Paper on OOMTheory Paper: 1. a clear statement of the problem; 2. a review of the prior literature; 3. development of a new perspective, approach, theory, framework, etc. (perhaps but not necessarily including clear propositions); 4. a conclusion with discussion of potential strategies for empirical research. Macro/Meso Level Theories; A. Behavioral Decision Theory: The Carnegie School - *March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations, Chapters 5-7. B. Contingency and Configurational Theory - *Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 1-47. C. Resource Dependence Theory - *Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row. D. Population Ecology - *Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-964. E. Organizational Economics - *Coase, R.H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica. 4: 386-405. F. Institutional Theory - *Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. – Chapters 1 and 5 *DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160. G. Sensemaking and Enactment - Weick, K.E. 1993. "The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster" Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628-652. H. Networks and Social Capital - *Granovetter, M.S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology. 91: 481-510. ===================== *Perrow, C. 1973. The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational Dynamics, 2: 3-15 Scott, W.R. 2004. Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 1-21. |
Propositions
OO Principles1. Abstraction,
2. Encapsulation, 3. Modularity, 4. Hierarchy, 5. Typing, 6. Concurrency, 7. Persistence Micro & Meso Level TheoriesMeso; social capital and organizational identity and Organizational Learning.
Micro; equity theory, procedual justice theory, goal theory, and prospect theory. from; Corely, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 12-32. |
The Short and Glorious History of Organizational Theory– Perrow 1997
Downloaded from http://campus.udayton.edu/~mozart/apk/Perrow%20-%20Short%20and%20Glorious.doc on 1 Jan 2011
· Mechanical school of organizational theory
o Centralized authority
o Clear lines of authority
o Specialization and expertise
o Marked division of labor
o Rules and regulations
o Clear separation of staff and line
· Human relations school
o Delegation of authority
o Employee autonomy
o Trust and openness
o Concerns with the whole person
o Interpersonal dynamics
· Why Scientific Management declined
o Labor became a more critical factor in the firm. As technology increased in sophistication it took longer to train people, and more varied and specialized skills were needed.
o Increasing complexity of markets, variability of products, increasing number of branch plants, and changes in technology all required more adaptive organization
o Political, social, and cultural changes meant new expectations regarding the proper way to treat people.
o As mergers and growth proceeded apace and the firm could no longer be viewed as the shadow of one man, a search for methods of selecting good leadership became a preoccupation.
· Human relations beginnings
o Chester Barnard proposed the theory that organizations are cooperative systems, not the products of mechanical engineering.
§ He stressed natural groups within the organization, upward communication, authority from below rather than above, and leaders who functioned as a cohesive force.
o First step was a search for the traits of good leadership
§ Studies turned up a distinction between consideration (employee-centered aspects of leadership), and initiating structure (job-centered, technical aspects)
§ Coal miner study showed that job simplification and specialization did not work under conditions of uncertainty and nonroutine tasks.
o Warren Bennis began talking about innovative, rapidly changing organizations that were made up of temporary groups, temporary authority systems, temporary leadership and role assignments, and democratic access to the goals of the firm.
· Bureaucracy’s Comeback
o First came the financial analysts, proposing that they were able to justify the financial aspects of the bureaucracy.
o Max Weber’s writings found their way into social sciences.
§ Studies began to show that bureaucratic organizations could change faster than nonbureaucratic one, and that morale could be higher where there was clear evidence of bureaucracy.
§ This model stressed expertise and efficiency
· Power, conflict, and decisions
o Politicians and others (Philip Selznick) were noting conflict and differences in goals. In some organizations power and conflict were expected. These were behaviorally inclined researchers.
o R.A. Gordon and others spilled these ideas into economic organizations. They argued for the presence of legitimately conflicting goals and techniques of preserving and using power did not sit well with a cooperative system view of organizations.
o These ideas infiltrated both schools and conflict was thought be ok.
§ Human relationists saw it as the mode of resolution that counted, rather than prevention.
§ For the bureaucracy, it was easier to absorb these new ideas as something else to be thrown in.
o Herbert Simon and James March put forth that because man was so limited – in intelligence, reasoning powers, information at his disposal, time available, and means of ordering his preferences clearly – he generally seized on the first acceptable alternative when deciding, rather than looking for the best; that he rarely changed things unless they got really bad, and even then continued to try what worked before; that he limited his search for solutions to well-worn paths and traditional sources of information and established ideas; that he was wont to remain preoccupied with routine, thus preventing innovation.
§ These were called cognitive limits on rationality that would only satisfy, not maximize or optimize
§ This is called the decision making school.
§ It was necessary only to control the premises of people’s decisions. Left to themselves, with those premises set, they could be predicted to rely on precedent, keep things stable and smooth, and respond to signals that reinforce the behavior desired of them.
§ To control the premises organizations develop vocabularies, direct attention, and reward certain behaviors.
o This led human relationists to speak of changing stimuli rather than personality
o Bureaucratics saw this thought reduce the weight placed on the bony structure of bureaucracy by highlighting the muscle and flesh that makes the bones move. Control can be achieved by using alternative communication channels, by creating organizational myths, and monitoring performance through indirect means.
· The technological qualification
o Joan Woodward stumbled over technology. Many different organizations had different structures because the technology was different.
o Studies began to try to show how the nature of the task affects the structure of the organization.
o Lawrence and Lorsch found that firms performed best when the differences between units were maximized, as long as the integrating mechanisms stood halfway between the two (being neither too bureaucratic nor too nonroutine) It was argued that production should be bureaucratized and Research and development should not.
· Goals, environments, and systems
o Institutional school came to see that goals are not fixed; conflicting goals can be pursued simultaneously, if there are enough slack resources, or sequentially; that goals were up for grabs in organizations, and units fought over them.
o This helped organizations to be seen as open systems
o This systems view says that everything is related to everything else, though in uneven degrees of tension and reciprocity.
· Conclusions
o A great deal of the variance in a firm’s behavior depends on the environment
o A fair amount of variation in both firms and industries is due to the type of work done in the organization – the technology
o For interpersonal relations, the key is selectivity.
o Beyond a threshold level of adequacy it is extremely difficult to know what good leadership is.
§ Leadership is highly variable and contingent upon the nature of the task, the size of the group, length of time the group has existed, type of personnel within the group and their relationships with each other, and amount of pressure the group is under.
o Changing the structures of organizations may be the most effective, quickest and cheapest method of solving problems.
§ However, this is not likely to produce the desired changes.
· Mechanical school of organizational theory
o Centralized authority
o Clear lines of authority
o Specialization and expertise
o Marked division of labor
o Rules and regulations
o Clear separation of staff and line
· Human relations school
o Delegation of authority
o Employee autonomy
o Trust and openness
o Concerns with the whole person
o Interpersonal dynamics
· Why Scientific Management declined
o Labor became a more critical factor in the firm. As technology increased in sophistication it took longer to train people, and more varied and specialized skills were needed.
o Increasing complexity of markets, variability of products, increasing number of branch plants, and changes in technology all required more adaptive organization
o Political, social, and cultural changes meant new expectations regarding the proper way to treat people.
o As mergers and growth proceeded apace and the firm could no longer be viewed as the shadow of one man, a search for methods of selecting good leadership became a preoccupation.
· Human relations beginnings
o Chester Barnard proposed the theory that organizations are cooperative systems, not the products of mechanical engineering.
§ He stressed natural groups within the organization, upward communication, authority from below rather than above, and leaders who functioned as a cohesive force.
o First step was a search for the traits of good leadership
§ Studies turned up a distinction between consideration (employee-centered aspects of leadership), and initiating structure (job-centered, technical aspects)
§ Coal miner study showed that job simplification and specialization did not work under conditions of uncertainty and nonroutine tasks.
o Warren Bennis began talking about innovative, rapidly changing organizations that were made up of temporary groups, temporary authority systems, temporary leadership and role assignments, and democratic access to the goals of the firm.
· Bureaucracy’s Comeback
o First came the financial analysts, proposing that they were able to justify the financial aspects of the bureaucracy.
o Max Weber’s writings found their way into social sciences.
§ Studies began to show that bureaucratic organizations could change faster than nonbureaucratic one, and that morale could be higher where there was clear evidence of bureaucracy.
§ This model stressed expertise and efficiency
· Power, conflict, and decisions
o Politicians and others (Philip Selznick) were noting conflict and differences in goals. In some organizations power and conflict were expected. These were behaviorally inclined researchers.
o R.A. Gordon and others spilled these ideas into economic organizations. They argued for the presence of legitimately conflicting goals and techniques of preserving and using power did not sit well with a cooperative system view of organizations.
o These ideas infiltrated both schools and conflict was thought be ok.
§ Human relationists saw it as the mode of resolution that counted, rather than prevention.
§ For the bureaucracy, it was easier to absorb these new ideas as something else to be thrown in.
o Herbert Simon and James March put forth that because man was so limited – in intelligence, reasoning powers, information at his disposal, time available, and means of ordering his preferences clearly – he generally seized on the first acceptable alternative when deciding, rather than looking for the best; that he rarely changed things unless they got really bad, and even then continued to try what worked before; that he limited his search for solutions to well-worn paths and traditional sources of information and established ideas; that he was wont to remain preoccupied with routine, thus preventing innovation.
§ These were called cognitive limits on rationality that would only satisfy, not maximize or optimize
§ This is called the decision making school.
§ It was necessary only to control the premises of people’s decisions. Left to themselves, with those premises set, they could be predicted to rely on precedent, keep things stable and smooth, and respond to signals that reinforce the behavior desired of them.
§ To control the premises organizations develop vocabularies, direct attention, and reward certain behaviors.
o This led human relationists to speak of changing stimuli rather than personality
o Bureaucratics saw this thought reduce the weight placed on the bony structure of bureaucracy by highlighting the muscle and flesh that makes the bones move. Control can be achieved by using alternative communication channels, by creating organizational myths, and monitoring performance through indirect means.
· The technological qualification
o Joan Woodward stumbled over technology. Many different organizations had different structures because the technology was different.
o Studies began to try to show how the nature of the task affects the structure of the organization.
o Lawrence and Lorsch found that firms performed best when the differences between units were maximized, as long as the integrating mechanisms stood halfway between the two (being neither too bureaucratic nor too nonroutine) It was argued that production should be bureaucratized and Research and development should not.
· Goals, environments, and systems
o Institutional school came to see that goals are not fixed; conflicting goals can be pursued simultaneously, if there are enough slack resources, or sequentially; that goals were up for grabs in organizations, and units fought over them.
o This helped organizations to be seen as open systems
o This systems view says that everything is related to everything else, though in uneven degrees of tension and reciprocity.
· Conclusions
o A great deal of the variance in a firm’s behavior depends on the environment
o A fair amount of variation in both firms and industries is due to the type of work done in the organization – the technology
o For interpersonal relations, the key is selectivity.
o Beyond a threshold level of adequacy it is extremely difficult to know what good leadership is.
§ Leadership is highly variable and contingent upon the nature of the task, the size of the group, length of time the group has existed, type of personnel within the group and their relationships with each other, and amount of pressure the group is under.
o Changing the structures of organizations may be the most effective, quickest and cheapest method of solving problems.
§ However, this is not likely to produce the desired changes.