omers, concepts give you enormous powers

of

thoughr. They

allow you ro associare volumes of information with a single idea and thereby ro

J

process rhis informat ion rapidly whenever you rhink of, or with, me concepr, Yon

can see the imporrance of this aspecr of conceptS in ienns of the psychological

process known

as

chi.mking. Cognitive psychologisrs rell us mar humans have

me

eapaciry to think abour, roughly,seven pieces of information (plus or minus two)

ar one rime.

This

means rhar you can

think

abour seven differenr dogs and nom

ing else, or, through chunking larger portions of your knowledge srrueture, you

can think abour all me dogs in the uníverse and six other kinds of animal, or you '

can even

t:hink

abour the enOre animal kingdomand six more things besides. .

Chunk.ing illustrares me power of abstraetion using conceptS allows you ro '

What i5

Organization Theory?

consider large blocks of knowb:lge. a handy capacity

ro

have when

x ~ u r

daily

acnviry demand s ma r you undersran d and sray abreasr of developmentS wirhin a

complex entiry such as an organizarion. ~ ~

Be sure ro nonce mar mere is bom something gained and somerhing losr when

ou use conceptS. You g

.. i:1

rhe abiliry to rhinkabout numerous ipsrances or cases

me

abstraer caregory, bur you lose me rich detail rhar me individual

;cases

conrain. You will wanr to learn'ro use conceptS because mey permir you to com

municare and under stand gen eral ideas abour complex subjectS. such as organi

zations. This will enable you ro see day-ro-day issues in a larger perspecrive thar

expands

your

rhinking and gives you ready access ro your accumulated base of

knowledge. But you should also rerpember mar abstracr reasoning alone will not

provide me imporrant Jerails mar comprise

me

s i ~ t i o n s of

life mar

will be called upon to cC' lfronr in your role wimIIi an orgaruzauon. Applymg

tbeory, whic h is root ed in abstraer reasoning, demands mar you be able ro

add

....

critica! details back inro your formulations after you. have analyzed and under

stood me general aspeets of the siruanon ar hand.

You will

want

ro

develop bom

conceprs and theorizin g skills.wim a broad base ofper sonal experience and then

learn to transia te your general knowledge inro

speci.fic

undersranding.

1believe the grear frusrration wim organization theory m at many srudents and

practitioners report they feel is me resulr of nor undersranding mar me ~ p l i c -

non of meory

is

a creative

acr_

A belief that abstraer meor y can generare msranr

solutions to specific problems is naive. Ir is equally naive ro rejecr .as hav-

ing lime value simpl y because you have nor yer'learned ho w ro use n. -:rus

book

is devoted r ) helping you learn how ro use organization meory

as

a snmulus ro

creative probl em solving in organizational semngs and

as

a route to developing

your organizing and meorizing skills.

PL N OF THE BOOK

Pan 1of the book introduces me approach 1am taking in presenringorganization

theory and theorizing ro you. Chaprer 1 has introduced you to meory and meo

rizing and presenred reasons for studying organizanon theory. Chapter 2 intro

duces me multiple perspectives rhar forro me framework of rhis book--:modern.

symbolk-inrerpretive, and postInodern and

p r ~ s e n t

a historical account

of

their development

in

and

of

organizanon theory. As explained already, l m o u ~ h

these perspectives are presenred chronologically, rhis does nor mean mat earlier

perspectives have been abandoned by organizarion rheoristS. Organization

theory benefits froro all of these perspectives. Therefore, Chap rer 2 mighr better

2



r ~

Why Study Organization Theory?

be thought

of as

an archaeology rather

than 1, ; 1

plot me course of evenes that co . th

as

a

¿llStory. Tlstead of

anemp:i...'g to

t

" mpnse e past of orgaItiza,·

eh

Ch

2 tnes to dig up the andent life and Cul . non eory, apter

Pan Il of

the book will ture

of me

Ideas tbat consritute the field

. present you with the core co . .

nsts use

fo

r understanding and eh . . Cepes orgamzanon theo

. eonzmg orga..'uanons

In th cha

will

learn to look at O"""'";"'' 'tio' . . ese pte.::

you

ó ns

m

many diff'rent W b

enVIronmenr

that

supp d .

ays:

as

mem

ers

uf

the

0

om an constrams

them

(Cha

human

influence through

s t rat pter 3);

as subjeets

of

· . eglC aCOon (Cha·.lter 4)' chn

1 .

d

uang

goods and servic

fu r as re

o ogtes for pro.

rhe activities of their

e b e ~

~ ~ ; e ~ ~ ~ ; ; ?

as

social strUetures orde ring

duced by meanings that forrn a symb

li .

tures that produce and are pro·

o c wortd (Chapte 7)' d h'

tures that suppOrt and C o n ~ b eh " r ,an as P ys¡;::al struc·

..I,a: .......... o acnvIty and meanin (Ch

Ulllerent conceptual approaches to undersrandi, o .g. apter 8). These

numerous ways, yet each contribUtes somethin ,g. rgaIuzanon are

r e l a l ~ d

in

these ehapters , strive to develo .

WlIque.

s

you read and reread

P your appreoanon for both the

simil

"

diffi

erences

b

etween rhem. annes and

In addirion to providin o· .

Pan 11 will g exp SUre to the core concepts of orgariizati th

present severa! different theories

of

o . .

on

eory.

the cote concepes.

Within

eaeh eh

rh

rgaIllzanon that are built upon

. apter ese theones

will

b

toncal arder; in

most

cases this means

be'

e presented in his·

symbolic·interpretive and postmodern

WItb

modern and proceeding to

culture is the exception) This r shPerspecnves (Chapter

8

on organízationa!

. IOrmat ould oro

that contextualized me theorists' effi ••e you a sense of he continuity

om

at

the tune that

the ..I'd

th .

th

1

t

will

also he1p you to f'mP"; . y

U l

eu- eorizing.

- r - .ence

nrgamzanon tbeory -

an

d

dis

agreements among rheo . d m . ..

as

a :;enes of ehallenges

. . nsts an eu-ldeas about o . .

ones

will not

only

give

you f'Ynosure rh rgaIllzanons. The the ·

to e vanous types of 1 .

b

this

fiel

d

of

study, they

will

als 'd

ti exp

ananon offered

practices organization theorises

USO

P nrOV dis

e a

.0CUS

for describing the skills and

1 . cussmg

h

ow th .

am

trying

to

encourage you

to

become more

active1

~ o n s t s

p r o ~ u c e

theory,

treannent

of

organízations. y eorencal

In

your own

There are many practica! issues

of

recurrin .

organization theorists 1

t . .__ el

g Interest to

both

managers and

. • uave S ected a few of th .

Jeetsfor

Pan

IIIof the book. Chapter 9 . e

m ~ s t

~ e n t r a l

o

these

as subo

power, and polities. Chapter

10

looks

~ ~ s

~ n o ~ l ~ e c i s i o n making,

11

examines issues of control and

i o ~ o

an C O ~ t r a ~ c u o n ; and Chapter

focused on organizat ional eh E eh gy

In

orgaruzanons. Chapter 12 is

ange. a chapte r pres

concepes to add to your knowl d b ents sorne additiona! new

new concepts with the core co: ;e es

s e v ~

wen severa! theone s that link these

These chapters will help vou funhP oped m the second pan of the book.

J

.

r

your mastery and

el

b

cepes at the Same time that th will a oranon ofbasic con·

.

ey

push you to practice and improve your


rheoru:-i.ng

skills.

Each of

mese chapters COntinues

to

move from me'··modero

tDward interpretive and postrnodern conceptions in order to encourage f l ~ b i l -

ity wirh respeet to understanding and using these different ways

of

theorlZing

about organization.

Thus,

Chapters

9

through

12 will

continue the project set

out

dt

the srart-to help you develop theorizing skills by exposing you to the con·

cepes,

models, and methods organization theorists use to understand

ando

theo

rize organization.

Examples

and How

to Use Them

The examples provided in chis book are designed to trigger assodations with

experlences you have had so that you can

fill

your concepes with your own mean·

ings.

Try

taking eaeh

e:icample

and imagining what it

is

that you have personally

experienced rhat might relate to it.

Be

playful. Do not feel consrrained to the

obvious associations, but also challenge yoursel fto consider things you have only

a vague notion

or

a hunch might be applicable. As you do chis you

will

begin to

translate the concept into your own experiential terrns.

Having identified examples from yo ur OWD experience, use yoUr examples ro

practice applying the concept

or

theory you

are

trying to understand. Although

your theoretical understanding

will be

limited at this point, trying

to

descnbe and

ana!yze the example you have identified from your own experience

will

help you

to build

chis

undersranding. As your pool

of

concepts and theorles expands, you

'will

find yourself analyzing your e:iperlences in n ew ways. For instance, by relato

ing experiences that you never before thought

of as

related,

or

by seeing previ

ously hidden or disregarded aspeets of

a

situation in whieh you were involved,

you

will

reveal aspeets

of your

own persona! experience

of

whieh you were pre

viously unaware. In other words, use YOur personal experience to understand

c o n ~ e p t s

and theorles, and use your developing concepes and theories to b etter

understand your experiences.

TIús sort of

give and

cake

between theoreticaI

understanding and personal experience is essential to the development

of

your

theorizing skills and your know:ledge oforganization.

AConceptual ModeL of Organization aS,a 5tarting Point

Throughou t this

book

1

will

provide many conceptual models such

as

you see in

Figure 1.2. These models visually represent theorles

as

a

setof

conceptsand rheir

relationships, and are frequentiy used by organization theorists to make abstract

understanding seem more tangible. Figure

1.2;

for example,

is

a visual way

of

14

3



T

What

is

Organization Theory

Why Study organization Theory i

I

communic ating the cenrral message ofrhis book: thar organizationsoáie

I1sei'uli)

l

conceprualized .as rechnologies, social srructures, culrures, and physical srruc- I

rures thar overlay and inrerpenerrare one an orher within the

conten

of an envir-

1

onmenr. To depicr these relationships, the model shows rechnology. sociaL; I

srrucrure, culture, and physical srructure as inrerconnecred circles (or, even ber

rer, as

sphúes

surrounded

and penerrared by an envir onment thar they simulra

neously help ro constiture.

ENVIRONMENT

FIGURE

1 2 FlVE

CIRClES

MODEL

rhe organization

as

an interplay of technology. social structure, culture. and phys

ical structure embedded

n

and contributing to an environment.

The

four smaHer

circles intersect to remind you that these concepts are interrelated. rhey are

enscribedwithin a

fifth.

targer circle to indicate the important relationship between

aH aspects of the organization and its environment.

Diagrams such as Figure 1.2 can he1p yau

to

remember a great deal about the

theories you will

be

srodying..Giviílg these diagrams close attention will often

reveal aspeets ofthe theory ,thar'are subde bU important. For example, let

the

inrerconnecrions of the four circles in Figure 1.2 remind you rhar nóne of these

concepts

or

rheories

is

complere in itself; each shares some aspecrs

wiili

the

others and

ir is

rhe combination of rhese differenr ways

of

undersrancfuig rhar

allows you ro produce rich and complex views of organizarionusing organizarion

theory. .

1should warn you that . as you move roward undersranding each core concepr,

there will be rimes when you g et caughr in rhese intersections and become con

fused

ano

which concepr or the ory you are using. Expeet rhis. and try n or ro feel

discouraged

when it

happenso

Without

passing through rhis srage, you will have

little chance

ofbecoming

knowledgeable abour organizarion rheory

or

skillful at

rheorizing. Trust that out ofrhis confusion will come a new clarity about orga

nization and

the

processes of theorizing.

SUMM RY

.Because

of

the diversity

and

pluralism of organizations, managers must be able

to make sense of and use multiple perspectives and learn ro bring their know

ledge ro

bear on

a wide range of decisions every

day.

Studying organization

theory will help you ro master

the

skills

of

abstraction and theorizing

that

will

allow you

to

use multiple perspectives to tap more knowledge han is possible

without the skills

of

the

organization theoristo BU remember that you must be

able ro apply your abstraer reasonirtg to concrere siruations. This means a rever

sal of

the

process of abstraction.

The best theories are mose whi ch you have found

or

invented ro match your

own experience of

the

organization, and in rhis

book

youwilllearn about the the

ories

that

othe rs have deve10ped

ahd

the skills they used ro formulate them. This

...J

will

give you a foundation for theorizing. You can use already formulated theo

ries as they stand.

this

proves useful ro your purposes,

or

as templates for your

own

theory

building efforts. In any case, organization t heory requires

both

the

mastery

of

existing theories and personal deve10pment of the methods and skills

of theorizing.

You

have

your own

reasons for srudying organization theory.My reason is that

organization

theory

broadens my perspective

on

organizations and the worid in

general and opens

my

mind to new ideas and possibilities for change and trans

formation. 1 am constandy renewed by

my

work in this

fie1d

and find

that

the

ideas 1can trace back. ro it give me a sense of understancling

n

which 1have great

confidence.

The

confidence comes from discovering

that

1can apply

what

1have

learned froro organization theory with at least

two

outcomes

of

great value

ro

16

15



Why

Study

organization

Theory? What

is

Organization

Theory?

me. One of these outcomes is an increased power to creare through and with

abstraer reasoning sk.ills; me other

is

the enhancemenr

of

my ability ro learn.

Although it may hold

omer

meanings and possibilities for you,

1

hope mat my

enthusiasm, which is built on my own particular needs and values,

will

inspire

you

ro

explore organizat ion theory.

K Y TERM

organization

concept

theorizing

abstraction

theory

chunlcing

phenomenon

of interest

ENDNOTE

1.

For example, read British organization the

OM

Lex Donaldson (1985).

2. The muItíple perspectives approach to

organizarion

theory

h s

been

explored by a

variety

of

researchers. One

of

the earuest

and most influential of hese was American

political scientist Graham Allison (1971),

who

analyzed the

Cuban

Missile Crisis

using severa! different theorerical

tives. Gibson Burrell

and

Gareth Morgan

(1979), w oIking within me tradirions of

organizarional

soaology,

analyzed

me

philosophical foundations of rarional, inter

pretive, radical stn1eturalist,

and

radicai

humanist

rraditions in organizational ana

Iysis. Using Burrell and Morgan's analysis,

JOM Hassard (1988,1991; Hassard and

Pym

1990)

has been

particularly active in

promoting the muItíple perspectives

approach

within

organizarion

meory. Also

in me sodology of organizarion, Richard

Seort (1992) pres ented rarional, natural,

and open systems views·oforganizarions.

Joanne

Martin (1992) buil t

her

analysis

of

organizational

culture theory around

a

muItiple perspectives approach including

integration. differentiarion, and fragmenta

rion perspectives.

3. The eoneept of paradigm and its appliea

rions within organizarion meory have been

widely debated

within

organizaeon theory.

For example, see Kuhn (1970 [1961));

Burrell

and

Morgan (1979); Mo rgan and

Smirdch

(1980); Hassard (1988, 1991);

.

Gioia

and

Pitre (1990); Jacks on

and Cmer

(1991): Wl!lmon (1990, 1993);

Weaver

and

Gioia (1994); Schulrz and Harch (1996).

4.

The

archaeological approach

to

sodal

sd-

enee

was

suggested and

devdoped

by

Michd

Fou eauIt (1973 [1970J, 1972).

5. TIlis technique is

an

application of he

hermeneurie circle (e.g., Rieoeur 1981).

17

REFERENCES

AJlison, Graham (1971). Tlu wrn of

dtcision: Explaining eht Cuban

crisis. Boston: lirue,

Brown.

Burrell, Gibson, and Morgan. Gareth (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational

,

zalysis.

London: Heinemann.

Donaldson. Lex (1985). In difl:nu oforganisation thtory. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit;, Press.

FoueauIr.

Mich.e! (1973

[1970J). TluortUrofthings.

New

York: Vintage

Booles.

FoucauIr. Miche! (1972). Tht arcluuology

of

lenowledgt thc discoursc on langua gt. New York:

Pantheon Booles.

Gioia, Dennis

A.. ,

and Pirre, Eve!}'? (1990). Multiparadigm perspeetives on theory building.

Acadcmy ofMaMgcmattRf'Vi=,

15:

584·602.

Hassard, JOM (1988). Overcoming hermeticism in organization theory: An alternaiive te para

.digm ineornmensurability. Human

Rdations, 41/3: 247-59.

Hassard,JoM

(1991). MuItiple paradigms

and

organizational analysis: A case study. Organization

S t u d ~ 12/z:275 99.

Hassard, JOM, and Pym. DeIÚs (1990) (eds.). Tlu tMory and philosophy of trrganizationi: Critica

isSlUS and IICW

c r s p c c t i v ~

London: Routledge.

Jackson,

Norman,

and Carrer, Pippa (1991). In defense

of

paradigm ineornmensurability.

Organization

t u d ~ 12/1:

109-28.

Kuhn, Thomas

(1970 [196ID. 11u

st71lCtUTt

ofsciattijic r Volutiuns. Chieago: UIÚven;ity

of

Chieago

Press.

Martin, Joanne (1992).

Cultures in trrganizatüms:

TItm pasp«tivts Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, Gareth, and

Smirdch, linda

(1980).

The

case

of

qualirativc: research.

Acadcmy o

. a n a g a n r n t ~ 5:

491-50? .

Rieoeur, PauI (1981). and

tltc

Human

~ (trans.

J

B.

Thompson). Cambridge:

Cambridge UIÚversity Press.

SchuIrz. Majken,

and

Hatch. Mary

Jo

(1996). living

with

mulriple paradigms:

The

case

of

para

digm inrerpIay in organizational culture studies. Acadcmy ofManagcmmt

Rn>iew

21: 529-57.

Seon, W. Richard (1992).

Organizatiuns: Ralional, nat1lra/

and opm system.s (3rd edition).

Englewood

Cllifs. N :

Prenriee-Hall.

Weaver, Gary, a nd Gioia, Dennis (1994). Paradigms los.. Ineommensurability, stn1eturation an d

the resrrueturing

of

organizational inquiry.

Organization

S t u d ~

15:

565-90.

Willmon, Hugh

(1990). Beyond paradigmarie

c10sure

in orgaIÚsiltional enquiry. InJ. Hassard and

D. Pym (eds.), TIte

tltcory

and philoSbphy of organization. Lohdon: Routledge, 44-62.

Willmon,

Hugh (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentalit y. Organization Studics, 1415: 68i-719.

FURTHER

REAOING

Classics

Smim. Adam (1957).

SdroiDllS

from

í1tt

Wtalth

of

NtUions"

¿eL George J. Stigler), New York:

Appleton

Century

Crofts (origin allypublished in 1776)._

8



Why Study



Mane,

an

(1954).

Capital.

Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing H0';lse (firn published

in

. 1867).

Durkheim.

Emile (1949).

T u division oflabor

in society. Glencoe,

Ill.:

Free Press (finr published in

1893).

TayJor. Frederick

W.

(1911). The prinr ipb ofscienrificmanagement.

New

York : Harper.

Fayol,

Henri

(1949). General and indltSrrial m ~ g e m e n t London: Pirman (firsr published in 1919).

Weber,

Max (1947).

The rheoryofsocial

an;d

o n o m ~

organizarion (ed.

A

H. Heriderson

and Talcott

Parsons). Glencoe,'Ill.: Free Press (firsr published

in

1924).

Bamard, Chesrer (1938). The funcrions of rhe cuti

e.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Modernist perspective

Simon,

Herberr

(1957). Administrari e behavior (2nd edirion).

New

York : Macmillan (!irsr pub·

lished n 1945).

Parsons. Talcott(1951). The social system. Glencoe. IIl : Free Press.

Gouldner, Alfred (1954).

Panrnts ofindltStrial

¡11maucracy. Glencoe, ID : Free Press.

March.james G., and Simon,

Herberr

(1958).

Organizations. NewYork.:John

Wiley.

DaltOD, Me lville (1959).

Mm who

manage.

New

York.:john Wiley.

Berralanffy, Ludwig von (1968). General sysrems checry: Foundations developmatr, applications

(revised edirion). New

York :

George Braziller.

Symbolic-interpretive perspective

Propp, Vladimir·(1958). Morphology ofthefolJctale. Bloomingron: Indiana University Press (Mr

published n 1928).

schutz, Alfred (1967).

TIte phawmenology

ofthe

social world (trans.

G. Walsh and F Lehnerr).

Evansron, ID : Northwestem University Press (finr published n 1932).

Whyre. William

F

(1943). Streetcorner society. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Selznick, Philip (1949). TV

A and

the grass TOots BerkeJey: Universiry of California Press.

Burlte, Kennerh (1984).

Pmnanrnce and change: An anatomy of pv.rpose

(3rd edition). Berkeley:

Universiry ofCalifornia Press (second edition originally published n 1954).

Saussure, Ferdinand de (1959).

Coune

in

general linguistics

(trans. Wade Baskin). New

York :

McGraw-Hill.

Goffinan, Erving (1959). u presentation of sdf in everyday lije. Garden Ciry, NY:

Doubleday

Anchor.

Berger, Perer.

and

Luckmann,

Thomas

(1966).

TIte

social COItStntetiDn

of

Taility: A tTeatise in

che socio

ology of1mawkdge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Barrhes, Roland (1972). Mythologíes

(trans. A

LavetS). New York : Hill Wang.

Geerr:z, C (1973). Interpretatimt ofcultures.

New

York : Basic Books.

Ricoeur, Paul (1981). HennatelLtics and che Human Sciences (trans. J B Thcimpson). Cambridge:

Cambridge Uníversiry Press.

Postmodem perspective

Foucault, Michd (1972).

u

aTCheology oflrnowledge and the discourse en language

(trans.

A. M

Sheridan Smirh). London: Tavisrock Publications.

Foucaull. Michel

(J

973). TIte

arder ofrltings.

New York: Vinr:.ge Bo(;L.

Jencks, Charles (1977). TIte language

ofpost modem

arcltitecrurt. London; Academy.

Derrida. Jac ques (1978).

Writing ana differenct

(rrans. Alan Bass). London: Rourledge &Kégan

Paul.

Derrida, Jacques (1980). Of gramrnalology (rrans. Gayatri t : ~ a k r a v o r r y Spivak). Balrimore: The

Johns Hopkins Universiry Press.

Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981

j.

TIte

dialogic

imaginarion: Four

essays

(rrans. Chorale Emerson and

Michad

Holquisr). Austin: Universiry ofTexas Press.

Lyotard, j e a n F r a n ~ o i s (1984). TIte

posmwdem condition: A

repon on

know1l:dge.

Minneapolis:

Universiry ofMinnesora Press.

Baudrillard, Jean (1988). Se1l:ctd writings (ed. M Poster). Palo Alro, CaliL Sranford Universiry

Press.

Rorry. Richard (1989). Contingency irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambr idge Universiry Press.

20

9



T


2 Histories

Metaphors,and

Perspectives in

Organization

Theory

T

ERE

are many ways to

talk

about the history and development

of

a field

.

of

study. 1presented one

of them

in Chapter

l the

academic genealogy

shown in Figure 1.1. The figure identifies theorists from a wide range

of

academic disciplines who comributed ideas

to

the modern, symbolic

interpretive, and post mode rn perspectives of organization theory. n this chapter

we will

explore these ideas, but we

will

also look at the events of industrial his

tory t hat shaped and were shaped by these ideas.

We begin with a look at the-lústory of industrial development and the chang

ing nature

of work and

organizations since the introduction of the faetory in the

late eighteenth century.

This

historical account will give you some background

to the current debate about whether post-industrialism marks the culmination of

the industrial era or

is

just

one

more phase of industrial development.

he

first

section concludes With discussion of this debate. n the second section, 1 will

briefly present influential ideas put forward during th e Classical period and trace

some

of

the ways in which their influence lives

on

in the modernist, symbolic

interpretive, and postm odern perspectives of organization theory.

he

third sec

tion explores comemporary influences on organization theory, examining the

roar ideas

of

modernism and symbolic·interpretivism, and -then entertaining a

21

sample of the notions that pos tmoáernism brings to organization théOry. I.will

finish up the ehapte r by making sorne comparisons among the three

e r s p e c ~ v e s

The first comparison will

be

cast in terms of epistemological assumptions; th at

is

we will consider the differl':nt positiQns each perspective offers on the question:

ow do we know what we know about organizations? n the last section

of

the

chapter we will compare the perspectives in a more artistic

way

exploring how

root metapho rs organize the images and language associated with each perspec

tive and leave lasting impressions

of

their fundamentally different ways of repre

senting organizations and managers.

THE

TIMES THEY ARE CHANGIN

••

In

this section we will consider a historical account taken from t he sociology of

industry provided by' British sociologist Tom Burns.

Tbis

particular version of

organizational his tory reflects the close. alignment berwe en mo dernist develop

ment s in organization t heory a nd those in industry. However, Burns's discussion

of

what he calls the rhird phase of industrialism resonates.with recentideas about

post-industrial society and organization which symbolic-interpretivisrs and post

modernis ts increasingly use as a departure point for their theories. We willlook

at the characteristics

of

post-industrialism an d

of

post-industrial organizations as

a futuristic extension to Burns's historical account

of

industrial development in

the West.

Three

Phases

of IndustriaLism

Burns defined the trajectory ofWe ster n industrial development in

tenns ofthree

distinguishable phases. According to Burns, the first phase grew

out ofthe

use of

machines to exten d and enlarge the productivity

of

work and

in

the

fac-

tory system.

he

faetory s)rstem offered

ari

alternative to subcontracting which

was the way industrial labor

was

organized before faetories appeared. In subcon

tracting, groups of individuals, typically working under.a master craftsman, con

traeted out for specificjobs. in faetones, the subcontra etor's role was replaced by

that of the foreman who worked under the direction of a general manager or the

factory owner. Foremen's responsibilities and freedoms ..vere considerably less

than those

of

subcontraetors (e.g., responsibility for hiring and firing, assigning

work tasks, and definingthe pace of work was taken over by faetory owners), but

the social status ofboth groups was rm:lghly equal.

22



· . _ ._ _

. . . . . ~

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspectives

Factories first appeared mainly in the British rextile l l d ~ s r r y They consisred of

collections of machines located

n

one building and were te nded by feeders and

by maintenan ce and repair workers.

In

phase one, the machines in a factory were

rypicaliy all of a single type involving only one task

or

simple, repetítíve process.

More complex tasks were still carried our using the older system of subcontraet

ing

While

the

maintenance workers and supervisors in the:early faetories were

nearly always men, most

of

the operatíve workers were women, and they, in turn,

were often assisted by children.

During the second phase of industrial deve1opment, which began roughIy in

the

1850s

and 1860s, the factory syst em diffused into clothíng

a nd

food manufac

turing, engineering, and chemical, iron, and steel processing,

ali of

which

depended upon complex productíon processes. According to Burns, this gro wth

and the increased technical complexity of maJ Ufaeturing operatí ons deman ded

parallel growth n systerns

of

sodal organizatíon and bureaueracy, wíth theír

emphasis on control, routíne, and spedalizatíon These changes e r e ~ e f l e c t e d in

large inereases in the ranks of managers and administrative staff (e.g., profeso

sional and clerical workers) and were accompanied by ímprovemenrs in transo

. porta tíon an d communicatí on, freer trade, growing publíc interest n the

consurnable producrs of industrialism, and the armamenrs revolution

that

fol·

lowed improvemenrs n steel and chemical technology and the development

of

machine tooIs. Developmenrs similar to those in industry were seen in the

growth

of national annies and govenunental administrations. It was changes

introduced in the second phase thar attracted the attentíon

of

the Classical writ·

ers of sodology. For ínstance, '.Veber and Marx predieted that these changes

would

lead to

the

creation of a new middle class of managers, clerical' workers,

and professionals employed by large, hierarchical orgimízations. Accordi ng to

Burns, many parts

ofWestern

industrial

sodety

son oper ate in phase two.

Bums l ~ e that the third phase of industrial development is just now

emerging. In

this

phase, production catches up

wíth

and overtakes spontaneous

domestic demando In these drcurnsrances, the capitalist organízatíon's depen

dence on growth leads to enhanced sensitivity to the consumer, to new tech

níques to sti mulate consum ptíon (e.g., advertising, product development, design,

consumer research, market research, marketing promotíon), to the internation

alization of firms in search of new markers, and to new technical developmenrs

that

inereasingly

ocror

wíthin industrial finns (e.g., via research and develop

ment). This new relationship wíth their markets demands greater flexibility of

organizations which are required to

be

customer-oriented, active internationaliy,

and technically innovative. What

is

more, higher levels

of

commitment to the

economic performance

of

the firm are demanded

of

all organízationalmemb ers

which leads to more partidpative styles

of

organízing. These ideas, which Burns


equdred Wilh the rhírd phase ofin dustrial development, have been imerpreted by

others as indicatíng a

more

fundamental change,

at

least in the West, from

i n u ~

rrialísm to post-industrialismo

Púst-Industrialism

and

the Post-Industrial

Organization

According ro futurist Alvin Tomer

n

his 1970

book

Future Shock a good way ro

envision the extent of the sodal transfonnatíon inítiated by computer and

telecommunícations technology

is

tO compare it to the transformation from

agricultural to industrial sodetíes t hat occur red during the industrial revolution.

The American sodologist Daniel Bell gave these new developmenrs the name

posi-industrialisrtJ. in his 1973

book The Coming ofPost Industríal Society. There he

arguea that, whereas industrial sodeties are organized around the control of

labor in tÍle productíon of g60ds, post-industrial sodety is organized around

the

ereroon

of knowledge a nd the ·uses

of

írÚonnatíon. According ro Bell, post

industrial sodety

is

shaped and defined by its methods

of

acquíring, processing,

and distributing írÚonnation,

al1

of

which have been revolutíonízed by the com

putero This emphasis on írÚormation has led sorne, Bell among them, to labe the

current era the infonnatíon age, and

tO

predict the rise

of

the servíce sector and

the decline

of

manufacruring, wíth technicians and professionals (knowledge

workers) repla dng capitalists

as

the most powerful members of sodety.

Bell

and others attribure the emergence of me global economy

to

the ability to

instantaneously share knowledge and informatíon, which is a product of the

computer revolution. A further implicatíon

of

me c omputer revolutíon, inítíally

remarked by futurist John Naisbitt in rus popular book

Megatrends

is the aban

donment ofruerarcrues in favor of communicatíon networks with a consequent

shíft from verticaliy to horízontaliy strUctured o r ~ a t i o n s This aspe

ct

of

the

information age provides the dep arture point for mosr discussions of the post-

industrial organization. .

Discussion of the post-industrial organizatíon typically involvescompariso ns

of

the forrns

of

work and organízatíonthat became familiar during phase two of

industrialism

wíth h o ~ e

antidpa red as a consequence of the recent shifis equated

with the informatí on age. Much energy has been devoted ro descríbing what, in

particular, is changing. To give a flavor of these changes, Table 2.1 groups sorne

typical ideas in relation ro

the

environment, technology, sod al strUeture, culture,

physical strUeture (space-time), space, and me consequences of these changing

conditions for the nature of work in organízatíons.

The prototypical post-industrial organízational forro is

the

netwo rk (descríbed

n

Chapter 6), bur othei- forms assoda ted with post-industrialism ínclude joint

23





TABLE

2.1. COMPARISON

OF CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIÁTED

WITH

I N D U S T R l U ~

!

TABLE 2.1.. Continued

AND POST-INDUSTRIAUSM

. '.'

Industrial Postindustrial

Industrial

Environment

• natíon states regulate

Technology

Sodal

strueture

Culture

Physical

strueture

(space-time)

national economies

• mass marketing

• standardization

• the

Welfare

Sta te

•

mass

produetion along

Taylorist¡Fordist lines

• routine

• manufaeturing output

• bureaucratic

•

h i e r r c h ~ c l w i t h

v e r t i c ~ l

commumcation emphaslzed

• spedalization

• vertical and horizontal

integration

• focused on control

Postindustrial

• global c o m p e t i t i o ~

I

de-concentration of capital with

!

respectto nation state '

• fragmentation of markets

and

íntemational decentralízation of

produetion

• rise

of consumer

choice,

demand

for

customized goods

• of movements, sinsle- .

lssue polJtics, service class

,

•

pLuralism,

diversity,

localism

• flexible manufacturing, automation

•

use

of computer for design,

produetion, and stock control

•

j u s t i n ~ m e

systems JIT)

•

emphaSlS

on speed and innovation

• service/informatlon output

. .

•

new

orgamzational forms (e.g.,

networles, strategic alliances, virtual

organization) ,

• fiatter hierarchies with horizontal

communicativn and

devolved

managerial responsibility

• outsourdng

• informal mechanisms of influence

(partidpation, culture, communication .

• vertical and horizontal disintegration

• loose boundaries between functions

units, organizations ' ,

• celebrates stability,

.

cele?rates uncertainty, paradox,

tradition, custom

fashlon

• organizational

vaLues:

•

organizational values: quality,

growth, effidency,

customer service, diversity, innovation

standardization, control

I

concentration of people

in

• deconcentration of people

industrial towns and dties

,. reduction int ransportation time linles

• local. nationalistic

?istant ~ p a c e s and encourages

!

rientatíon

mternational. global orientation

• time

5

linear

• compression

of

temporal

dimension

I

(e.g., shortening product lifecycles)

leads

to simultaneity

Nature

of

work

• routine

•

deskilled labor

• funetional spedalization

of tasks

• frenetic, complex

•

knowledge-based

skills

• cross-functional teamwork

• greater emphasis onlearning

•

more

outsourdng, subcontracting,

self-employment,

teleworking

Baseá

on

Clegg

(1990); Harvey (1990); Heydebrand (1977); Kumar (1995); Lash.and Uny (1987,1994); Piare

and Sabel (1984).

ventures, strategic alliances, and virtual organizations.

One

important dístin

guishing feature shared by post-industrial organizations

is

the disappearance

of

organizational boundaries. This idea inspires views of a future in which organi

zations are much smaller, more fluid and flexible

than

they are now, with'invisi

ble or no boundaries between the organization ánd' its external environment.

Boundaries between interna! groups

lik.e

sales, production, and engineering also

collapse in

the

post-industrial organization. People working in post-industrial

organizations w ll not make dístinctions between departments, hierarchical posi

tions, or even jobs the way most of us do now. Instead they

will

focus on collab·

orating with others

as

experts working in temporary tearns and

w ll

place much

greater emphasis on learning in order ro keep up with rapid change. Post

industrial organizationallife

is

charaeterized by uncertainty, contradíction, and

paradox, which contrasts sharply with the industrial organization's stability. rou·

tíne, and tradition.

While

most

observers agree that something has chimged drastically,

mere

is

little agreement about whether

this

change is out there in the real world, or

whether it

is

in hen:, inourunderstanding

of

ourselves and

our

relationships wim

the world we construet around uso The post-industrial thesis is that the changes

are real in an objective sense. Modernist crities

ofthe

post-industrial tliesis argue

that the so-called changes assodated with post-industrialism, although real, have

been wim us throughout the modern and so are nothing new and are not

nearly

as

transformative

as

the post:ipdustrial

mesisdaims.

Meanwhile, many

symbolic·interpretivists and p o s t m o d ~ r n i s t s think mat the changes introduced

by the computer revolution are not iocated in the objeetive world., but rather are

to be found in and through our subjective experience (which has been altered by

Our use of the computer, telecornmunications. and rapid forrns of transporta

26

25




t i o ~ . We will r ~ t u r n ro t h e s ~ differences below when we consider the epistemo

l o g l C ~ assumptlOns underlymg the perspectives of organization theory. Bur first

we will follow

up

the hisrory of ideas inrroduced in

Chapter l.

CL SSIC L

INFLUENCES ON

ORG NIZ TION

TH ORY

There are

rea1ly

two srreams conrained within wha t organization theorists

now

call

the Classícal School.

:n e . s o c i o l ~ g i ~ a l

srr::am focused

on

the changing shapes and

roles of formal orgaruzatlons W1thin soaery and the broader influences

of

indus

trialization

on

the narore of

work

and its consequences for workers. This was the

interest of Classical scholars such as Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx.

The other

stream comprises what organization theorists sometim es call Classical

management theory ro

distinguish ii: from the more sociological approach. Tbis

srream was sha ped by Frederick Taylor, He nri Fayol, and Chester Bamard,

among

o ~ e ~ s

and focused

on

the p.ractical problems faced by managers ofindustrial orga

~ a t l o n ~ In a way, the t ~ n s l O ~ betWeen theory and practice that

has

been present

m orgaruzanon theory smce lts inception can be traced to these two influential

srreams ofClassícal thought. The ideas

ofboth

stIeams can be traced backeven fur

ther to the influence of the famous political-economist Adam Smith.

In this ~ o n .1 will

introduce you ro sorne of

the

ideas

of

these influential

pio-,·

:

neers. of

soaal

s ~ c ~ and suggest links

between

their ideas and

the

three per- f¡i

l·

~ e c n v e s of.org.aruzanon ~ o r y As we

go

through

this

material remember that, j

smce

~ r ~ o

theory did

not

emerge

as

a recognizable

fie1d of

study until '

s ~ m t u n m rhe 1960s, what is called the Classical period is really part

ofitspre

history. Furthermore, you should be aware that organization theory is just one of

s : v e r ~ disciplines inspired by the Classica1 writers identified in the figure. Other f

~ a p ~ e s thattrac: ~ e i r origins to these i ~ e s indude industrial relations, \

mdustnal and o rgaruzanonal psychology; orgaru zanona l sociology, management

1

1

theo? and

organizational behavior. Sorne researchers loosely

group

all

of

these

fields

mto the more

general category

of

organiza tion studies. '

i

A word of waming-ifyou have not srudied social science before,

this

section

may

seem

overwhelming ar

this

point. Try rereading

it

after you have finished

P:rrt

II of the

boo.k; once you are familiar with the basic concepts

to

which

this

histo?, relates:

this

section will make more sense tO you. Bur do

not

skip over the

l

followmg secnons

on

conremporary influences

and

comparisonsof the threeper

spectives,

as

they

will

give you necessary background for reading

Pan 11


Adam Smith, Political-Economist (Scottish)

Ifyou search for the origins

of o r g a n i z a ~ o n

theory, will most likely

the

political-economist Adam Smith, who. n 1 7 7 ~ pubhshed The

W e a l t ~

ofN atw:tS

In

this book.,

Smith

described techniques of pm manufacrunng and,

m.

domg so,

was the first ro record and explain

the

efficiencies inherent in the division

of

labor. s you

willlearn in Chapter

6, the division oflabor has ro dDwith the dif

ferwtiation

of

work tasks and the resulting specialization oflabor. ideas

that

are

central tO the concept

of

social strucrore

in

organizations. This

is

why many orga

nization theorists

giVé Smith the place ofhonor

in

their intellecroal historiu.

KarL Marx, PhiLosopher-Economist (German)

Karl Marx is perhaps best known for

bis

meory of capital related ideas about

alienarlon.

The theory

of capital

is

built upon Marx's beliefthat collective work.,

or

labor, forros

the

foundation for

the

social world. He sees labor

as

emerging

from physical needs defined by the fundamental relationship between humans

and their physícal environment. Society and culture then emerge from the chal

lenges presente d

by

discovering that collective work is more productive

than

indi

vidual work. In other words, the

human

need ro survíve. which derives from the

dangers and opporrunities preSented by the physical world, leads

ro the

emer

gence

of

the social and cultural world.

The

particular forro taken by the social

and cultural world, which

then

aets back upon

the

physical world, is subject to

the relations of power worked

out

politically

between

those

who

comprise aIld

organize

the

labor-based collective.

In his

theory of

capital, Marx argued

that

capitalism rests

upon

a fundamental

antagonism

between

the interests

of

capital (capitalists, e.g., the owners

of

facto

ries and

the

means

of

production) and those

of

labor

(Le.,

me

workers whose

actiVities

form the

core of

the

production process).

The

antagonism, in part,

arises over

how

ro divide the surp lus value' (i.e., excess profits) generated by t he

combination of labor and capital produced

when

produets or services are

exchanged

on

a market at a price that is higher

than

production

COSts

Each side,

naturally. argues that the surplus should belong ro

mem, and

therefore the capi

talist system is characterized

by

a strUggle betWeen the inrerests of capital and

those

oflabor.

But antagonism between labor and capital al50 arises frem the necessíry ro

ensure profitabiliry. Withou t profitabiliry, th e survival of the individual fum and

the enrire eapitalist economy would be in jeopardy. Profitability depends upon

28

27



~ 1 t S

F

Histories

Metaphors and

Perspectives

tb:. -xganization and control of work activity. This

is

because competition from

other firms purs downward pressure on the prices for a·firm's produets and ser

l

JO

: .

vices, which translates into a need ro reduce me cosrs of production, of which

labor

is

a large ¿omponent. his encourages capitalists ro pressure labor ro w ork

more efficiently. which is accomplished by inventing

new

forms of managerial

l

. 1

control over workers and work processes. The control systems become addi

tional sources of antagonism between management and workers who attempt to .

¡

I

resist

this

control. Marxist meory considers control to

be

one of the key mernes

of organization theory. which in Classical rnanagement

meory

and modemist

organization theory

is

interpreted

as

a primary function of the executive, and in

postInodern meories becomes a foundation for critiques

of

managerialism.

The

issue

of

control

w ll

be taken

up

in Chapter

11.

Because capitalists ow n

me

means

of

produc tion (Le.,

the

plant, equiprnent,

and other necessities of econornic enterprise), mey ofeen have greater political

power ro design organizational control.systems than do their workers

who

i

1,

i

depend

upon them

to supply employrnent, machines, and

other

resources

needed ro transform their labor potential into marketable products and services.

Capitallsts tend to use meir greater power ro further disempower workers, for

example, by teplaáng worker control over work with managerial control, creat

ing

competition among workers via differential pay or through the division

of

labor. A1l of these tacties reduce the workers' collective political influence and

I

1

hence their ability

to

resist managem ent's efforrs ro control th em. This concern

with power can be rraced to discussions

of

organizational

power

and polities,

which we will examine in Chapter

9.

I

I

Once labor is defined as a cost of production, rather

than

as a means ro achieve

a collective purpose for the good of society, workers are disenfranchised from the

produet

of

their ow n wor k effortS, a condition tha t Marx charaeterized.as alien

I

j

ation. According to Marx, alienation occurs when labor is transformed into a

commodity to be bought and sold on an exchange market, which leaveshumans

\

I

with only an instrumental relationship with

another based

on

the economic

value oftheir labor potential. Unless the worker s organizé their resistance (e.g.,

via unioos), managerial exploitation and the disempowerment and alienation of

)

worker s will grow unabatecl. Thus, ac cording to Marx.,the resu1t

of

antagonism

¡

1

I

betviee n capital and labor is a build

up of

instirutionalized

fonns

of mutual con

rrol

and

resÍ5rance (e.g., management

vs

unioos) temporari1y held

in

place

by

the

dynarnies

of

a capitalist economy. This line

of

thinking has been a major influence

on

contemporary discussions in industrial sociology and labor process theory,

I

which we will discuss

in

Chapter 10.

i

I

9

\

i

...

p o ú , , ~ ~ ~ , ; : : : < : · S-i" .

') . , ; , · v : : , ~ · , r({(' .;\·:,'j- íJ ¡ ' < : \ ; . ~ ~



What i5 Organization Theory?

Emile Durkheim,

Sociologist

(French)

Over one huncired years after

Smith

inrroduced the concept

of

the division

of

labor; French sociologist Emile

Durkheim

wrote his

oook

on

the subject. In he

DiYision

of aborin

Society

published in

1893,

Durkhel111 extended the concept of

the division of labor beyond manufacturing organizations

to

explain the struc

tural shift from agricultural ro industrial societies

that

accompanied the industrial

revolution.

Durkheim desrnbed

thís shift in terms of increases in specialization,

hierarchy, and the interdependence of

work

tasks, Early modernist organization

. theorists regarded these conce pts as key dimensiolls for defining and describing

complex organizations,

as

you will see in Chapter

6.

Durkheim also propose d the distinction between fcrmal and informal aspeets

of

organizations and emphasized the

need to

attend ro wo rkers' social needs

as

well

as

the demands

of

formally organizing their

work

efforts.

The theme of

social needs is of

major

interest

within

the fields of organizational b ~ a v i o r and

industrial and organizational psychology.

The

distinction between formal and

informal aspects of organizing exposed the tension

between

economic and

humanistic aspeets of organizing

that

vex organizers and have traditionally

divided organization theorists

into

opposing camps.1

In addition ro

bis work on the

division oflabor,

Durkheim made

a

major

con

tribution to establishing sociology as a scientific discipline through bis work on

methodology. Particularly

with bis

books

The Rules

of

Sociological Method

and

Suicide

which emph asized objective mt.asurement and statistical description and

analysis, Durkheim helped lay positivistic methodological foundations,

not

only

for sociology,

but

also for

modernist

organization theory.

Frederick

Winslow

Taylor, Founder of

Scientific

Management

(American)

At the

turn

of

the

century, Frede rick

W

Taylor proposed applying scientific meth

ods

to

discover the

most

efficient

working

techniques for manual forrns afla bor.

Taylor called

bis

approach Scientific Management, and

he

claimed

that

its suc

cessful application

would

fully exploit the efficiencies of specialized labor

through

the close supervision

of

employees carrying

out

highly specified physi

cal work.. Efficiency was to be encouraged and supported by a piece-rate incen

l

ive system in which workers were paid according ro the

amount of

work

of

a prespecified

nature that

they performed

in

a given period of time.

The new

l

, s Uetaphors and Perspectives

Hlsto

ne

, f l ,

.

d fine the

task.s

that workers performed,

system pe rmitt ed managemeT" te eh d these

task.s.

Notice also how'Taylo r s

also

to

determine how they approac

fre

aftsworkers to management.

..

method shifted control

of

work task.s

om

cr a direct attack on worke r soldier

, . ·

tifi

Management was . .

In Taylor s

V1eW. Clen

e

.

d he' output in the interests

of maxuTUZ-

. . hicll workers limite t

Ir

k

· g a pracnce m w .

fi

r themselves and

fe ow

wor

ers

m

. .. .ob protectlo

n

o .

ing their irlcomes and assuru::

gJ

f ork done slowly reqw.res more

d that a glven

amount

o w d th .

(workers reaso

ne

. . d th au thoriry

of

the workers an err

,

tem undernun

e

e . . d b

workers). Tay

1

or

s sys . .

al

control and

superV1S

lOn

. an Y

master

crafumen

by irltroducmg managenhich eroded worke r solidariry. These

'al for performance w

offerirlg differeno pay d . iderable and lasting ill-repute as

Manage ment earne lt eons d

aspects

of

Scien

tifi

e d peration berween manageme nt an

. t

ofthe

trust an eoo

db

T 1

beirlg ruirlously Ignoran . . d d So much furor was create y

ay or

hi

ch 'garuzaoons epen . al .

workers

upon

w

oc b

f n Americail Congression mves

twas the su o a . . . f

that Scientific Manage

men

d

irl

postrnodem

cnnosm

o

has recently re-emerge . . el

ógation.

his controversy. ereTa

lorism and its subsequent dev op

mo

dernist

management

p r ~ l e s wh

Yoducóo

n

assembly line wh ich sorne

ments by

Henry

Ford

i n v O I ~

~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ r i t e

target along

wirh

the Tayloristic

postmodernistS

e f e r t ~

as Fer mal ar management (TQM) movement.

2

aliry

. t d WIth the

tot qu

f .

a1iz

tion

practices assooa e . fTa lor is as a promoter o raOon a

Perhaps the most

enduong

rrnag

e

o

Yf

b'e"";ve ineasuremérit and the dis-

. b

r f th

powers o

O·J

-Lo<

in o.-=nizations.

H1S

e le

ID

e . . d into the modern ist perspec

·ó-- .

work effiClency are carne fi

covery oflaws goverrung

l

chniques lay the groundwork

or

th

ry where Tay

or

s te . .

tive irl organiz

aoon

eo d m organization theonsts remter- ,

. 1

temS

Today postmo e 1(

manage:;nent contrO sys .

'.

fth managerial ideology of contrO a

1y

manifesrano

n

o e h

P

ret Taylorism

as an

ear ) Th see Taylor's system,

not

so muc as

1 in Chapter

10 .

ey . .

tifi

d .

theme we

wi1l

exp ore . 1

but

rather

as

bemg

JUs

e

ID

. atioro more ranona , . th

a means ro make orgaruz

th

unquestionirlgly accepted

duong

e

e tionaliry at was .

terms

of the 1111

l

1I e

lor ra th is Taylorism legitinuZes manage

.

ID

e tury

In

V1ew, . f

early

part

of the rwenne c n . 1 t by -sserting that the praeuces o

.

eul

1 . its role

as

contro

agen,

'

. al

ment,

paro

ar Ym b ted because they are

raoen

.

p

Scientific Management must e acce ,

·

CEO and Administrative

Iheorist

E

ngme

er

, '

Henri FayoL

(French)

.

th

;n;ng industry.

and

eventualiy

. d manager m e m

........

• d f

Fayol had

been

an engmeer an ., any His successful

tumaroun

o

ailing French muung comp . . h

became

CEO

o

f

an . . . F ance and

upon

bis retrrement e

d

him

gre-t adrnirao

on

m r •

the company earne

'

.

-, - 31

30





established a ce nter for rhe Stl.ldy

of d m i n i s t r a t i o n

in an effórr ro codify and pass

on the wisdom he had gained. In rus book

General nd Industrial MalUlgement,

first

published in 1919,

but

not available in English rransIation unill 1949, Fayol pre

sented what

he

believed to be universal principies for me rational administration

of

organizational activities.

Fayol"s efforts Iaid

the

grc.undwork for much discussion amo ng managell:lent

theorists about

me

necessary

number

and precise speci.fication of administrative

principIes.

The

principIes memselves involved issues sueh as span-of-control (me

number

of subordinates that can be overseen by

one

manager); exceptions (sub

ordinates should deal

with

routine matters,leaving managers free

ro

handle situ

ations that existing rules do not address); departmentation (the grouping of

activities such

that

similar activities form deparrments within

the

organization);

unity-of-command (eaeh

sub<:J.rdinate

should reporr

ro

only one boss);

and

hier

arehy (the scalar principIe Jinked al organizational members inro a control struc

ture that resembIed a pyramid). The administrarive theorists' view mat one

best

way to administer organizational activities could be identified proved ro be

too

ambitious. NonetheIess, their approach ro organizations contributed many

ofthe

basic dimensions of organizational social structure that underlie modernist orga

nization theories whieh

we

will take

up

in Chapter 6,

Fayol also emphasize d the imporr ance of esprit de eorps among

the

members

of

an

organization.

He

argued

that

unity

of

sentiment and

harmony

can contribure

greatly to the

smooth

functioning of an organization, Similar ideas arase in con

temporary

organization theory in the early conceptualizations of organizarional

culmre, ro be d:scussed further in Chapter 7. Fayol also speci.fied the responsibil

ities

ofthe

manager,

The

functions he speci.fied were: planning, organ izing, eom

mand, coordinatian,

and

control. These came ro be known as

the

functions of

management and

were eJaborated and taken by

many

as me initial definition

of

the fieJd

Cif

management.

Max Weber, Sociologist (German)

Like Durkheim,

German

sociologist Max Weber was interested

in

defining

the

key eharacteristics

of

industrial societies, on e

of

whieh

he

saw as

an

unavoidable

increase in

bureauaacy,

In contrast

to

feudal and

other

traditional forms of orga

nizing, Weber emphasized the rational virtues

of

bureaucracy whieh included

formal

aumority

based

on

precise and generalized rules and procedures

(described as legalistic forros

of

control). In Weber's view, bureauc racy provided

the benefits of rationalization, Whereas, in his view, earlier forms of

authority

rested

on

the perso nal attractiveness ofleade rs (charismatic authority) or the tra

" rocracy or landhol

ders

t r d i t i ~ n l

. oups su

eh

as

aOS al' d

ditional rights

of o ~ n t

gr with being objective and imperson. an

'th 'ry) Weber credited bureaucr

acy

.

1 f

this

eW

form was ratlonal,.:,

aU 00

.

d rational (hence his labe or n

therefore unblased an

f th ' and

legal authori ty). alon

With

its central them

es

o au Ooty .

W

ber's

theory

ofbureaucracy,

g; . . r Social and EconomlC

e

d bis book

The eory

D .

rationaJiry, were

presente.ID

.

nnan

in 1924 and in English

t r a n s l a n ~ n

OrganiZa

tion

which was published m Ge ro r t i o ~ l i z e the social environment ID

y

.

947

Weber

saW

bureaucracy as a

wa

, . aliz' influence

on

the physical

1Ill· irnil chnology s rauon mg

that was s ar tO te

. th

. fthe 1950s and 1960s ro

a mann

er

d orgaIUZanOn eonsts o . al

. oument.

This

led mO

euu->

. ·th their concems for technic

enV1 b alizauon l

equate Weber's ideas a

out

r.atl°:nd the engineering rOots

o f i n d u s t r i ~ m :

In

efficiency (the

~ g a c y of a

Y

:

ed

ro Weber bet..veen bureaucratic

r a t l o n ~ a -

any event, the link that JS a mode rn i s t organizational theory which

. chni al

efficiency persl

stS

ID

uon

and te c f' founding fathers. .

considers Weber ro

be

one o lts tl gnized that the uses

of

rationalizauon

"'eber hiroself, however, apparen . Yreca e this found in bis distinction

VV' , •

EVldence lor

I S ·

eh

rest

upon

value-based

c n t e n ~

.

aJity

Formal rationaliry involves te

twe fonnal and substantive

r a u ~ n

.

aliry refers ro

me

desired

ends

of

be

en

hil

bstantlve raLlan

ds ill

niques

of

caleul

ation

, w e

su

eulative techniques. Different d e s i r e ~

W

aetion that

direet the uses

of

cal .

aJi

Weber warned

that

formal ranonaJity

lead ro different uses of o r m ~ r t l ~ n b ~ ~ n t i v e rationaJity leads, in bis colorful

witho ut conscious conslderauon o s. risonin humanity and making

man

a

"iron cage" capable

of

lffip g

. '

Weber closer ro

phrase, ro an. .

3

Sueh sentiments pasman .

..cog

in

an ever-movmg meeharus

m

. . . theory while bis interes t m values

anon

srrnodem criries of modernis

t

orgaruz ,

po . b lic_interpretive researchers.

is

camed on

by

sym

o

Management Theonst (American)

ard

I

hester Barn . , 'dea

of

informal organization

ro

Classical

Chester Barnard extended D u r ~ e u n t h s I naaing this aspeet oforgan izing was a

b ggesung at ma

ó--

. hieh

1':

management theo ry Ysu . Bamard emphasized the ways m

w'

key function

of

the successful. e x e e u t l ~ e . into cooperative social systems by

. d 1 thelr orgaruza

tlons

. f

al

d

exeeutives rrug

ht

eve

k ffo ts through commumcatlo

n

o go

,s

an_

foeusing

on

the integrauon

of

w.or e r de a more direct contribution ro the

. . Ideas

th

at ma b.

anention

ro

worke r mouvauon , anization theory. However,

t

e

.

na

behavior than ro org f

field of organiza

no

h d ro ü'J.e cooperative aspeets o orga

d

bis

fol1owers anac e .

th

d

significance Barnar an , .n blinded early organization theorlStS to e

nizations

is

sometim

es

blamed for haVl g f al organizations, Nonetheless,

. f nfliet as a fundamental aspect o

Importance o co

32

33



What is Organization Theory? ··e

ldentified themes thar are echoed .Issues of

value and semiinem in the

workpl",

the consiclci"aaon Barnard gave

ro

.

om , m"ning, = d 'J'll'boll,m whkh w, will 'k , on o,g=iz>tioo,1 mi.

m comempo ary h

,up m CMp'" 7.

CONTEMPOR RY INFLUENCES ON

ORG NIZ TION THEORY

Just as Classical ideas formed a b

a

d e i r

p to

our dis

.m

z a ~ l O ~ . eory in general, there are key ideas a d U S S O ~

of

me roots

of

organi

ass<Jaated

wim

each of

th th

.n theones

mat

are speci.ficall

· e ree perspecnves f d Y

mterpretivism,

and

postInodernism 1

this .

o mo ernism, symbolic

f n secnon

th 'd

o mitiating discussionsofme perspectives f ese l

are presented as a

contmue throughout the book. As m o orgaruzauon theory mat will

ideas 1 m e rest of

me

book, 1

will

·

more or

ess

in

the chronological order

of

m . . . present these

theo:r mat

you

can experience for ourself elr ~ ~ ~ e on organizarion

COnUDUltIeS, in thought from bich

Y

th me COntmUltIeS,

as

well

as

me dis

mat th

d

W

e perspectives e d

. e

or er of

appearance

is

re!ated to m .

fl

merge . But

remember

qUlte often mese ideas iniluenced other . uence on organizatibn meory;

caught

wind of

mem and applied m dis:p lines before organization meorisrs

First, we will

look at

Ge

ral

S em to e srudy of organizations.

d ne ystems Theory hich' .

mo ern

approach to organization

meo

. w . msplred

much of

the

to

modemism among

many cont ry and he1ps sustam continued allegiance

ex . empor ary organizati m

amme enactrnent theory andm on eorists. Next we will

·d h e SOCIal constrli ' f .

leas t at

underpin

me symbol"c . . cnon o reallty, two related

I -mterprenve pers .

glve conslderati on to postm od . pecnve. Following tbis we will

errusm and sorne

ofth

are currently influencing organization theory. e post moder n concepts thar

Modernist: General 5ystems Theory

In

me

1950s, Ger man bio h siolo . .

intended to explain all s .P h

glSt

LudwIg vbn Bertalari1fy presented a m

fr aen c p enomena b eory

om

me

atom

and molecule throu h m .across

om

natural and social sciences

way up to

me

level of indiv;du 15 g e smgle cell, organ, and organism allme

m

h

groups and '

ese p enome na were related-s .. . soaenes. He recognized

mat

all

u 15 . di

'd

oaeues contam g

a ,In VI uals are comprised of or ans roups, groups conrain individ

h

g

molecules

of

atoms. To generar

organs

of

cells,

cel1s

of

molecules and

lZe,

e re erred to all

of

these

phenomena'

as

sys-.


"n>'.

B,mhnff¡ ,h,n ,ough'

d

n t i ~

1''"'

md

prinópl"

dm

would

' 'PI",

,n 'l '",m,. Thu>, d h'° '1 h ' ,n""ioo,d invol><ed

g,n",fu,oo",

<kawn "

,"d>

' high

m l of

,b"' ' 'OOO

,h d

n of,n ,ó,ntifk knowkdg' would'"

clarified and imegrared. He called his vis ion General Sysrems Theory.

Berralanffy based General Sysrems Theory on

me

assumprion mar me com

mo

merhodology of the sciences (i.e.,

me

scienrific memod) implies. <ir ar leasr

n

permits, theoretical unity. In proposing General Sysrems Theory he did nor

expeet ro do away wim

me

varied branches of science. These, he predieted.

would continue ro investigare me unique features

of

meir pheno

mena

of

inrerese

Meanwlúl •general sysrems meorists would foeus on me similariries underlying

and uniting al! phenomen a. Thus. General Sysrems Theory knocked down sorne

of

the barriers

betwe

en

me

sciences. proposing cross-disciplinary research as a

revplutio

n

in me way science is conducred.

To undersrand

me

importance of sysrems thinking for organization meory. ir

Wim

is firsr necessary to grasp me concept

of

a system. A system is a

dúng

inrer

related parts. Each pan

is

conceived as affecting the others and each depends

upon

me

whole. The use ofme term "thing" shows youjustho

w

general General

Systems Theor y is. This meory can be applied ro any

thilt mat

science can srudy.

The idea of inrerrelated parts (in sysrems meory mese are cal!ed subsystems)

'emphasizes that, while al! systems can be analytically broken for me pur

poses of scientific srody. meir essence can only be identified when rhe s y s ~ i

confronred

as

a whole. This is because subsysrem inrerdependence produces fea-

rores and charaeterisrics mar are unique to me system as a whole.

Consider

me

example

of

a frog. You may have been asked ro disseet a frog in

biology class. However, no matter what you carne ro.understa nd abour the rela

tionships among frog parts, there was no way your new understanding would

enable you ro put it back togemer again. Thar difference between me reassem

bled frog and me living one illustrares me unique aspecrs

of

a holistic sysrem.

That

is, the totality that

is

referred ro

as

a sysrem must be apprehended in its

entirety; a system can never

be

fuliy unders tood mere!y by analyzing its parts, nor

even by reassembling

memo

Nonethe!ess, me systems approach does DOt imply

that analyzing the parts of a system

is

a bad idea, simply that it is inadequate

because it misses something essential. The implicationis t hat, to comprehend a

system, you must not merely analyze (or synmesize

or

integrate), you must al50

be

willing

to tra11S

me view

of

me individual parts

to

encounter the entire

cend

system at its oWD leve! of comple:rity.

Anotherimp ortan fearure of subsysterns s that mey can be high1y differentiated.

r

Differentiation provides the sysrern wirh the benefits of specialization. of course,

specializatio at me subsystem

leve!

evenrually creates a need for integration and

n

coordination at the systems leve!, or in other words, a need for organizanon.

35

34



What is Organization

Th

eory?

built they d .

o nor requlre addi'

1

with

respeet to

me

purpos m

ona mpurs t

o operare. They are self- . .

kincls

es ey were b

il

e

mamtamillg

. of cybemeric sysrems ro correet be u r ro sen: . Organizations use man

m

,h ,

prie,.

' ' ' ' volum' =d h,V>OL Fu<

m"=ce.

mly , of

flbe;{

as mQicators of investor saus'

f

.

.

employee rurnover are used r . l

r .

acuon

Wlth ' especnve

y,

SatlSlaCnOn wim

produ cts and . orgaruzaDonal performance '

. . serv1ces and

1 '

cusromc::r

ruzanon and

wim

meirJ'obs This '

emp

oyee satisfaction with th

SOft

of infl

.

e orga

assessment and for plannin fu

ormanon

provides the b .

Lm14

in

m hi g rore

eom",

of ,crion o, ,'¡f

e erarchy

of

systems intr d .

:I:,,,m- Sy,,,m, " lmI4 = d abov, =; uce. m, import=,

Id "

of =

op,n

elI enVlIornnent for inpurs ro feed and

pen

m the sense

mat

they depend on

p.rovides a conceptual

model mat

is

fusuPdaPort

thelI existence.

The

opell sys

tem

eones

.

In this

mo

d

el

a system takes

m'

n

mental to

mo

d

errusr organi zation

sou.

.,

of mpurs

fr . .

"

m

_ _ ,,"'gy ('_g_. cubon. """ ' h,

o

om "" ,nwonm,m

,uoh "

ormed

Ulro outpurs a proce m g . xygen). These inpurs are m

m '

ss

at sustams m

lif;

en rrans

e .orgaruzanon, inputs include

raw

mar . e e

me

system.

In me

case of

eqw?ment,

and

rhe transforma

tia

e n ~ s

capItal, knowledge, labo r d

: ~ : : : ~ o h '

m,n oU,!,"'

ro

: : : = : ; ~ : ; : ~ u c r i o n

of

goo<h

a ~ d ;

due,d

by

m

m'ti , ,=fo,m,tion

pco,,",,'_ lb ,

"1, , ~ cls° orher sysrems to

. e

company allow me or o goo and services ro

Dpcov>d" a vl>u," rep,,,,nt>tion i : : : ~ o n eontinu, funetioning_

F;;

At rhe presenr time, natural scie h garuzauon as an open system

systems understanding

Exo'nn'

ncke. as

not

progressed very far bey d

d I f . g

wor

15 be' d

on

open

mode

o DNA as a self-replicating

s t r u . . . . . m ~ t h i s ~ n e on

genetic systems using

.\

mo

els

of

the fifth

1 el '-L""re, work'

b . .

v of systems meory h 15 egU4ung ro suggest

suc as Ger .

an soclOlogisr Niklas

\

ORGANlZATION

r

Transformation

Inputs

t

j

l

\

proeesse,

¡.-- ' '- ' Outputs

Histories, Metapho

rs

, and Perspectives

Lunlnann's theory

of

se!f-organizing and se!f-reproducing social

s y s t e m s ; ~

But

even these developments leave an enormous gap betwe

en

what sóence offers and

the leve!

of

complexit)' Boulding claimed characteriz

es

organizations. Until

W

gap

is

narro , organization theoristS mus t use the relatively simplistic theones

wed

oflow er leve! system if hey want ro coririnue ro follow the path cut by the nat

s

ural sciences, which

is

the objective

of

most modernist organizatiQn theorists.

You should be sure ro notice t hat what we have called the parts

ofthe

system

could also be discussed as systems in their own nghr. But, systems are not only

compns

of

other systems, they make up

still.

other systems.

That is,

the general

ed

systems view is one

of

systems operating within systems operaring within sys

tems

. . .

every system has subsystems,

but is

also a subsystem

of

a larger system.

ach

Thus, in applying systems theory, it is necessary ro appro any phen omenon

as

. a nested system consisting of:

me

supersystem, the system itself, and its subsys

tems. Thi.s aspect of systems meory is sometimes referred ro

as

embeddeclness,

andit can create all kinds

of

confusion about leve!s

of

analysis.

The

particular sys

rem you wish ro focus

on

defines your leve! of analysis and pinpoints relevant

supersystems (mo in which

me

system

is

embedded

mat

occur at me next

se

highe r leve!of analysis) and appropriate subsystem

s

(mos

e

at

me

next lower leve!

of

arialysis). To make matters worse, you also need ro disringuish levels

of

ana

lysis from a nomer use

of

rhe terro '1evel"

...yith

which you may alrea9Y

be

famil

iar_management

leve! in an organizational hierarchy (i.e., executive, manager,

supervisor).

igure 2.2 should he!p you ro visualize mese different concepts

of

level and

their relationships. Within modernist organiza

tion

theory,

me

first source

of

con

fusion

is

!har what

is

defined

as

a system sbifts

wim

the foCUs

of

your discussion

or

analysis. If you are talking about an organization, for irISrance,

this is

defined

as

me

sysrem ofinterest, which means

mat

unirs

or deparan

ents

will be

regarded

as

subsystems, while

me

environment

will. be

considered

me

supersystem

in

tion

which it

is

embedded. But yOU could define a department within the organiz

as your sysrem ofinterest, in which case individuals would

be

subsystems and

me

organiz would forro

me

supersysrem. The terms "system," "subsystern,"

ation

and "supersystem" provide a way ro frame discussions in tertnS compatible

wim

me

abstraer concepts

of

General Systems ·Theory. This allows you

ro

apply

1

General System Theory' to any system you choos

e

as your focus. Meanwhile,

me

s

specifi levels of analysis (in organization meory mese include , for exarople,

me

ed

c

organization, its units, and the environment) keep you focus on your definition

of

the system of interest.

ve

I

I

A second source

of

confusion líes in

me

differences in perspecti mat are

tion

FIGURE

2.1.

AN

OPEN SYSTEMS VTEW OF

!HE

ORGANIZA

typical of different levels

of

managemenr. In modernis t organiza meot)',

ed

TIús

model depicts

the

ergaruza'ti'

nON

rop management's perspeeti.ve is usually conceptualiz in terrnS

of

the

raw m t .

ls .

en as a mech . f

a

ena

mto

eutputs

such as goods d a m s ~ or transforming

inputs such

an

semces.

as

39

38




5ystems

level

Level of analysis

Hierarchicallevel

SÍJpersystem Environment

Top

management

System

Organization

Middle

management

Subsystem

Unit or

e p r t m ~ n t 5upervision

FIGURE 2.2.

CONCEPTS

O

LEVEL

!he

concept of

'level" is

used in severa; difiere .

1Il

organization theory. 'For instan ce h

th

nt n?t entirely unrelated ways'

. . w en e orgaruz-ti . th 1

lt e c o m ~ s

the

system and the environment

is

the u on IS : evel of analysis,

other uruts being the subsystems. likewis . t s.u?ersystem Wlth departments or

majar responsibility of top management

is

e, ID ra.diilonal forrn: of .organization

the

relationship while rniddle ma ag managmg the orgamzation-environrnent

. n ers are generaUy fo d

..

grating the activities of several subunits within t h ~ u ~ : co.ordinating and inte

managers or supervisors are focused on

th b

g ~ a t i o n

and

lower level

ility. e su umt for which they have responsib

~ r g n i z t i o n s relationship

with

its environmem M'

15

defined

in

relation

te

the

m'

te

mal ... f

Iddle

managemem

generally

actlVloes o the or .

translating tep

management's

strategic vision

inte

c ~ ~ ; : a o o ~

s ~ e ~ a 1 l y with

the organization's unl'ts

The e

nate acoVlty

among

. p rspectrve of su

. .

.

the

day-to-day problems of

man

k p e r v ~ s l ~ n IS normally equatedwith

agmg wor ers Wlthin o . Th

spectives

ofthe

different levels of . ne umt. us, the per

lysis described as environme t

m a n a g e ~ e n t

can be related

te

the levels

of

ana

n , orgamzat lon and .

II

.

theyare

equivalent. However there are . umt.

ou

could Imagine

that

inaccurate. ,many clrcumstances

when

this would be

.

Take the example

of

a retail sales derk..

This .

below

the

level of

management

yet . . person IS typICa1ly positioned

. . ' maIrltams constant b

orgamzatlOn and its environme

t

th

contaa

etween the

.n m e process of selling

ds

.;

erefore, t he levels depiaed' F goo to customers.

'.'

Th

agement) are conceptually relamted Ibgure 2.2 (levels of analysis

and

levels of man

. , ut

not

necessarily e . al 1 1 .

anguage of organization th

will .

qUlv

ent. n earnmg the

1

_

eory

you

Wlint

te b .

level and

leam to

apply it

WI'th

e attentlve

to

the concept of

. great

careo

. Until

you

are familiar with conceptualizin . thi

lost one or

two

times.

That is

you will be in

. s way, you will probably get

zation at one level

of

analysis' with

th

g . kmg abour an aspect

of

organi

, e perspectlve

of

a particular leve! within a

40

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspecti

ves

vel

hierarchy, and men, with0'-': realizing it, you will switch your analyticalle

or

your hierarchical perspective and confuse yourself (and anyon

e

else wirn 'whom

you are

anempting

ro

communicate). This

is

a normal occurrence when

y-q))

begin ro apply organizaríon theory. Press on; you will evenrualiy come mrough

me haze and discover new powers of cbnceprualízarion along with developing

your understanding

of me

modernist perspecríve.

Symbolic-Interpretive: Enactment and the Social

Construction

of

Reality

American social ps)d1ologist Karl WeiCk introduced enactrnent theory in

1969

in his book The Soetal Psychology ofOrganizing According te Weick's theory.

when

you use concepts like organization. you

crea

te me phenomenon you are seeking

te

study. sirnilarly. in conceptualizing me environment, organizations produce

me

situations te which they respondo Enaetrnent

e o r y

focuses anention

on

the

-.

subjective origin

of

organizational realiríes.

WeiCk

states mat he purposely used

me term "eruunnent

ro emphasize mat managers

consrrua,

rearrange, single

out, and demolish many 'objective' fearures ofmei.r surroundings. '?0

en

people

aa they u nrando mize variables, insert vestiges

of

orderliness. ana literally create J

meir

own

constraints."6

According ro Weick, by stating an interest in organization ana establishing a

langu3ge for talking about it, we reify the subject

of our

study, that

is,

we make

me phenomenon

real by speaking and acting in ways that give it tangibiliry.

The

concept

of

remcation

can

be compared ro me work

of

a mime. A mime. by pre

tending to make contaa

with

a door or a wall, causes us :O i:nagine mat a wall

or door is present-we

can see the absent object through me mime's descriptive

attitudes and movements. Reification has a similar power

te

make lis see.

The

difference betw een miming and enactmem

is

mat

we are aware

of

the

dif

ference between the

door

the

mime

creates in our mind and a real door. In the

case of enaament,

we

can make an'environment, a culture, a srrategy, or an orga

nization appear,

but

once we have done so mere

is

little difference between

our

creation and reality. o f course we do

not

usualiy enaa mese realities individua1ly. -.

ramer

mere is often a certaih amount of social agreement and cooperation

that

occurs before such existence

is

daimed. In fact, when an individual persistently

anempts

to

enact meir

own

reality individualiy, we may view them as abnormal,

not fitting in, or, in sorne extreme cases, insane. Thus, enactrnent overlaps

wim

social constrUetion

of

reality theory.

The

idea that realiry

is

socially construeted was mosr forceful1y argued by

cc': · . · . c < ~ r

1 ~ . : .

) J·

•••• o e:ot-t.. ; . ,. :

SI

r:; \.

, .

,, '

• !, . ; -: (/ . :.,' \ ... . . ~ ; ;

:.:

.

~ C < : { . ,

:.; b l . . · ~ .

\,

(\

t ~ ; i ~ : ~ : : .

,

p · J j · ~

41



r Histories, Metaphors,

and

Perspecti

es

What

is


r

infl '

eter Berger and

Th

amas

-

L.l.1ckm:!:::!'

tw

uennal

book

entided

The S . 1e -,

o

German

sOClologisrs

who

w

that

hu

.

O lLl

onstruction ofReahty 7 Th rote an

\

.

.. man SOGal order is produced thr

. . ese theorisrs ar ed

unpum

und",u",üng> dm >re buil, u ough

m p o o ~

oogon,no",gumd

ence,

What

sustains social ú

-Je '

l p Vla shared history and s h a r ~ d .

to

b ' r

IS

at east

partO

al

expen

e perceived and the me<Jlin

f¡

.

l consensus about

how

thin

members

ofa

gs

or which they stand

Thr . gs

are

\

w Id d >Dao')' m,ko p,n", , , of m o · . ough m",p"uooo

m : m mon " ' um"hmho p,nom, m

mmg

om of mou

t iv i t i

m

,h;

f

.retanons

.

that produced

the

m.

ey Imposed exist apart from th

e mter-

L

or mstance We'ck

strllcted fr

ili l. ~ ~ g u e s

that

the

environment f .

envir om

e

aCOVlLes of

collecting and al

.0

an orgaruzation

is

con

.

onment

and

fram

decisions taken an. yzmg mformation about th

IOUS

activities,

induding fu

h

on

the basls

of

analysis which l d e

envir rr

er

constr"rtions of

th

ea to var

onment is

assumed

to

ha

e environment

Whil

h

that

for th ve

generated

the anal s' . . . e t e ¡

. rns e envrronr nent to which th . Y.IS, lt 15 acrually the analysis

soaal

constIUetion

theo'

e organlZatlOn responds A . .

caused both

ana1y

. dry,d enacted environment is the . ccording to :

d

m ' , , , , , , , '

u·

o

p",umod

<o

h,

o d ~ o n

m>km.

by ,0Uocrmg ,nd

u wo" P ' ' ' from mom. Sm" .;::

I

zmg

ment

they respond to,

we

say they sOci l information, create the

e n v i r o n - ~

m:;;: and

~ a l n a c t

what

they

take

to

be the

: b : : c ~ : u c t thlde

reality

oftheir

environ-

[

e SOG constIU . . J

wor

lan a e cnornst position explicitl reco

.' .'

t u r ~ g used ro understand organizations

(s:eh

thar the categories·ófÜ.

are

not

real

or natural'

as enVlronment, Strll

beliefs held b ID

an

obJecove sense. Insread th crure, cul-

f Y

~ o m b m of

",ocio')'. Tlm •

'J'

otro mo produa of

j

o

terms

that

we

th ' we mvenr

and

s .

th ¡

acríon w.dtin .en ' ' ' 0 undmund mo wocld Th U ,, o moaning> i

rural

andrro o ~ ~ a o c ~ t u r a l

conten of

our own m ~ i n

us

; e

aet and

~ t e r p r e t

gnifi p

1:'"

C\i\fo,d Gwtz

pm

i'. " .

g. '. Amon"n

ruI- ,

, Th a", , , ho hUru ouh ",un.". - ", 'n

' n

anim,l<uppod m wob,

of ¡

e

soaal construc'

. '

"iliod m no"", p"",ocríve

paro d . '

tion • owocld go" on

i"" , ," do"

u mo" y mo om m ,h"oo" dm. once "

,0dill

HOWOV

.mo id" motr

,J i ' ) '

no, ro m u : h ~ a pm<ly o,*,tivi" i

.y constIUcted in a way that m

ke

.

~ f ~ n v e as it is objectified e i .

_ding

of

"""billly and mo p m , : ~ o_bJ".ove) m",odu,,, , now u n ~ : S '

are SOGal COrlStIUetiOrlS th r orgaruzanonal change Ifo . .

..'

were'

' en

we

reconst rllct the . . rgaruzatloru¡

consaous

of these process eh m conunuously and could if

Symb

r

es, ange the . th '

we."·

o ,,:m,,'I'''tivo ",,,,<Ji. m

",mUnln

m m_ o. ""'",,,"críon P"''''' 1

orgaruzanonal realities

b

. g the subJectlve social

ti

d'

. "

niz

al ' egms to make us

co·

'

oun

anons of

.

anon

processes. This dawning r

liz .

nsaous

of our

participation in o

oves

w.th

ea atlon

links

b'

rga

r e c o n s ~ u c / o s t m o d e : r u s t s who want ro rake c o ~ ~ ohc-interpretive perspec

the orgaruzational world along m

01.

of

rhese processes andore

emanopared

lines.

42

postmodernism in Organization Theory

It

is

impossible ro choose a core theory, or a ty'1ical set ofideas , ro exemplify post

dem

.modernism-the

incredible variety

of

ideas 1.abelled postmo defies summa

cization, and the postm

odem

value for diversity contradiets the yery idea

of

unifyi.ng these different understandings int0 a single, all_encompassing explana

tion. For these reaso many organizarion theorisrs working outside the post

ns

modern perspecti regard posrrnodernism as an anyUUng goes approach. This is

irIaceu becaus

ve

, although postmodcrnism

is

relativistic in the sense

that

it

e

rare

abandons notiorlS

of

universal crireria for trurh

or

excell

ence

, it does

not sacri.f1ce

standards alrog (wroch

is

a

naiveview of

relativism). lnstead, postrrlod

ether

emists tend ro view quesriOrlS

of

right and .'.rrong, good and bad, as social con

structions

that

would be usefuliy redefined as matters for personal reflection

and

practice.

he

critical aspects

of

posrrnodem organiz

ation

theory trace to Marxist

and

neo-Marxis theorizing, partieu1arly in Europe. However, sorne

of

the earliest

al

uses

of

the t

term

"posrrnodemism" referred ro aspeets

of

architecrur style

that

emerged in the mid-

to

late rwentieth century, as described by American architeet

c h a ~ l e s

]encks in

his

1977

book

The

Language

of post Modern

.Architeeture.

Struetures that are postmodern stand in opposition tO the functionalist style

of

modero

architeetu that was typical ofbuilding design in the 1930s through the

d

re

1960s.

The

major critique offunctionalis

t

(modemis

t

) architeeture by pOStIn

em architects

is

that it is sterile and lifeless. posrrn

odern

architeets seek ro ren ew

traditions

of

making built spaces symbolically rich and meaningful by invoking

past styles and reinterpreti ng them using the marvelous neW materials and con

struction teclmiques that irlSpired the functionalis

t

movement.

That

is,

they rose

modern techniques with traditional concems for

the

symbolic meanings

expressed by built spaces. Furthermore, postmo

dem

architeets' use

of modem

consrructio methods allows

them

ro juxrapose several period styles in una-

n

peeted ways for startling visual effeets that often involve disorientation (e.g., in

time,

when

they mix period styles) and evoke laughter

or

a feeling

of

playfulness,

especially through the use

of

ironic humor. For irlStance, the facade

of

the Croat

Day advertising agency building in Los Angeles sports a gigantic pair ofbinocu

lars, and the Disney headquarters building displays larger-than-life Disney

ved

artoon charaeters.

As it applies to organizaríon theory, postmodernism evol most direetly out

of

the poststruetu movement in French philos

o

phy which

is

associated with

ralist

the evenrs

ofthe

late 1960s asthese unfolded in Europe. It also found its way inro

organizatio theory

t..l)roug

n

applications

of

linguistic: semiotic, and literary

n

43



-----.--

i i i i i i i i i i ~ ~ ·

What is Organization Theo ?

ry.

rheoI )' vía

interesr in . .

rneamng and mrer .

Interprerlve organizarion rh· . prerarJOn mrroduced by symb li

h' eOosts Like pos o

c-

P iJoso?hy developed in O p p o s i r i o ~ ro mOde;modern archirecrure, posrmodern

errusm

IS generally described

as

che l . illsm. In posqnodern theory, mod

.

1

eu mmanon of th Enli '

rarrúC.J lZe

human

culture and socie

d. .

e

ghrenmem

Project ro

for r

..

rionality and for its efforrs ro

d ~ ~ : ~

IS

c ~ n c l Z e d

for its unquestioned value

based

on

scientific pnn' . 1 d P an mregr ated theo ry

of

rhe .

.

Clp

es an

methods .

umverse

discover universa llaws . e.g., Galileo and Newton's ecr

m asrro nomy and h . uores ro

theory

(e.g.,

General Systems

Theo

p

~ S I C S .

~ d e r n i s m

in

organization

explanations thar could approach I'f ry)'chi,:hich has likewise soughr universal

al ' nora

eve

th

w

open

ro

postmodern

co·r·

' e srarus

of

narurallaws

IS·

th

.

~ o s t m o d e r n i s t s

challenge rhe mode · .

.behet !bar knowledge is fundamemall

t

deslre for Unifying views with their

duced in so.many diiferem bits and

ie:es

~ g m e n t e d

that is,

knowledge is pro

I

anon rhat Ir will ever add up to p. ar rhere can be no reasonable

expec

F h an IDtegrated d'

renc POstmodernist

e a n - F r a n ~ o i s

L or an smgular view. For instance,

,

.

unrversal undersrand ing as grand

y.

ard cOntempruously labeled efforts ar

,

f

narraove

Such 1 b

15

VIews o reality as a multipl . fr . a e underscore

postm

d

1

lotous agmented

d o ern

musr leam nor to rake

fo d'

,an conrradictory notion th

r

grante

as

we

are ar we

I

aSSumprions that make

most

fo f . encouraged

ro

do by rhe simplii)rin

Fragmentation. . rrns o saence possible. • g

I

'

IS a aVonte theme

amo

n -.

t

IS

concept ro posr-industrial b kd . g many postmoderni sts

who

relar

ll

rea owns

ID

the

[; il

e

I

s w as ro the threats to self.identi d

am y

community. and society

ro play mulriple roles with

lirrle temty

uced wh.en individuals are

ca1led

upon

For example, re1ewo

r

king

(i

e w

kPth and

spanal separation between

them

. .

Or

at can b d .

ne

11

e

d

ro rhe organiz

o· hr

e

one

anywhere and

th

ch

l

a

On

r

ough com

.

e:-r

an

apses the distinCtion between public an d p ~ r e n z ~ d communication links) col

from th eir homes, places individuals in th pr:

vare

Me

and, when employees work

roles of mploy and family

memb

slmultaneous and often conrradictory

I

members / workers

who

are gul

elr.

s

Can

fragmenr rhe idenrities of famil

b .

re ar

y ca1led u Y

.etween one ldentity and another Ar rh to make rapid rransitioTlS

tIa1ly

distributed

(or

even virtual) . e time releworking produ ces spa

further fragmented by the spatial

~ l Z a r l O ~ s

m which

individual work

lives are

between workers and their

o r g a n i z a t i : ~ c e s ~ e r t e d

between co-workers, and

cared by rhe variety

oftypes

of 1

This ~ a g m e n t e d

condlrion

is com li

society ( ro es extreme

differenti·

h p

r

.

e.g., ¡arm

hand

to astronaut . tlon

as wroughr

upon

w o r ~ e r which

is

One explanation o f t : n e ~ t to halrstylisr, creative

anist

to facro

posr-mdustriallife. n glven for the diversity and multiplicity

;;

Posrmodernisrs often chall

b enge

modern

.

one

esr way. For example posrmoderm'sm dnotIons

of tmrh

and the search for

, emes th

. .

e

pnonty of

perception thar

44


underlies most of modern scíence. Ir challenges che claim mar sensory

e r ¿ ~ p t i o n

is me

rme

and on1y way

te

knowledge, arguing

mat

seflSory perception

more tmthful , and may even be less vaJid, man ocher ways we could know

some-

rhing, such

as mrough

inruinon

or

aestheric experience.

And, íf

sen"cT)' percep

tion does nor serve as the sole basis for (objective) empirical tests

of

C'\lr

meorjes,

then

me

scientific view ofknowled ge is opened

te

debate.

As

opposed ro ies self

inrerpretation

as me

search for Tmth, modernism

is

reinrerpreted

by

posrmod

emises as a series of

truth

daims, supponed mainly by modernist rhetoric abour

how scientific and rational modernism

is.

Posrmodernism also opposes me modern view

of

human progress. Post

modernises challenge me idea

of

knowledge

as

a unified body

of

choughr

ro

be

continuously honed and supplemenred so mar human civilization

C?Jl

progress

toward sorne murually desirable furure-mat sáence and rechnology lead ro a

berrer life. CaJlíng this unexamined assumption the progress myth, many post

moderrilies point to the ways in which mose in power use progress

as

a rationale

for maintaining their vesred intereses in the status quo. They further express belief

in the impossibility

of

defining a murually desirable future due ro hwnan diversity,

which is an impo rtant value for many postmodemists. A fragmenred knowledge

of the world resonates wim the breakdown of boundaries between nations and

their peoples, and the resulting dispersal and mixture

of cultures. pohtics, and reli

..

gions that were kept bounded and well-apan during che industrial era.

As

1men tioned already, one

of

the most compelling aspecrs ofposrmodernism

is its striking similarity with posr-industrial society and organization, discussed

earlier in this chapter. Predictions are that

che

future

will

find us occupying

smaller, more decentralized, informal, and flexible organizations tbar will be pre

dominantly service-

or

information-oriented and

will

use automated production

strategies and computer-based technology.lo

As

a resultof these changes. we

will

experience organizations as more eclectic, participative, and loosely coupled than

ever before, with the implication that members of organizations

will

confront

more paradox, contradiction, and ambiguity. These themes resonate with the

phi1osophy

of

posrmodernism suggesting that a posrmodern perspective

will

help us adapr to changes already taking place, ironical1y; as a result of continuing

applicatioflS of modernist science and rechnology. The irony is mat it is modern

science and technology that has produced the means

of

sharing informanon so

qUick.ly mat the

moment

knowledge is produced it is made available for

u s ~ .

The

rapid absorption

of

knowledge, especially social knowledge. means mar organi

zational and other forms of social change become increasingly unpredicrable.

Hence science creares the conditions under which

sdence itselfbecomes less and

less useful

as

a means

of

prediction and control, which has been

ies

primary value

to

modernists

all

along.

5



..._---_

•.

~ ~ ~ = ~

<

Histories,

Metaphors,

and

e T s p e c t i ~ e s

What is Organization

Theory?

What

do postmodernists suggest

that

you do ro prepare yourself for a post·

modero

furure?

There

are

many

concrete recommendations

about ho;

to be

posrmodero.

First,

learn

ro take

nothing

for gramed. DeconstrUct all claims of \

trum in order ro determine whose point of view is benefined by a particular way

oflooking

at

or

arguing

about

me

world. In simple terms, the

method

of

decon .

strucrion

involves

reducing

an

argument

ro its basic ass)lmptions, denying mose

¡

assumptions by asserting

their

negation,

and

considering what this implies about

me origina! argumento 11 Postmodernists

daim

that the deconstruetions you per

form will free you

from your former

totalizing habits

of mind

(e.g., searching for

one

right answer,

or

believing

that

everyone thinks

or

should think as you do) and

allow you sorne critical distance from your socialJy and culrurally defined ways

of

seeing the world.

One

idea critical

postmodemists

particularly like to pro blematize a nd decon

struct is power, which, in

most

indusoial organizations, accumulates at the top

of

the hierarchy. For instance, modernist organization theorists argue that organi

zations and society benefit from the greater power of management so long as

managers use rationa! techn.iques ro guide and operate

theirorganizations.

Critica! posrmodernists argue that giving managers greater power

on

the basis of

their

daims

to

rationality acrualJy only works ro reproduce the

dominan

ce

of

managers -and the capitalists

who

employ

them.

Dominance

of

the capitalisti.c

ruling elite

is the objective of modernism, according ro these critica! posrmod

ernists. Thus, the greater strength of management's voice within organizations

and society, while seemingly explained by modernist organization theory; is acru

alJy

only legitimized by it (e.g., the critiques ofTaylorism

and

Fordism). They fur

ther dairn that such imbalances

of

power undermine democratic principIes.

One posrmodernist

idea for redressing the imbalance is ro give voice to silence.

Too

means

seeking

greater

levels

of

participation by marginalized

members

of

organizations such as

women,

racial and ethnic minorities, and the oldest and

youngest employees.

These postmodernists

argue

that,by

focusing

on

what is

norma11y

norsaid

and thus hidden by entrenche d ways ofthinking and speaking

that suppOrt

the

powerful, you will

undermine

old concepts

and

dispute the cat

egories into which people have been placed, so that no one willbe disadvantaged

or

disregarded

by

the ways in

which

you conventionally sPeak

or

think. Too

move will allow you ro imagine alteroatives to your taken-for-granted world. In

the process you will find

that the

boundaries that you assume exist

between

things are permeable,

and

the socially

constructe¿

foundations of your experi

ence of

the world will

come

under your

control (or

at

least within

your

conscious

experience).

A1l of

these

suggestions

demand

se1f-refiexivity, using

your methods

of under

standing

and

discovery

on

yourself as well as

on

the world

around

you

inorder

46

.

hen

you produce

or

use kn0wledge.

that you are assuml tg w

ro reve

al

w

h

at lt 5 fb ' g 'Willing ro use many contra

, rrunistic

in

the sense o em

f

you

will becom

e

opp o ctives in

arder

ro avoid the traps o

. al and incongruo

us

perspe .

d

. . gul . f view

As

a result of your increasmgierory, para OXlC,

dominance hidden within sm ar pomts f s'elf as a sin2Ular identity with a

. li

will

destroy your concepoon o

b .

mulop oty, you

In the

colorfulwords

of one ofthe

major inspiraoonstO post

urutary perspecOve. h M'eh 1 Foucault ro be postrnodern you

. the Frendl philosop er

1

e ,

din

mo

d

erUlSm, ds u will take your long-stan g con

"di man 12 In other wor ,y o

must s a p p e a r · Id d throw them away so that other, pro

. f urself and the

wor an

.

13

As

cepoons

yo f ein and being can enter

your

imaginaoon. you

foundly different ways o se g d nism

is

a radical perspective with a

. thi

hort

descriptio

n

,'postmo

er

rfa . d

can see m s. s a chan e on a personal1evel

through

su ang an

on

program

ro

s t a ~

revoluo ry

take:for-

anted assumptions

about

yourself,

then overrummg

your own gr

others, and social organization.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES

AMONG THE

PERSPEmVES

.

of

orgaruz'ation theory, we need to

th

three perspecoves

In

order to

compare e .

f

ology. Epistemology is a

braneh

of

take U the irnportant quesoo

n

o

eplSdtem

d.in how we can know the world. .

, ,

lf

·th un erstan g .

P

hilosophy that concerns ltse

l

h be

known (l'

e the kinds of things

hich cerns w at can , .

Along

with

ontology, w con

hil

hi

al

thinking Thinking about

. .

e the foundation for

all

p osop c . .

that

exlS

t

),

l m

S

. s is a useful undertaking because epistemology 5

differences m ep15temolog

le

dr w between the three perspec

f, d difference we can a .

probably the most pro

oun

h logy is a diffieult philosophical

, . . theory Althoug ep15temO .

uves

of

orgaruz

aoon

. .

will

hdp

you considerably m your

. me

maner

sorne attenUon

now

lssue, glVlllg 'ves of organization theory.

efforts ro underst and the perspeco . b h w knowledge

is

obtained

or

ere

aSsumptlOns a

out

o

Epistemologyconce rns . . dr distinction

between

objectivist

. al '

th ooal

SClences ro aw a

ated.

is

typlC ID

d

b'

ctivist (e.g. anti-positivist, idealist) episte

(e.g., positivist, empmos

t

) ~ s ~ b ~ e B

II

an'd British organiia tian theorist

. .

h

'Olog15t

Gl son

urre

.

mologies, as

BnOS soo

.

lo

.

al Paradigms ami Organizational Analyns,

Garem

Morgan

in

o o ~ ~ a ~ ~

epistemology

is

built

upon

a beliefthat

whieh was published m

9 ~ 9 t ~ o u

h independent observation. Notice that tak·

one

can only know something b

gli

' th t the world exists independen t of

. . ' eans e evmg a

ing

an

obJeco

Vlst

posmon

m . , .

II kn wkdge

of the world,

if

the world

our

know1edge

ofit.

For

me

subJecovl

st

, a o .

47



What is Organizanen

Theory?

t

Uetaphors

and

Perspectives

S

enes, 1 '1

,

exists in an objecrive sense (subjecrivisrs orren make no c1aims abour rhis wh,

soever), is filrered rhrough rhe knower and rhereby is powerfu1ly alrered by co

nirive

and/or

social and eu1rural forces. Those who

ralee

a SubjeCrivisr sra

believe thar knowledge is relarive ro rhe knower and can

on1y

be Creared

an

"

undersrood from rhe poinr

of

view of the individuals

who

are directly invol

ve

A

rhird posirion, similar in

many

ways ro the subjectivisr, argues

further

because

al1

knowledge

is shaped

by social and culrural

processes

dichoromies

such as

subject/objecr

and e pistemol ogy/ onrology are arbitrary and inherenrly

unsrable; they are simply the

products

of one ser of

sodal

and cUlrural processes

operating

ar a specific

point

in time in a

panicular

place. This position argues

that,

aU disrincrions are semanric in origin, and poinrs ro language use as a

mC:ans

ro

redefine questions

ofborh

how (episremology) and whar (onrology) we

knOw.

I

,

You can see in the third position rhe line taken up by posrmodemists and rh.e ¡

ease with which such a stand resolves inro the metbod

of

decoIlStruct ion in which

categories are questioned and concepts undermined. Likewise, you w ll see rlié' ¡

seeds of rnodernisrn in the objectivist episrernology, and of syrnbolic-inrerpre.

I

'ivi'm in tho

,ubj"tivi"

op;"omoJogy Modo mi"

0'l:'niz'tion hoo"'" ' 'gUt I

tbar the phenornena they srudy exisr "our there" and thus their theories Can be

tested agai nst reality ro assess their correcrness. This episremology suggests why

modernist organization tbeorists are attracted ro methods used in the physical

sciences (e.g., me'asuremenr, the search for general laws). In raking an i n r r ~ t in

meanings and inrerprerations, symbolic-inrerprerive and posrmodernisr

researchers are practically forced to talee a subjectivisr epistemologicaI stand.

In the subjecrivist epistemology there is no c1aim made aboul wherher or not

reality exists independ enr

of

the observer;

t

is assumed that this cannor be known

since a1l knowledge is mediated by experience. Thus reality is "in here," that

is,

reality is defined by the individual's subjective experience, albeit under social and

culrural influences. This posirion is extended by postmodernists who see individ

ual subjectivities as themselves consrrllcted within rheir social and CUltural con

¡

texto Thar is the concept ofindividual or selfis itselfconsidered a construction of

-

sodal and culrural forces that talees place in the domain

of

language Use, for

1

instance, in label1ing or orher rhetorical acts.

Table

2.3

surnmarizes key differences in rhe mulriple perspectives óffered by

organization

theory

according to the centr al issue

Or

subject

of

concern,

the

pre

ferred

methods

for conducring research,

and

the son

of

result produced.

In

rhe

Classical period, for instance, the Subjecr

of

organizational study Was either the

effects of industrialism on society (the sodological approach), or how

to

malee

organizations more effidenr and effective (the managerial approach), The mod-

ernist e r s p e c r i v ~

changed the subjectfro

m

Sodety and

managemenr to

rhe orga

nization itself This perspective seeks explanations for the various forrns rhat

es rhar rhey ac

hi

eve

(

e g

.

performance,

"

org2nizations rake and rhe ourcom rspective takes an objectivist eplStemolo

d

r . . 1)

The mo

errusr pe 'rh

dirn .

ns

rhe.t

ronrabiliry, conr ro . " " died as an obiecr

WI

• enslO ".

rh nizatlon 15 sru 1 rh

gical position in rhar e ou m ht measure rhe height of a tab e or e

can be reliably measured,

U S ~ ~ l i c _ i n t e ~ p r e r i v e

perspeaive o c u ~ e s on rhe o:ga

weighr

of

an elephanr. The

SYedOminantly

subjectivíst epistemological posmon.

rozarion roo, but from a

pr

. 'on as

an

objecr ro be measured and

That is, instead

of

rreating

the.

orgaruzatl meanings are ro be appredated and

d subJect w

h

ose .

thi

analyzed, ir is treat e as a tive changes the

subjea

once agall1: s

undersrood. The postmodern

p e r s p ~ c

theory and theorizing. Tha t

is,

the tocus

. . ro

órgaruzatlOn . h

rime from orgaruzaoons . the researcher or practitlOner w o mes

ofpostmodernist perspectlves emllbracethse organization itself, such as ir is con

. .. n as we as

know the orgaruzatlo, .

ro ro know

1t.

al

f1

.

with

strueted by attempts " d on hísrorical analysis and person. e c t l ~ n .

Classical methods are base fi of authoriry) and prescnpove gUldelines

typ

b 's three orms d " d

Th

ologies (e.g., vve

er

. ) being rhe typical result pro uce. e

(

g

. f the executlve . .

al

ti

t'on itself relying on staOstlc

. .,

Fayol's functlons o

on the orgaruza

o

dernis r perspective ocuses" .

b'

'"ry

which produce comparatIve. ded

ID

o 1ecov1 1

description and analys15 groun . . . research methods often

emp

oy

. .

rudies of orgaruzaoons,

Symbohc-mterpretlve

.

TABLE

2.3.

DIFFE

TI{ THE MULTIPLE

PERSPECTIVES Of

ORGANIZATION

THEORY

Perspective

SubjectfFocus

Method Result

Classical

• the effects of

•

observation

and

• typologies

and

organization on historical

analysis theoretical

society

• personal

refiection

frameworks

• management

of

the

on experience

prescriptions for

organization management

practice

.

Modem

• the o r g n i z t i o ~ "

comparative

studles

• descriptive measures

•

• multivariate

through ·objectlVe

corretation among tatistical analyses

measures

standardized measures .

5

h

Symbolic-

• the organization •

rti . ant observation • narrative

suc

Interpretive

through ~ s u j e c t i v e · •

pa

Clp

h' as case studles

and

~ t h n o w a ~ lC organizational

perceptions

lOtelV1ewlOg ethnographies

Postmodem

• deconstruction

• refiexivity and

• ·organization theolY critique

of

theorizing

and

theorizing

refiexive accounts

practices practices

49

8



hat

is Organization Theory?

eilinographic rechniques (e.g.. participaD[ observation and eümographic inter

viewing) and result in narrative descriprions and case anaJyses.

The posnnodern

approach employs

methods

such as

deconstruaion

and

other

forms

of

criticism

developed in literary

theory

alongside the hisrorical and critical approach es of

Marxist. neo-Manást,

and

feminist theory.

One

importam

outcome

of

posrmod.

ero

research

on

organizatio ns is an increase in self·reflexive theorizing.

You may

wonder whether

there is any difference bet ween t he Classical man

agement

theory

method

of personal reflection (Le., among the executives such

as

Taylor, Fayol, and Barnard, who pioneer ed this field of srudy) and posrmodern

self-reflexivtty (the act of

turning your

critical gaze back on yourself and your

own

pracrices).

In

a

way,

it loolcs

as

though organizanon

theory

has come

ull

cir·

ele

back around

ro the

methods

of

Classical

management

theory. However, there

is an important difference. In

the

Classical period, man;:gers felt called upon ro

share the wisdom they

had

gained

as

practitioners; postmodernism calls

on

the

r

orists

to

refleet

upon

and reveal themselves. In the Classical period it was

assumed that those in

authority

(i.e., owners and managers

of

organizations) had

the right

to

speak and influence others. Postmodernists believe that those in

authority (i.e., authors of organization theories, a category

that

ineludes man

agers) have the responsibility ro reveal their subjeetive understandings and moti

vations, and the obligation

not to

impose

them on

others.

The m o e r n ~ r

l.

orientation serves to concentrare authority in the hands of management, while

the

postmodern

orientation tries

to

diffuse author ity by

indeasing

the

number of

stakeholders whose voices are heard in the organizational decision-makíng

process.

Where

the moder nist perspective:: concerns itself with creating and sus

taining managerial

power

and control, the

posrmodern is

marked by concern for

the morality of organized action, especially as it is (often negatively) influenced

by moderni st ways

of

thinking.

You

~ h o u l

recognize, however,

that

most

postmodernists

would

object to

being categorized at

all

in the ways 1 do in Table

2.3

and

many

other

similar

¡,

schemes 1use

throughout

the book. Remember, postmodernism challenges dis

¡

tinctions such

as these, seeking

to

undermine categories, blur boundaries, and

expose

the

motivations

that

produce

them.

In

the case

ofTable

2.3, for instance,

a postmodernist would probably argue that this type

ofthinking

objectifies orga

nization

theory

and theorizing in ways

mat

reproduce and legitimize the mod

ernist perspective.

That

is,

such

thinking renders organization

theory just

one

more

objeet

to

be studied and

we

(modernists)

all

know

that

objective methods

are the

proper

way to study objeets. To overcome the distinctions, postmod

ernists

might deconstrUa

those

that

strUcnIre the Table 2.3 analysis. For instance,

l

Histories, Metapho

rs

,

and

Perspectives

. a!

n'

od me tvnologies,

, . m class

1C

pe '} r ,

r this does ro your p e r ~ t - . : : t l v e (e.g., m e :anag used producec! metr

h

d

ers

w a . rions researchers an m

framework.;, and prescnp m than

me

other way around). . . .

, d e.xpenences ra er m ,ecr m

m:e:

observauons an . , . word play concerning e

term

o

J.

. .

Norice a!so me posslbili

ues

.or . the subjeet-objeet disrineuo

n

, clailll

non

b P

mo

derrusts

ques d are arbi

parag raph a ove.

os.

difficulr'

ro

keep separare, an anyway

ing

that

in research ilie

tWO

are dernist uses

of

language. Thus,

when

we say

trary disrinctions unposed by

mo

b m disrinctions are invoked and

c r e a ~ e

a

mey

o ject to

(vs. affum)

s o m ~ t h i n ; ~ d e O

an object (by

me

modernist ?erspeeuve)

werfu! contrast

betw

een

bemg . ' there is another meanmg!-of me

po

. . . ( obJeeu

ve

- d

and resisring

o b l e e t i f i c a ~ o n

an, e istemologica! position renders posrmo

posrmodernisr pt:rspeeuve). Thetr phich may account for their preference for

. ts highly sensitive ro language: w f nsrrucr ing organizations and

ernJS

. . the diverse ways o co

meraphor as a way

te

trnag

me

organiz

arion

theory.

THE

MET PHORS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY

.

th

models

of

rraditiona! science

, f . ation built upon e d

Almough theones o orgafilZ a find

as

symbolic-interpretive and

s t m ~

continue

t be

usefuL

you

m y

th

are

not

enough

t

satisfy yourcunOS

1

ty.

anization theorists have, that

ey

d dings built

on

methods bor

org . als develop

un

erstan .

Many organiza

rion

theonsts

: es

One of mese

methods-metaphor-1S

a

rowed from the arts and humaru . .. and understanding the essence

of

a

glVen

ticularly useful mea ns of

e c o g r o z ~ g

tion theorists use different metaphors to

phenomenon. For example.

~

. hould notice, however, that metaphor

communicat e different p e r s p ~ c t ; e s ou sciences, tOO.

The

chemist Friedrich

has pIayed a significant

~ o l e

m

a;= : cove ry

of the ring stnictur.e

of

e r : z ~ n e

for example, clalmed

th

.

ail

His

metaphonc

assoaano

n

Kekul

a

, k

ing

to

eat lts r . d

was based

on

a dream

of

a sn e

try

f

th

crure

of

the benzen e molecule le

of

the snake image and

the

problem o

f

e

t ~ p h o r

for theor y building has a long

dis overy.The use o me . . '

to chis nOW

famous c

a! 11 as

rhe

soaa!

soences.

. 'the natur as

we

. : f

and respectable!fa

di

.

d kind

of

experience m terms oon m

dersran one

Metaphor

a1lows you t un

things that

you

would not nor

. .d tity berween rwo d

another by suggesnng ano

1

en such as life and a long and winding ro;¡. ; man

mally consider

to

be eqmvalent, and one element

of

the metaphor, you can learn

and a lion. 0 long as you underst hor encourages you to explore the par·

th

Thus metap

something about

th

e o er. 'd thing thar

is

better

known

to

you,

or

.

f'

est an some '

allels

between

an obJeet o mter .

at

least known in a different

way.

a postmodernist

might

argue that,

what

is cast

as method

and

what

as result is

5

arbitrary. She could pIayfully encourage you to reverse their meanings and see

5



.._-,-_._--

-------------

What

is


. In

lmages o Organization

Briti h

•

atlo

•

med

many

ways in which

meta :

c_6"amz

n

t h e ~ r i s t

Gateth Morgan

e.xam·

understanding and

ana]y'

p

rhas

served orgaruzation theory

s

a means

b

zmg

orgaruzaDons

14

For . to

erween organizations and machín b ] . mstance, he explored parallels

al " es, 10 oglCa] or b

po De. systems,

and

psychic

r.o· Oth

garusms, rains, culrures

]

li

sonso

er

metaph h '

anty among

organization theori

ts' el

d ors t

at

have enjoyed

popu·

s m u e text

dis

.

a e 2 4 shows

how

each of the . course, art, Jazz, and drama.

T

bl

equated with a [miding o perspectlves

of

organization

theo

v

can"

b

'_

r

root metaphor

A .

J

e

and fundamental way

of

seein

think root metaphor

offers a distinetive

ng

15

of

a well-established type ofexpge'. ¡th , and talk.ing. It caprures the esse- ce

Id .

nence

at orga '

th H

wor UltO

a singular, overp.awerin ers . mzes a o er experiences

of

the

we

will

explore these four

n f i u e n r i ~

e t e ~ t l v e

~

the remainder

of

the chapter

the perspeetives

of

organ izaríon theo p aors. we so, ay to imagine each

mterpretive lens of its

roar

metaphor. ry

nd

the Classlcal period

through

the

TABLE

2 4 TH M

TAPHORS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY

Perspective

Classical

period

Modern

Symbolic

interpretive

Postmodern

-

Metaphor lm age of

Machine

Organism

Culture

Collage

the organization as •

a machine designed

and

con

stru.cted by management to

achlevepredefined goals

a l v ~ system that performs the

fundions necessary to survival

esp.

adaptation

to

a hostile world

a pattern of meanings created

and maintained by

human

asso.d.ation through shared

values

tradltions, and customs '

An organization theory is a collage

made

from bits of

knowledge

-nd

understanding brought togeth"er

to form a

new

perspective that

has

reference to the past

lmage of

the manager as •••

\

1

an.engineer

who

designs •

bUllds and operates the

I

rganizational machine

an interdependent part

of

an

adaptive system

\

an artifact

who

would like

to

be

a symbol of the

organization

\

a theorist

the theorist is

an

artist

The Machine Metaph O

r. rgamzatlOns as

Tools

of

Management

Histories, Metapho

rs

, and Perspecti

ves

organizations for designated purposes. This is the \ f e of thinking associated

with the machine

metaphor of

organiz

ation

theory.

The

machine metaphor

aroS

e during the

18005 when

many

neW

machines were invented

as

part

f

th.t

indusmal revolutia . This metaphor dominated art and \iterarure in the nine'-'

n

teenth and early twentieth cenrories and.

~ t r

Class

ical

management theory

via its concerns for strUcru

re

and effidency.

The

machine

metaphor

framed discussions

ofhow

to best design the organi

zational machine

as

an instrument for accomplishing specific (usually produc

ers

tion) taslcs, and inspired the image of managers

as

organizational engine

whose task it is to design and operate an effective and efficient organization. Even

today, ro a certain extent, all organizations a re expected ro behave in machine-like

ways--they should routinize efficient operations, be predictable, and operate

reliably whenever this

is

feasible. These demands are echoed in the popular

metap ho of the compu ter, which organization theorist Martín Kilduff identified

r

as

an updated machin

e

metaphor.16

The

Organic

Metaphor:

Organizations

as living

Systems

Ideas about biolog

ical

evolution contributed

ro

von Bertalanffy's General

Systems'

Theory

and provided organization theorists with the metap'bor

of

the

m

organismo

This

biolog

ical

metapho r implies that, like a living organis , the orga·

nization

is

dependent

upon

its environrnent for the resources

that

support its life.

ent

Instead

of

providing food and :;helter, the organization's environrn provides

raw material, knowledge, labor, and

capiral-resoufce

inputS ro rransform ation

es

process that sustain an organization in ways similar to the digestive process

es

ofbiological organisms.

The

organic metaphor

of

the organization

is

also associated

with me

ideas

f

organic functioning and adaptation within an ecolog

ical

system. While organi

ical

zation demands life-sustainingfunetions

just

likethase of t heb io log o rganism

(digestion, respiration, circulatíon),

both

organism and organization must

a.lso

adapt ro the wider environment

on

which they depend for their survivaL

The

organic metaphor focus

on

organizational process

es

related

to

survival,

and

es

thus

on

maintaining exchanges

wim

the environment so that raw materials will

be

supplied as needed.

The

recognition that

mere

are different species

of

organizations adapted

ro

dif·

ferent environm helped establish contingency thinking among organization

ents

theoristS. This metapho should remind you that differe

nt

rypes

of

organ.izational

r

species

will

face different demands and re spond in different ways. Thus, there can

be

no onebest way of organizing that

will work

equally well for all organizations.

L

]ust as

you

might

build a machine for accom . .

a hole in

wood

or affixin b phshmg certain tasks, such as drill'

r

" g a

umper

ro an automobil mg, so you can build entire

S2

53



Wilat is Organization Theory?

Tnt mer"'\"o

¡ J ' .

f h

e organism frames th . r o

r

eory

and emphasizes

environmemal

de e modernlst approach

ro

organizatlon

non

process, and srrucrural adaptarion penden ce, technology

as

a transforma·

(themes we

will pick up in

Ch

'

as

strategles for organizarion

a

1 . \'

aprers

3 through 6).

survlval

The

Culture

Meta h

rgamzations

as

Cultures

or.

. O

U .

.

smg culrure as a metaphor

r

or

orgamz

t' .

mg

ItS tail because, in a conscious way

at IOns

IS

perhaps a lirrle like a

dog

chas

y

; r thfran you do about organization

H o ~ t y ~ u f

prhobabl know less ab out cul

e

l ~ l e r s

om

whar kn . ver, 1 w atyou kn b

new,o you ow ,bom o<g>niz,tion che uI ow,

on<

rulom

ffi U ,

of o,g.miz,,¡on,1 undem,nding Th' .e '

mmpho, n

=e>1

o ers to organizarion theory. . IS

IS

what the culture metaphor

From

your

point

of '

lew

. h

e proble . h

a

b

out

culrure befo

"you

n

,dop' che

m

IS

1

t at you need to 1

eam ,ome<hing

b

;:"

ou'

o'gmization.

Th"

we

Ime

uneil

Me

mmpho,

" a

w'y of

lea<ning

ow that

the culture

metaphor em

hasizaprer

7:

However, for now,

you

should

and myths, artifacts and symbols of p .es customs and traditions s tOri ·1,

n 'ome ochenlllng

lile

d o'gamzaoon (a "mbol

¡

chin

eh'

"

che

man'g" ¡, J f f i b ~ o ; ~ e eNe

~ p ~ e n

pea,,).

In che

c u l M ~ m:' "P'"

non who is interpreted in

m u l t i ; : g : ~ l Z y s a ~ o n h

a storyteller and a bearer

y t e

members

of the

orga'

lZauon.

.

I

A Pos:modern

Metaphor:

Colla e

as a

Metaphor for

\

Orgamzation

Theory

9

¡

Collage is an

art

form in which o . .

\

r

~ e p r o d u c t i o n s of other works of

; t e ~ : s ~ n d

pleces

of

objects (often inc1udin

ogether

to

form

someth.

as museum

postcards) g

<Dllage " a m mg new-an an

obje"

in i" w . ' amnged

holdin . "apho, fo' o'ganizac¡on eheo nghc, When you me

worthyg

; d i s ~ t l P l l e ~ e : s p e c t i v e s

and using

p a r ~ ~ ~ ~ : r e

:ecognizing the value

of

[

ay Ullts own . h Th . eones to form a

orists theoriz . ng t. e Implication is tha . new work

1

a10ng 'h

ehe ehey c

Iike

mi,, , makinga

coll

Th cwhen

g . m ~ i o n

ehe'

crea" : ~ e w

knowledge and expetien"

chey

: : . : coll':"m; bi" of old cheoti"

In colla heory.worthy of use in particular circ e

Ul their

lifetimes to

ge, t e arnst can sti ul . umstances.

that u 1 h m ate surpnse by .

ch,ng; : : : p ~ w e n u l ide>' and feelin];' p , ~ ~ : ~ , ¡ n g incongruou, im'g"

Histories, t-\etaphors, and Perspectives

similar fashion, the collage meraphor reincroduces inrerest in contrac4crion,

e

arnbiguiry, and parado ,

and

redefines ¡;'suesof power and chang (ro

be

taken up

x

in

Pa IlI). This rneraph

or

a

quates the manager with the theorist. It calls

on

rt

ro recognize thar managers and other organizarional mernbers crear· :he org

nization in their hear and minds as a theory. Tbis means there is a d( ).1ble iden

ts

riry

arthe

heartof

the posrmodem metapho

r

-

the

manager is a theorist, and'the

theorisr

is an

artist.

As you rnigh have gues

sed

already, postmodemists couId never agree ro a

r

sirlgle metaphor, that would

be toO much

like accepting another

grand

narrarive.

Instead, a muItipliciry of meraphors has

been and probably will c(l.ntinue

tO

be

a

n

offered.

Among the mo

st

compelling thus far have been: the organiz ri9

is

rs

text, a narrarive, and a discourse.

What

metapho

rs

mat appeal

to

postr:1odernis

seem ro have in

com is

a strOng aesthetic dimension, that

is

they draw

out

mon

the artisric aspects of

me

organizarion

by

comparing it to forms

of

arristic repre

sentatíon

or

discovery. Try irnagirlirlg an organiz

arion

that you have participared

ín

as

an example

ofyour

favorite art forrn (e.g., a rock concert, a painring. a bal

let or an opera, a novel). What aspects

of

the organiz

ation

does your metaphor

bring to ligh

t

?

What

aspects does ít hide?

limitations

of

Metaphoric Understanding

You

shouId recognize

mat

metaphoric knowledge is pa:rial.

That

is, a

metaphor

can reveal oo1y sirnilarities between

twO

things; it remairls silent about méir dif-

ferences.

When yOu

identify.life

wim

a long and wirlding road you gloss over its

breviry and intensity. sinúlarly. calling a rnan a lion irlvokes n image

of

charac

terisrics such as courag and dominance.

but

ignores his rnouse-like fears and shy

e

arion

ness. This irnplies that the

root

metaphors of organiz theo ry c reate blind

spots

irl

perceprion and reasoning.

en

Because metapho depends

upon

identification of

me

sirnilariries betwe

r

non-ídenrical things, when you use metaphor ro understand one thing irl termS

. of another. yau de-emphasize or even ignore me often considerable differences

between

memo Thus. ít

is

easy to get

carned

away

wim

a

new

persPective, overex

tending

me metaphor by

taking it to ridiculous extremes. Each'

of

the root

metapho of organiz meory eitherhas be en. ar

is

capable ofbeirlg, overex

ation

rs

tended. Acknowledgirlg

me

limitations of mese metaphors will

he1p

you

ro

avoíd

overextension. For irlstan , the machine metapho

r

depends upon

me

similarities

ce

between

rnachines and organizarions and underemphasizes

me human

aspecrs

of

síon

organizirlg. such as emotion and syrnbolism. overexten

of

the machine

eer

metaphor

leads sorne people ro talk about

how to

engirl cornmitrnent or

or er

accustomed ways

of

s . provokmg the viewer to

55

eemg

and ex . .

enenang

the world 1

54 .

n



Histories, Metaphors, and Perspecti

ves


culrure, a use

of

metaphor

mat

produces a simplistic and misleading understand

ing

of

whar

commirmem

and culrure are and an overestimate of the extenr

LO

which managers can comrol them.

Organism, culrure, and collage meraphors can similady lirnir organizational

understapding. Overexrension of rhe organic me raphor leads

LO

seeing an orga

nizarion as being much more physically bounded and environmentally derer

mined

man ir

aaually

is.

For insrance, organiza tions have

no

prorective layer, like

an organism's skin

or

shell,

LO

sepa'rare

them

from

other

organizations

or

from

their environment,

nor

do they have a biologically determined life span. In like

manner, overextension

of

the .culrure metaphor leads LO an overly symbolic

image

of

organizations, which hides their significantmaterial aspeets from view.

FinaUy,

overextension

ofthe

postmodern

metapho rs can lead

LO

seeing organiza

tions as

much more

chaouc and unm anageab le rhan normal everyday experience

suggests

that

they are. But then

postmodernism

suggesrs thar there

is

no

realiry

beyond the language

we

use, rhus rhe

meraphor i s

realiry within the discourses

in

which

it appears.

The

limirations

ofthe

meraphors of organization theory suggesr

that none

of

them alone provides sufficient understanding

on

which ro base organizationaJ

knowledge. Nonetheless, each has inspired partial understandings thar have con

tribured ro

contemporary

organization

theory

It

s

my comention, and the

theme

of this book, that farniliariry wi th t he variery of metaphors, theorles, and

perspectives offered by organization

theory

will enhance

your

knowledge

and

theorizing skills and enlarge your horizons as organizers in and of the rwenry-first

cenrury

SUMMARY

\

This

chapter introduced you

to

the

tmee

perspectives

of

organization theory thar

frame this book, and ro the hisrorical events and sources ofideas that established,

developed, and toda y help to maintain

them. The

perspecrives were compare d

on

the bases of differences in their epistemological assumptions and

d H ~ i r

roor

i

etaphors. Each

of

rhese perspecrives

of

organization

meory

have contempo

rary adherents whose research can be found

in

books and professional

journals

devored

ro

the srudy

of

organization such as:

Aeademy o Managemen.t Review

KEY TERMS

three phases

of

industrialis

m

enactment theory

reification

post-industrialist s o ~ e t y .

post_industrialorgamzatlOn

social construction

of

reality

objectified vs. objective)·

division

of labor

theory of capital

diversity

Enlightenment Project

alienation

Scientific Management . .

gra

nd

na rrative

fragmentation

forms of authority (charismatlc.

progress myth

traditional. rational-leg

al

)

deconstruction

theory of bureaucracy . .

voice

forma,l vs. substantive ratlonallty

self-reflexivity

system

epistemology

hierarchy C f systems

metaphor

open

system

root metaphor

embeddedness

level of analysis

ENONOTE5

6.

Weick

(1979 [1969}: 243).

. . meory as

1. .For diseussions of orgaruza

pon

7. Berger and Luckmann (1966).

the

product

of mis tension, see Perro

w

8. GeertZ (1973: 5). .

(1973) and Barley and Kunda (1992).

9.

Jendes traces me terro tO even earher uses

2

Wren

(1987);

Bemard

(1988);

BOJe and

in me art world., .

.

Winsor (1993);

Steingard

(1993);

O'Connor

10. Heydebrand (1989); Johns

ton

1 ~ 8 7 ;

(forilieoming). Clegg

(1990);

Kanter, Stein andJlck

3.

Quoted in Seott

(1992: 44).

(1992).

4

Boulding

(19S6). 11.

Derrida

(1976, 1978);

Martin

(1990);

Calas

5:

Luhmann (1995).

Note

mat

ir s

difficu1t tO

and Smircich (1991); Kilduff(1993);

.

_1..:

s

work

as

strictly moderrust.

catego

nze

Ul f

Linstead

(1993).

Luhmann conrinues ro foUow me pam o

12. Foucault (1973). . .

natural sdenee, but me leve! 5 systems he

13. Rorry (1989) diseusses this posmon and

d

'b

s

push

him tO eonsider mearong

ealls it me ironie disposition.

escn e . . ulls

him

in me

and interpretanon. This p . .

14. Morgan (1986).

. f symbolie-interpreo

V1sm

and

di

recnon o

15.

mirdch

(1983).

od

Nonemeless, his mod

postm

e,,_....

. .

16.

Kilduff

(1993).

. 1 . gs reassert memse!ves In his

errust earon

systematic attempt to n t ~ t mese per-

AdministTative

Scien.ce

Quarterly Journal

o

Managemen.t Inquiry Journal

o

spectives

intO

a grand narranve.

'.

Managemen.t Studies Organizat ion Scien.ee Organization Studies Organi zation

and

Studies ofCultures Organizations andSociety.

7

56



What is Organizanon Theory?

REFERENCES

Barley, 5rephen, and Kunda,

Gideon

(199:2). Desi gn

and devotion:

Surges

oí

rarional

and nonna:

rive ideologies

o( control in managerial

discourse.

Adrninistraliv< Sciau, Quana/y.

37: 363--;'>.

8dl,

Daniel (1973).

Th,cOrning OfpOSI.ináustTia/ sociay. New

York: Basic

Books.

Berger, Perer

L., and Luckmann, Thomas

(1966).

Th, soLia/

conslrucrion

of

rea/i¡y:

A t"alise in

th,

soci%g y ofknowl<dge. Carden Ciry, NY: Doubleday.

Bernard,

Doray

(1988).

Frorn Tay/orisrn lo Fordisrn: A ratioTUl/ nuuInas.

London: Free Associarion

Books.

Boje, David M., and Winsor.

R.

D. (1993). The resUrrection ofTaylOrism: Toral qualiry manage.

mem's hidden

agenda.]ouTTUl/

ofOrganiuztioTUl/ Chang, Manag=t .

6/4: 58-71.

BOulding, K.ennerh

E.

(1956). General sysrems

rheory_

The sk.cleron

of

scienee. MaTl4g""rnl

Scirnu,2: 197-208.

Bums,

Tom (1962). The soeioJogy

ofindusrry. In A.

T. Walford,

M.

Argyle. D. V. Glass,

and).j.

Morris (eds.). 50ci'ly: Problrnts and rn'lhods of study. London: Rourledge. Kegan and Paul.

Burrell. Gibson, and Morgan,

Carerh

(1979).

50cio/0giJ:al

paradigrns and organisarioTl4/ analysis.

I

ondon: Heinemann Educarional 800les.

Calas, Marra, and Smirdch. Linda (1991). Voicing seduction

to

silenee leadership. OrganizatUln

·1

Studia, 12:

567--{j02.

I

Clegg, Srewa rr (1990). Moda n organiuzrions: Organization studia in th< postrnodan

world.

London:

5age.

Derrida,jaeques (1976). Ofgram7tUlt%gy.

Balrimore:johns

Hopk.ins University Press.

Derrida. jaeques (1978).

Writing and diffarnc,

(rrans. Alan 8ass).

London:

Routledge Kegan

PauL

t

Durkheim.

Emile (1966).

Suicide A slTuiy in soci%gy (trans.John

Spaulding and

George

5impson).

New York: Free Press (firsr published in 1897).

Durkheim, Emile (1982).

The rula

ofsociologiJ:al method (rrans. W. D. HaUs). New York: Free Press

(firsr

published

in 1895).

I

Durkheim. Emile (1984). Th,division oflLIbour in sOci,ty(rrans. W. D. Halls). New York: Free Press

(firsr published in 1893).

Fayol, Henri (1949). Grnaalaná indusrria/7tUlnag'ntrnt. London: Pitman (firsr published in 1919).

Foucaulr.

Michd

(1973).

n,

orda

of

rhings:

An

arcJuuolo

of

th,

hU7tUln

sciaua

(rrans. Ajan

gy

5heridan-Smirh). New York: Vin rage Booles.

1

Foucaulr. Miehel (1977). Powa/knowledg, (ed. Colin

Gordo

). New York: Panrheon.

n

Geerrz. Clifford (1973).

n, inrapr,taticn ofcultura.

New

York:

Basil:

Books.

Harvey, David

(1990). n'Condirion

ofposrmodanity. Cambridge.

Mass: Blaekwell.

Heydebrand.

Wo!f (1977).

Organizational

eomradierions in

public

bureauCTades:

Toward

a

Maman

rheory

of

organizations. Sociological Qua na/y, 18 (Winrer): 83-107.

Heydebrand,

Wolf(1989).

New organizational

fonns.

Work aná OccupatioltS.

16: 323-57.

Jencks, Charles (1977).

Th, ILInguag, ofpost-rnodan architmuT(. London: Academy.

Johnsron. W.

B.

(1987).

Worleforu

2000:

Work and workasfor

21st

crntury.

Indianapolis: Hudson

Instirure.

Kanrer, Rosaberh Moss. Srdn. Barry A., and jick, Todd D. (199:2) .. Th, challalg, oforganiZtlrional

chang(; Howcornpania 01 ''1'n

ir

and leadrrsguid, it. New York: Free Press.

Kilduff,

Martin

(1993).

Deeonsrrueting

organizarions.

Acad,my of

MaTl4g'ntrnt R ~

18:

13-;31.


d U

]

,r

an4 spau

London: Sage.

_.

.

ohn (1994).

Economia o) ngrtS

. . .

1 ]ohn

Hassard and

Mamn

Lash. Seon. an rry, . . .1.. srudy

of

orgaruzatlons . n _

Deeonsrruenon

m

-_,,-J

i n s t ~ a d

Sreve (1993). .

an4 or anizarions.

London: Sage. 49-70. 1'f. 5

nford

Sm

Park"r

(eds.),

Poslmodrrn . 1 g rrans ]ohn

Bednan:. jr.). Palo Alro, Ca

1..

ra

. 95)

SOCUl

systcms .

Luhmann, Niklas

( 1 9 .

. _ 1984) _

Universiry

PTeSS

(first published Ul Genoan ~ o ~ a J ~ b o o s The suppression

of

gender confhe!

.

oanne

(1990). DeeonsrructlIlg orgaruz

Mamn.]

. .

SCl C7U:e

1:

339-59.

.

ds

_1 .

VI<:

Organ1Z4tlon , Hanoon WOCUl.

in orgaruzanons. .

undalions orrhe Critilpu ofPolitical

Econorny.

Marx, Karl (1973).

G T 1 l n d n s ~ c

Fo

1 .

. P

guin

(first published

10

1839--41). d Wisha rr (firsr publishe d

Ul

1867).

M en

1

L don' Lawrenee an ds h

UI<:

Karl (1974). Capital. Vo . 1. on .

..

d G Benron). Harmon

worr .

arx, writin s (rrans. R. Llvmgstone an .

Marx, Karl (1975). Úlr/y g 'oo ' hilosophical manuscripts. 1844).

bli h d as EconomlC aTU< p

Penguin (first

pu

s e .

tUln

Newburf Park: 5age.

Mo

ro-:ln Garerh (1986). Imagcs of organtza et'ons rransrorrning our

livcs,

New York:

Wamer

,

cnds

.

Trn 1 1 l

Naisbin. john (1984).

M<garr

ks

. h oming)

ffoundational texts on rhe

pro.

oo . Lines

of

authotiry: Reaumgs o . '.

O·Connor. Ellen S. (forr e . <mrnt History.

. . /

' 'fession

of managernenr.journal

ofMan;g

. history of

organizaríona! rheory.

Or;gamzanona

C

h des (1973). The shorr and g onous

Perrow, a . " P ess

Dynamics, Surnmer: 2-H. : an4 solidarity. C;rnbridge: Cambndge UmveTSlry .r .

y

Rorry, RiChard (1989). ContlTtg"")'.

lTon

,

n d t h ~ ~ l

sciau:cs:

Insights,

inroads.

and

,nrTU-

P

li

e Marie (199:2). Post·mo

d

cmlSm a

Rosenau. au n _ .

PTeSS

~ .

)

. Prineeton: Prineeron Uruvers,ry .

1 I,

and

oprn

rystrntJ (3rd eUloon..

slOns. . río . Ranona n a ~ r a

S W Richar d (1992).

OrgartlUl

11 ..

"

con,.

.

:1.

Prenriee.Hall.

. En glew ood Cliffs,

N;_ . .

don'

Random

House. . .

Senge, Perer (1992).

1M Fifth Di.SClplt ,. \o n

re organizational analysis.

Adrninistranve SClma

S

. eh. Linda (1983).

Concepts of cu tu

=m

u.a1Urly.

28: 339-58. . of toral qualiry rnanagemem ( .

A osrmodern deeonsrruetlon

5reingard,

D.

S. (1993). p mt 6/4:

72-87.

j g

oumal of OrganizaríonaI Chang' Mana¡

<m,r '.

! iJic rnanag'ntrn!. New Yorle Harper.

. (1911) 1M pnnap

es o)

scun

,

Taylor.

FredenckW

k:

Random

House.

ID

A l

(1970).

Ful'UT'

shocle. New

Yor .

_. (d

A H.

Henderson

and

Talcon

To ero VUl if

ocU!l

and 'COnornlC organruznon e .

.

Weber.

Max(1947).

1M tMoryo s b1

h d in

19:24).

Parsons). Glencoe, Ill.: Free

p r ~ r s s r ~ o I ~ ~ f

organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison.Wesley.

Weick, Karl E. (1979 [1969]).

ne

s

p

y

h

ht (3 d edition). New York: WiJey.

W

D (

1987).

n,

(Vo/unon

o)

r

ma

nagcmrnt t

oug

r

FURTHER RE DING

. d for furrher reading

10 Chaprer

1, rry

n

addition ro che sources ore .

d

. me following for posr·indus-

. . m in relanon ro mo errusm.

trialism and posrmoderrus oo, ; ~ l O n s London: Sage,

Hassard.john.

and Parker,

M

am n

(1993) (eds.). Postrno

d

cm

isrn

aTU<

o r n ~

.

49-70. odcm

r_ad-

London: Sr. Mamn 's Press.

jeneks. Charles (1992)

(d )

..

n'l'0st·m .....

59

8



What S Organization Theory?

Kumar Kri·h (

. s

an

1995). From pose·induscrial eo ost-rnod .

wor/d. Oxford: BJackwelJ. p nn socucy: N chcotie.r ofche contanporory

Lash.

Scoee.

and Uoy.joM (1987) Th . :

p

.

e.,,,, of

organlUd ca

ica/

lore. Miehad, and Sabd Charles (1984) . . pUm Cambridge: Poliry Press

Re

d M'eh J • • le sccond Industrial d'vUú N .

e.: 1 ae 1.. and Hughes. M. D. (1992) (eds.). Rl chin _1 ._. .ew York: Basic

Book.S.

m.wclona/ rcsearch and onalvsis L d S Jc¡ng o :;"/Itzanon: N directions .

. • . on

On:

age..

In

argo·

R

osenau. Paulme Mane (1992)

d

. . . . OSC mo

amsm

and

che

social s . . . .

SIOns. Pnnceron; Pnnceron Univer;iry Press. =cs

ns¡ghcs,

'nroads, and inm..

On meraphor, see

che

following sources:

Lakoff, George.

andjohnso

n

, Mark (1980) Meca ha

.

f

Press. .

;

We

¡¡ve by. Chicago: Universiry of Chi l

M'll j cago

I er, ames G. (1978).

Living sYSCans. New Yo

k: M G .

Morgan G

th (1

r e raw-Hill

• are 986). Irnages of organiZ4Cion. Newbury Parle ~ g e

I

I

art

eore

oncepts

an·d

Theories

We now

our study of organization theory and theorizing in detail.

In the chapters

that malee

up art

JI,

you

wiU

build your understanding

of

six

core concepts

that

organization theorists rely upon to construct

their theo ries-o rganiz ationa l environment. shategy, technology, social

structure, mlture, and p)1ysical structure. In each of these chapters 1

wiU

present theories

that

relate the core concepts to each other. Thus, as

we

move through the chapters of this section, we

wiU

use the concepts

already

fomed

to build more complex theories,

so that

you

wiU

gradu

aUy increase

the

complexity of your theorizing. .

In addition, each chapter

wiU

continue to build

in

a chronological

sequence, from early notions of the concept in question to later views.

UsuaUy

this

wiU mean moving from modernist, through syrnbolic

interpretive to postrnodem perspectives. However, this chronology

is

more rigid for the topics of environment, strategy, technology, and

social structure.

As

we move to the topics

of

culture and physical struc

ture, the chronology breaks apart and

is

replaced by something more

compatible with postmodemist ideas of fragmentation and collage.

In

keeping with our theme of multiple perspectives in organization

theory, we wiU explore

aU

of the core concepts of organization theory

from modemist, syrnbolic-interpretive, and postmodem perspectives.

However, 1 should warnyo u

that

Chapters3·through 6 are highly mod

emist.

This

is because the concepts discussed in these chapters helped

to develop the modemist perspective in organization theory and it is

toügh to relate their meaning and significance without giving a great

deal of attention to

this

viewpoint. Nonetheless, postmodem perspec

tives are beginning to appear in research relating to these concepts.

For

example, ethical concems about environmental sustainability and the

social responsibility of organizations introduce postmodemist critiques

60

61

Why study organization theory?

Documents

Transcript of Why study organization theory?