Part 1

Wh.at 15 Organization
Theory?
theorist {91~nS[/ n. a holder or inventor of a theory or theories.
theorizc /,araralz{ v.ntr. (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 the particular things te be explained (opp. HYPo
mEsls) (CIlOmic I:htory; uory of twlutionl. 2 a specul.ative (esp.
fanciful) view (c= of my pa worUs). 3 the sphere of abstraet
Jcnowledge or speculative thought (thts !s all vrry weIIln theory.
bul howwill ti 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 Encyclopedc English Dietionary

1 Why Study
Organization

Theory?
WANT ro admitsomethingro you righrup 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 thery" sounds unb.earably dry and nor the 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 theory when 1 began my studies.
In a way, rny initial disaifection with organization theory inspired this book.
Once I began using organization theory in organizations and life in general, roy
experiences convinced me thar this fie1d of study opens up powerful ways of
thinking. Organization theory 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,
thar I previous1y rook fur granred. My amazemenr ar how re1evanr and valuabie
this subject matter is caused me ro reverse complerely my intial opinon of orga
nization theory and find enthusiasm for ir. The contrast between my intial opin
ion and rny experience
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 are a few more things I should mention while we are ar ir. One is thar ir
is somewhat ironic ro call tls fie1d ofsrudy organizarion theory. While the name
organizatibn theory suggesrs thar there is omy one-a singular, inregrated,

using

What is 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 theret~ 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 singulr per
specve 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 ofother fieJds ofstudy that it draws on for inspiration
and because organzations 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 the 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 with 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 ofsort
ing out sorne of the diversity that organization theory offers. These boxes
represent different perspecves 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 ~to groups of ideas that seem to belong together.
Although there is a sequence to the development of these perspecves, it wo~d
be a mistake ro think that newer perspecves replace older ones. In organizanon ..,
theory, perspectives accumulate, and over time they influence one another as
organization theorists take in more and more ofthe ideas this field ofstudy offers. .J
This interacon 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 perspecves 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
.0'

What is Organization Theory?

.......

.
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

I I__

'---_C_L_ASS_I_CA_L_ _
Adam Smilh (1776)
Kart Ma", (1867)
Emile Durkheim (1893)
F. W. Taylor (1911)
Hen" Fayo! (1919)
Max Weber (192')
(]esler Sorn.n! (1938)

FIGUliE 1.1. SOURCES

19505

M_O_DE_R_N_ _

Herbert Simon (19'5. 1958)

Iale.tI Parsons (1951)
Alfred Gouldner (195')
James Marth (1958)
MelviU. Dall.n (1959)
Ludwi9 YOn Sertalanffy (1968)

19805

19905

SYMBOUC

INTERPRETIVE

POSTMODERN

Alfn!d Schutz (i932)

PhiUip Selznidc (19-l8)
Peler 8erger (1966)
Thornos ludcmann (1966)
Qifford Geertz (1973)
Erving Goffman (1971)
WiUiam Foote Whyte (19'3)
Paul Ricoeur (1981)

Vladimir Propp (1828)

Robnd Barthes (1972)

Ferdinand de Saussu", (1959)

Kennelh Surb! (195')

Michel Foucault (1972. 191'.

Chartes Jend,s (1977)
i
Jacque.s Derrida (1978. 19~
Hikh.Jil Sakhtin (1981)
Jean-Fran~.s lyolard (1914:
Richard R.rty (1989)
Je.n BaudriUan! (1988)

or INSPIRATION ro ORGANIZATION THEORY

rhe boxe5 indicate four rnajor per5pectives on organzatio

fr

~~:~l~~~~:~:~~~o:~u=c: ~~ecade ~h7n~~;e~:cti:~:::~::

of their inftuential think

. . g . Clp es are mdicated above the boxes and sorne
th . . ti.
. ers. are mdicated below. Notice that sorne contributions predate
cip~:. uence on orgaruzation theory indicating the lag in cornmuncations between ds-

ofmultiple perspectives, and what 1call modero, symbolic-interprel:Vi

d
modern perspectives will, ' .
.
..
e, an post
.
.
ID parnrular, frame our dscussion as we work through

e
vanety of theones and metaphoric appredations of org:ulizations that con.
SUtute the field oforganization theory and the chapters of this book.
One last issue ofintroduction. Until very recend
" .
~
took the view tha th .
Ymost orgamzauon theonsts
~. eones represent truth, that sorne do a betterjob than others
.
and that saence 15 ID the business of dete....... ;~;~
hich th . .
,

eones are the most

~,g W

u:

l'

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 with relevant facts collected abom the world. Incorrect or deficI~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 dsdplineslike engi
neering and technology. Modemist organization theorists still hold this view. 1
One problem with testing organization theories in this way is that the phe
nomena ofinterest 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 example 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 ~e
short run? Withn 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 with 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 to 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 emprical 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 theories as perspectives on a reality that 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 ofstudy. This drrularity sets sodal
saences,like organization theory, apart from the traditioris ofnatural science and
presents complicated issues for sodal theorists 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

Why Study Organization Theory?

performance, profit, management), then yOu will wam to know the theories that
omers are using and how ro create your own so that you can more consciously
J
(and consdentiously) participate in these processes.
Tls book is about organizaton theory and in it you will read about many dif.
ferent ways in which organizations are understood. These differem meores 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 and within it. But this book will do more than introduce you to -,
the0res of organization, it will offer you insight into the ways that theorists
develop their theores and will help you to develop your own theorzing skills of
abstraction, ana1ysis, and reasoning. Ifyou master these skills, you will be abe 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 PERSPECTIVES
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, after 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 this 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 that have sorne bearing 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
..J
lero you face when confronting the study of organization.

What is Organization Theory?

The complexity and multiplicity of organizations furmer suggests that me per

spectives you use will mect your perceptions of organizational reality. Focusing
attention on particular aspects of organizaton 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
vew. Tls reduces the chanees that you are ignoting something important and

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

that holds the promise ofnew sources of inspiration and innovation.

Of course, multiple perspectives come with their own problems. For insrance,
because theores 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 understanding, and particularly as you !1ttempt to recon
cile your growing theoretical knowledge with your personal experience, you will
discover that the task is as complex as organization itselE
To give you ataste bf the contentious nature of organization thery, 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 strctly mod
ernist interpretaron 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 knowledge cannot be tested against the real world
because the real world is construeted from our experiences, ideas, and statements
(e.g., our theores about the world). That is, reality is subjectively defined, there
fore different ~ews construet different realities and these realities may'.be c~m
plementary, conflicting, or conttadietory. Multiple perspectives mal' provde you
with diverse possibilities for construeting your wrld and for understanding the
cOnstructions of others, but there is no guarantee of greater and better know
ledge because there is no universal standard against which greater and better can
be measured.
We will return to tls 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
'0 abstraction"~oth ofwbich are basic to theorizing. Following this, I will brefly
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

r,.... '1' "1'"'..,

)~,;'

"'~'
.,.-:,-, ..' ::""o;.
.' -

\.:(

" , ..
.".0:,;1 'l,"~

.-.i

(..(1"\00 \', ...

)'

,c..

.. ;

.J"

.:

-4

.... "h.)

Why Study Organization Theory?

theory: environment, technoJogy, social snuctUre, organizational culture, and
physical structure.

THEORY AND 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 siIce
rr:ality 15 in here it 15 personal and reIative, and, therefore, ndependent observa- I
tion 15 impossible. They reason instead that knowledge 15 mediated and thus i,1
altered in significant ways by the 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 organizations. Furthermore, because the assumptions underlyng 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, symbolicinterpretive, and postmodern.

Theory
A theory 15 an expIanation, that 15, it 15 an attempt to explain a segment of experience in the world. The particular thing that a theory expIains 15 called the phenomenon o interest. In organization theory the primary phenomenon of
interest 15 the organization. However, organizatin can be ddined in many different ways, for instance, as a social strueture, a technology. a culture, a physica1
strUeture, or as a pan o an environrnent. Orgapization can also be studied in
terms of the central issues and recurring themes of organizing including control,
conflicr, decision making, power and polities, and change. This book will introduce you to theories concerning each of these topies.

What is Organization Theory?

A theory consists of a set of concepts .and the relatioships that tie. them
rogether into an explanation of the phenomenon 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:.
~ternativelY, it might be theorized as atechnology constrl~eted through deo.
that demand eertain snuctural, cultural, and phYS1Cal arrangements.
SlOns
will
d
However, before you can be expected to tack.le theorizing, you.
nee.to
develop your understanding 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 asle coneep s
theories.

. Concepts and the Process of Abstraction

.
. ~
.
ganizing and storing experience. '
.. '
. . .
Concepts proV1de categones lor sortmg, or
They are ideas formed by the process of abstraetl~n. Webster s Ncw .W~rld ..
Dictionary 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 a 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 have told ~u. For
example, your concept of"dog" 15 built upon your personal encounters W1th re?resentatives ofthis class of anima! such as dogs you have owned or that have ~lt
ten you; upon stories you have heard others tell; and upon encounters Wlth
non-dogs that, when you were a YOUl:g ~d, help~ you ,~o understand what a
dog was by knowing what a dog was not ( No, mat s a eat ).
~
Concepts are like empty baskets to be filled with experienee. lf yo.u fi~st
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 manner as oceurred when you learned the coneept of
dog as a young child. That 15, you must gather specific examples t~at fit m~=
cept until it 15 more or less fully formed. Of course you can eontmue enn
g
your concepts for the remainder of Jour 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 expa~de~. ~ere is no end to the subtlety you can develop in yout understanding by ennching your c~nc.epts and, of
course, by adding new concepts to your knowledge base. The tnck. IS ro get the
proeess of abstraction staned.
In this book you will eneounter other peoples' coocepts an~ ~eir gen:ral
descriptions and definitions based 00 meir experiences of, and ":'lthin, organlZations. Your task will be to make these concepts your own by relatmg them to your

10

'.''

Why Study Organization Theory?

I
1,
!

What i5 Organization Theory?

own experience; any conceptS mar you deve10p using only omer peoples' experi
en~es .will never be enrn:ely yours. To make a c~ncepr your own.requires m~r you .;[
build Ir upon a foundauon of your own expenences and meanmgs. Larer m rhis ,
chaprer 1 will describe ~ srraregy for using me examples in rhis book 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 ofall me informanon you remember abour specifi.c examples. A con- 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 informanon. In forrning a concepr, unique elementS or fearures of spefic examples are ignored; only mose fearures mar are
cornmon ro all examples ofa concepr are ineluded. Thus, rheconcepr dog is assodared wim four legs, .. r:iil, a cold nose when ir is healmy, and rwo ears, bur nor
black spotS, big paws, or a habir ofjumping on strangers, which are fearures of
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
nor happen in one leap; mere is much trial and error learning involved in me J
abstraction process.
. " . ~; 1." .. >;
!
You may wonder why you would wanr ro drop all the inreresting derails our of 1
your dai1y experiences in order ro build conceptS. One reason is thar ir gives you
an increased abiliry ro process information. When you encounrer a new example JI
of a well-developed concepr, you have numerous bits of information abour mar
objecr ar your fingertips. For instance, if you recognize me objeer as a dog, you
may instanrly be aware of me possibiliry mat ir will growl if ir feels threarened.
TIlis information has iminediare value. ConceptS also riIake ir possible ro communicare 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 communicare 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 information 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 ofinformation (plus or minus two)
ar one rime. This means rhar you can think. abour seven differenr dogs and noming else, or, through chunking larger portions of your knowledge srrueture, you
can think abour all me dogs in the unverse 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 '

11

consider large blocks of knowb:lge. a handy capacity ro have when x~ur daily
acnviry demands mar you undersrand 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
~f 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 communicare and understand general ideas abour complex subjectS. such as organizations. 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 si~ations of ~ail~ life mar ~ou
will be called upon to cC'!lfronr in your role wimIIi an orgaruzauon. Applymg
tbeory, which is rooted in abstraer reasoning, demands mar you be able ro add....
critica! details back inro your formulations after you. have analyzed and understood me general aspeets of the siruanon ar hand. You will want ro develop bom
conceprs and theorizing skills.wim a broad base ofpersonal experience and then
learn to transiate your general knowledge inro speci.fic undersranding.
1believe the grear frusrration wim organization theory mat many srudents and
practitioners report they feel is me resulr of nor undersranding mar me a~plica
non of meory is a creative acr_ A belief that abstraer meory can generare msranr
solutions to specific problems is naive. Ir is equally naive ro rejecr ~eory .as having lime value simply because you have nor yer'learned how ro use n. -:rus book
is devoted r ) helping you learn how ro use organization meory as a snmulus ro
creative problem solving in organizational semngs and as a route to developing
your organizing and meorizing skills.

PLAN OF THE BOOK

Pan 1ofthe book introduces me approach 1am taking in presenring organization
theory and theorizing ro you. Chaprer 1 has introduced you to meory and meorizing and presenred reasons for studying organizanon theory. Chapter 2 introduces me multiple perspectives rhar forro me framework of rhis book--:modern.
symbolk-inrerpretive, and postInodern-and pr~sentS a historical account of
their development in and of organizanon theory. As explained already, almou~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, Chaprer 2 mighr better

12

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
"
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
'.
' . nCepes orgamzanon theocha
.
eonzmg orga..'uanons In th
will learn to look at O"""'";"'''tio'
.
.
ese
pte.::.. you
.
--~
ns m many diff'rent W
b
enVIronmenr that supp
d
.
ays: as mem ers uf the
om an constrams them (Cha
human influence through strat"
pter 3); as subjeets of

.
eglC aCOon (Cha.lter 4)'
chn 1 .
d uang goods and servic f u
'
r - , as re
o ogtes for pro.
rhe activities oftheir me:be~ ~~~:;e~~~;;::? as social strUetures ordering
duced by meanings that forrn a symb li
.
tures that produce and are pro
o c wortd
(Chapte r 7)',and as Ph
' struc
tures that suppOrt and Con---;~ b eh
"
ys;::al
..I,a:
~ ..........! o
acnvIty and meanin (Ch
. g. apter 8). These
Ulllerent conceptual approaches to undersrandi, o
numerous ways, yet each contribUtes somethin ,g. rgaIuzanon are relal~d in
these ehapters, strive to develo
. ~ WlIque. As you read and reread
P your appreoanon for both the simil' "
diffierences 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
symbolicinterpretive and postmodern ~ WItb modern and proceeding to
culture is the exception) This r.
shPerspecnves (Chapter 8 on organzationa!
.
IOrmat ould oro
that contextualized me theorists' effi
~ e you a sense of the continuity
om at the tune that the ..I'd th . th
1t will also he1p you to f'mP";
'.
y Ul
eu- eorizing.
-r-.ence nrgamzanon tbeory
-'
and disagreements among rheo .
d m . ..
as a :;enes of ehallenges
eu-ldeas about o
. .
.
.
nsts an
ones will not only give you f'Ynosure r h '
rgaIllzanons. The the
-rto
e
vanous
types
of
1
.
bY this fiel d ofstudy, they will als
'd
ti
exp ananon offered
practices organization theorises USOe PInrOVIdis e a .0CUS for describing the skills and
1
.
cussmg how th .
am trying to encourage you to become more active1 ~onsts. pro~uce theory,
treannent of organzations.
y eorencal In your own
'0

There are many practica! issues of recurrin .

g Interest to both managers and
organization theorists 1 t..__ el
uave S ected a few of th
.
.
e m~st ~entral oE these as subo
Jeets for Pan III ofthe book. Chapter 9
power, and polities. Chapter 10 looks a~~es o~no~al~ecision making,
11 examines issues of control and ideo~o ~ an CO~tra~cuon; and Chapter
focused on organizational eh
E eh gy In orgaruzanons. Chapter 12 is
ange. a chapter pres
concepes to add to your knowl d b
ents sorne additiona! new
new concepts with the core co:;e esas:ev~wen ~ severa! theones that link these
oped m the second pan of the book.
These chapters will help vou funhP
J
er 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
.

13

What is Organization Theory?

t

rheoru:-i.ng skills. Each of mese chapters COntinues to move from me'modero

tDward interpretive and postrnodern conceptions in order to encourage fl~bil
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 theorize 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 yourselfto 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 your 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 new ways. For instance, by relato
ing experiences that you never before thought of as related, or by seeing previously 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 previously unaware. In other words, use YOur personal experience to understand
con~epts and theorles, and use your developing concepes and theories to better
understand your experiences. TIs 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

Throughout this book 1 will provide many conceptual models such as you see in
Figure 1.2. These models visually represent theorles as a setof concepts and 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

Why Study organization Theory?

T
i

What is Organization Theory?

communicating the cenrral message ofrhis book: thar organizationsoie I1sei'uli) l .

conceprualized .as rechnologies, social srructures, culrures, and physical srrucrures thar overlay and inrerpenerrare one anorher 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 berrer, as sphes) surrounded and penerrared by an environment thar they simulraneously help ro constiture.
I

ENVIRONMENT

inrerconnecrions of the four circles in Figure 1.2 remind you rhar nne 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 organizarion using organizarion
theory.
.
1should warn you that. as you move roward undersranding each core concepr,
there will be rimes when you get caughr in rhese intersections and become confused ano which concepr or theory you are using. Expeet rhis. and try nor 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 organization and the processes of theorizing.

SUMMARY

FIGURE 1.2. FlVE CIRClES MODEL

rhe organization as an interplay of technology. social structure, culture. and physical structure embedded in 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.. Givilg these diagrams close attention will often
reveal aspeets ofthe theory ,thar'are subde bU! important. For example, let the

15

.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 knowledge 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 reversal of the process of abstraction.
The best theories are mose which you have found or invented ro match your
own experience ofthe organization, and in rhis book you willlearn about the theories that others have deve10ped ahd the skills they used ro formulate them. This
will give you a foundation for theorizing. You can use already formulated theories as they stand. if this proves useful ro your purposes, or as templates for your
own theory building efforts. In any case, organization theory requires both the
mastery of existing theories and personal deve10pment of the methods and skills
oftheorizing.
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 transformation. 1 am constandy renewed by my work in this fie1d and find that the
ideas 1can trace back. ro it give me a sense ofunderstancling in 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

...J

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 organization theory.

REFERENCES
AJlison, Graham (1971). Tlu wrna ofdtcision: Explaining eht Cuban missi~ 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 languagt. New York:
Pantheon Booles.

KEY TERM5

Gioia, Dennis A.. , and Pirre, Eve!}'? (1990). Multiparadigm perspeetives on theory building.
Acadcmy ofMaMgcmatt Rf'Vi=, 15: 584602.
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

concept
abstraction
chunlcing

organization
theorizing
theory
phenomenon of interest

Stud~, 12/z:275-99.

Hassard, JOM, and Pym. DeIs (1990) (eds.). Tlu tMory and philosophy of trrganizationi: Critica!
isSlUS and IICW pcrspcctiv~. London: Routledge.
Jackson, Norman, and Carrer, Pippa (1991). In defense of paradigm ineornmensurability.

ENDNOTE5
1. For example, read British organization the-

OM Lex Donaldson (1985).

2. The muItple perspectives approach to
organizarion theory has been explored by a
variety of researchers. One of the earuest
and most influential of these was American
political scientist Graham Allison (1971),
who analyzed the Cuban Missile Crisis
using severa! different theorerical ~ee
tives. Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan
(1979), woIking within me tradirions of
organizarional soaology, analyzed me
philosophical foundations of rarional, interpretive, radical stn1eturalist, and radicai
humanist rraditions in organizational anaIysis. Using Burrell and Morgan's analysis,
JOM Hassard (1988,1991; Hassard and
Pym 1990) has been particularly active in
promoting the muItple perspectives
approach within organizarion meory. Also
in me sodology oforganizarion, Richard

Organization Stud~, 12/1: 109-28.

Seort (1992) presented rarional, natural,

and open systems viewsof organizarions.
Joanne Martin (1992) built her analysis of
organizational culture theory around a
muItiple perspectives approach including
integration. differentiarion, and fragmentarion perspectives.
3. The eoneept of paradigm and its appliearions within organizarion meory have been
widely debated within organizaeon theory.
For example, see Kuhn (1970 [1961));
Burrell and Morgan (1979); Morgan and
Smirdch (1980); Hassard (1988, 1991);
Gioia and Pitre (1990); Jackson and Cmer
(1991): Wl!lmon (1990, 1993); Weaver and
Gioia (1994); Schulrz and Harch (1996).
4. The archaeological approach to sodal sdenee was suggested and 'devdoped by
Michd FoueauIt (1973 [1970J, 1972).
5. TIlis technique is an application of the
hermeneurie circle (e.g., Rieoeur 1981).

Kuhn, Thomas (1970 [196ID. 11u st71lCtUTt ofsciattijic r!Volutiuns. Chieago: UIven;ity of Chieago
Press.

Martin, Joanne (1992). Cultures in trrganizatms: TItm pasptivts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, Gareth, and Smirdch, linda (1980). The case of qualirativc: research. Acadcmy of
. Managanrnt~, 5: 491-50?
.
Rieoeur, PauI (1981). H~ and tltc Human S=~ (trans. J. B. Thompson). Cambridge:
Cambridge UIversity Press.

.~

SchuIrz. Majken, and Hatch. Mary Jo (1996). living with mulriple paradigms: The case of paradigm 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, and Gioia, Dennis (1994). Paradigms los.. Ineommensurability, stn1eturation and
the resrrueturing oforganizational inquiry. Organization Stud~, 15: 565-90.
Willmon, Hugh (1990). Beyond paradigmarie c10sure in orgaIsiltional enquiry. InJ. Hassard and
D. Pym (eds.), TIte tltcory and philoSbphy oforganization. Lohdon: Routledge, 44-62.
Willmon, Hugh (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organization Studics, 1415: 68i-719.

FURTHER REAOING
Classics
Smim. Adam (1957). SdroiDllS from 1tt Wtalth ofNtUions" (eL George J. Stigler), New York:
Appleton Century Crofts (originallypublished in 1776)._

17

18

Why Study Organization Theory?

Kan

Mane,
(1954). Capital. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing H0';lse (firn published in
. 1867).
Durkheim. Emile (1949). TIu division oflabor in society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press (finr published in
1893).
TayJor. Frederick W. (1911). The prinripb ofscienrific management. New York.: Harper.
Fayol, Henri (1949). General and indltSrrial ma~gement. London: Pirman (firsr published in 1919).
Weber, Max (1947). The rheoryofsocial an;d econom~ 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.

What is Organization Theory?

Foucaull. Michel (J 973). TIte arder ofrltings. New York: Vinr:.ge Bo(;L.
Jencks, Charles (1977). TIte language ofpost-modem arcltitecrurt. London; Academy.
Derrida. Jacques (1978). Writing ana differenct (rrans. Alan Bass). London: Rourledge &Kgan
Paul.
Derrida, Jacques (1980). Of gramrnalology (rrans. Gayatri t:~1akravorry 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, jean-Fran~ois (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.

Modernist perspective

Rorry. Richard (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press.
Simon, Herberr (1957). Administrari...e behavior (2nd edirion). New York.: Macmillan (!irsr pub
lished in 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, Melville (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 in 1928).
schutz, Alfred (1967). TIte phawmenology ofthe social world (trans. G. Walsh and F. Lehnerr).
Evansron, ID.: Northwestem University Press (finr published in 1932).
Whyre. William F. (1943). Streetcorner society. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Selznick, Philip (1949). TVA 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 in 1954).
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1959). Coune in general linguistics (trans. Wade Baskin). New York.:
McGraw-Hill.
Goffinan, Erving (1959). fu presentation of sdf in everyday lije. Garden Ciry, NY: Doubleday
Anchor.
Berger, Perer. and Luckmann, Thomas (1966). TIte social COItStntetiDn ofTaility: A tTeatise in che socio
ology of1mawkdge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Barrhes, Roland (1972). Mythologes (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 Unversiry Press.

Postmodem perspective
Foucault, Michd (1972). fu aTCheology oflrnowledge and the discourse en language (trans. A. M.
Sheridan Smirh). London: Tavisrock Publications.

19

20

T
!

What is Organization Theory?

sample of the notions that postmoernism brings to organization thOry. I.will
finish up the ehapter by making sorne comparisons among the three perspec:~ves.
The first comparison will be cast in terms of epistemological assumptions; that
is, we will consider the differl':nt positiQns each perspective offers on the question:
How do we know what we know about organizations? In the last section of the
chapter we will compare the perspectives in a more artistic way, exploring how
root metaphors organize the images and language associated with each perspective and leave lasting impressions of their fundamentally different ways of representing organizations and managers.

2 Histories,
Metaphors,and
Perspectives in
Organization

THE TIMES 'THEY ARE A CHANGIN' .

Theory
H ERE are many ways to talk about the history and development of a field
. ofstudy. 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, symbolicinterpretive, and postmodern perspectives of organization theory. In this chapter
we will explore these ideas, but we will also look at the events of industrial history that shaped and were shaped by these ideas.
We begin with a look at the-lstory of industrial development and the changing 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. The first
section concludes With discussion of this debate. In the second section, 1 will
briefly present influential ideas put forward during the Classical period and trace
some of the ways in which their influence lives on in the modernist, symbolicinterpretive, and postmodern perspectives of organization theory. The third section explores comemporary influences on organization theory, examining the
roar ideas of modernism and symbolicinterpretivism, and -then entertaining a

21

In this section we will consider a historical account taken from the sociology of
industry provided by' British sociologist Tom Burns. Tbis particular version of
organizational history reflects the close. alignment berween modernist developments in organization theory and those in industry. However, Burns's discussion
of what he calls the rhird phase of industrialism resonates .with recent ideas about
post-industrial society and organization which symbolic-interpretivisrs and postmodernists increasingly use as a departure point for their theories. We willlook
at the characteristics of post-industrialism and ofpost-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 ofWestern industrial development in tenns ofthree
distinguishable phases. According to Burns, the first phase grew out ofthe use of
machines to extend and enlarge the productivity ofwork and ~hered in the factory system. The faetory s)rstem offered ari alternative to subcontracting which
was the way industrial labor was organized before faetories appeared. In subcontracting, groups of individuals, typically working under.a master craftsman, contraeted out for specificjobs. in faetones, the subcontraetor'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 defining the 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 !lld~srry They consisred of
collections of machines located in one building and were tended by feeders and
by maintenance and repair workers. In phase one, the machines in a factory were
rypicaliy all of a single type involving only one task or simple, repettve process.
More complex tasks were still carried our using the older system of subcontraeting. While the maintenance workers and 'supervisors in the:early faetories were
nearly always men, most ofthe operatve 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 system diffused into clothng a'nd food manufacturing, engineering, and chemical, iron, and steel processing, ali of which
depended upon complex producton processes. According to Burns, this growth
and the increased technical complexity of maJ!Ufaeturing operatons demanded
parallel growth in systerns of sodal organizaton and bureaueracy, wth ther
emphasis on control, routne, and spedalizaton.. These changes were~eflected in
large inereases in the ranks of managers and administrative staff (e.g., profeso
sional and clerical workers) and were accompanied by mprovemenrs in transo
. portaton and communicaton, freer trade, growing publc interest in the
consurnable producrs of industrialism, and the armamenrs revolution that fol
lowed improvemenrs in 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 attenton of the Classical writ
ers of sodology. For nstance, '.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 orgimzations. According to
Burns, many parts ofWestern industrial sodety son operate in phase two.
Bums cl~ed that the third phase of industrial development is just now
emerging. In this phase, production catches up wth and overtakes spontaneous
domestic demando In these drcurnsrances, the capitalist organzaton's dependence on growth leads to enhanced sensitivity to the consumer, to new technques to stimulate consumpton (e.g., advertising, product development, design,
consumer research, market research, marketing promoton), to the internationalization of firms in search of new markers, and to new technical developmenrs
that inereasingly ocror wthin industrial finns (e.g., via research and development). This new relationship wth 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 organzational members
which leads to more partidpative styles of organzing. These ideas, which Burns

23

What is Organization Theory?

equdred Wilh the rhrd phase ofindustrial development, have been imerpreted by
others as indicatng a more fundamental change, at least in the West, from indu,~
rrialsm to post-industrialismo
~.

Pst-Industrialism and the Post-Industrial Organization

According ro futurist Alvin Tomer in his 1970 book Future Shock, a good way ro
envision the extent of the sodal transfonnaton intiated by computer and
telecommuncations technology is tO compare it to the transformation from
agricultural to industrial sodetes that occurred during the industrial revolution.
The American sodologist Daniel Bell gave these new developmenrs the name
posi-industrialisrtJ. in his 1973 book The Coming ofPost-Industral Society. There he
arguea that, whereas industrial sodeties are organized around the control of
labor in tle producton of g60ds, post-industrial sodety is organized around
the ereroon of knowledge and the uses of ronnaton. According ro Bell, postindustrial sodety is shaped and defined by its methods of acquring, processing,
and distributing ronnation, al1 of which have been revolutonzed by the computero This emphasis on rormation has led sorne, Bell among them, to labe! the
current era the infonnaton age, and tO predict the rise of the servce sector and
the decline of manufacruring, wth technicians and professionals (knowledge
workers) repladng 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 informaton, which is a product of the
computer revolution. A further implicaton of me computer revoluton, intally
remarked by futurist John Naisbitt in rus popular book Megatrends, is the abandonment ofruerarcrues in favor of communicaton networks with a consequent
shft from verticaliy to horzontaliy strUctured or~ations. This aspe ct of the
information age provides the departure point for mosr discussions of the postindustrial organization.
.
Discussion of the post-industrial organizaton typically involvescomparisons
of the forrns of work and organzaton that became familiar during phase two of
industrialism wth tho~e antidpared as a consequence ofthe recent shifis equated
with the informaton age. Much energy has been devoted ro descrbing 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, sodal strUeture, culture,
physical strUeture (space-time), space, and me consequences of these changing
conditions for the nature of work in organzatons.
The prototypical post-industrial organzational forro is the network (descrbed
in Chapter 6), bur othei- forms assodated with post-industrialism nclude joint

24

What is Organization Theory?

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspectives

TABLE 2.1. COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCITED WITH
AND POST-INDUSTRIAUSM

Industrial

INDUSTRlAU~

Postindustrial

Environment naton states regulate

national economies
mass marketing
standardization
the Welfare State

global competitio~
de-concentration of capital with
respectto nation state '
fragmentation of markets and
ntemational decentralzation of
produetion
rise of consumer choice, demand
for customized goods
~se of so.~al movements, sinsle- .
lssue polJtics, service class
pLuralism, diversity, localism
Technology mass produetion along
flexible manufacturing, automation
TayloristFordist lines
use of computer for design,
routine
produetion, and stock control
manufaeturing output
just-in-~me systems (JIT)
emphaSlS on speed and innovation
service/informatlon output
Sodal
. .
bureaucratic
new orgamzational
forms (e.g.,
strueture
hierarch~cal.with vertic~l
networles, strategic alliances, virtual
commumcation emphaslzed organization)
,
spedalization
fiatter hierarchies with horizontal
communicativn and devolved
vertical and horizontal
integration
managerial responsibility
focused on control
outsourdng
informal mechanisms of influence
(partidpation, culture, communication .
vertical and horizontal disintegration
loose boundaries between functions
units, organizations '
,
Culture
celebrates stability,
,. cele?rates uncertainty, paradox,
tradition, custom
fashlon
organizational vaLues:
organizational values: quality,
growth, effidency,
customer service, diversity, innovation
standardization, control
Physical
concentration of people in deconcentration of people
strueture
industrial towns and dties ,. reduction intransportation time linles
(space-time) local. nationalistic
?istant ~paces and encourages
orientaton
mternational. global orientation
time 15 linear
compression of temporal dimension
(e.g., shortening product lifecycles)
leads to simultaneity

. 25

!
!

TABLE 2.1.. Continued

. '.'

Nature of
work

Industrial

Postindustrial

routine
deskilled labor
funetional spedalization
of tasks

frenetic, complex
knowledge-based skills
cross-functional teamwork
greater emphasis onlearning
more outsourdng, subcontracting,
self-employment, teleworking

Base on: Clegg (1990); Harvey (1990); Heydebrand (1977); Kumar (1995); Lash.and Uny (1987,1994); Piare
and Sabel (1984).

I
l.

ventures, strategic alliances, and virtual organizations. One important dstinguishing feature shared by post-industrial organizations is the disappearance of
organizational boundaries. This idea inspires views of a future in which organizations are much smaller, more fluid and flexible than they are now, with'invisible or no boundaries between the organization nd' 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 will not make dstinctions between departments, hierarchical positions, 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 will place much
greater emphasis on learning in order ro keep up with rapid change. Postindustrial organizationallife is charaeterized by uncertainty, contradction, and
paradox, which contrasts sharply with the industrial organization's stability. rou
tne, 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:, in our understanding ofourselves 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 p~od and so are nothing new and are not
nearly as transformative as the post:ipdustrial mesisdaims. Meanwhile, many
symbolicinterpretivists and postmod~rnists 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

What is Organization Theory?

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspectives

tio~). We

will r~turn ro thes~ differences below when we consider the epistemoassumptlOns underlymg the perspectives of organization theory. Bur first
we will follow up the hisrory of ideas inrroduced in Chapter l.

Adam Smith, Political-Economist (Scottish)

loglC~

CLASSICAL INFLUENCES ON ORGANIZATION

THEORY
There are rea1ly two srreams conrained within what organization theorists now call
the Classcal School. :ne .sociol~gi~al srr::am focused on the changing shapes and
roles of formal orgaruzatlons W1thin soaery and the broader influences of industrialization 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 sometimes call Classical
management theory ro distinguish ii: from the more sociological approach. Tbis
srream was shaped by Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Chester Bamard, among
o~e~s, and focused on the p.ractical problems faced by managers ofindustrial orga~atlon~. In. a way, the t~nslO~ betWeen theory and practice that has been present
m orgaruzanon theory smce lts inception can be traced to these two influential
srreams ofClasscal thought. The ideas ofboth stIeams can be traced backeven further to the influence of the famous political-economist Adam Smith.
In this se~on, .1 will introduce you ro sorne ofthe ideas ofthese influential pio-, :
neers. of soaal
and suggest links between their ideas and the three per- fi,
~ecnves of.org.aruzanon th~ory. As we go through this material remember that, jI
smce ~r~anon theory did not emerge as a recognizable fie1d of study until '
s~metune m rhe 1960s, what is called the Classical period is really part ofitsprehistory. Furthermore, you should be aware that organization theory is just one of
s:ve.r~ disciplines inspired by the Classica1 writers identified in the figure. Other f
~ap~es thattrac: ~eir origins to these i~eas. indude industrial relations,! \
mdustnal and orgaruzanonal psychology; orgaruzanonal sociology, management 1. 1
theo?" and organizational behavior. Sorne researchers loosely group all of these ;~\
fields mto the more general category of organization studies.
' i;
A word of waming-if you 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 comparisons of the three perspectives, as they will give you necessary background for reading Pan 11.

sa~c~

l
!

27

If you search for the origins of organiza~ontheory, y~u will most likely ~eet the
political-economist Adam Smith, who. In 177~, pubhshed The Wealt~ 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. As you willlearn in Chapter 6, the division oflabor has ro dDwith the differwtiation of work tasks and the resulting specialization oflabor. ideas that are
central tO the concept of social strucrore in organizations. This is why many organization theorists giV Smith the place ofhonor in their intellecroal historiu.

KarL Marx, PhiLosopher-Economist (German)

Karl Marx is perhaps best known for bis meory of capital an~ 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 physcal environment. Society and culture then emerge from the challenges presented by discovering that collective work is more productive than individual work. In other words, the human need ro survve. which derives from the
dangers and opporrunities preSented by the physical world, leads ro the emergence 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 factories 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 surplus value' (i.e., excess profits) generated by the
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 capitalist system is characterized by a strUggle betWeen the inrerests of capital and
those oflabor.
But antagonism between labor and capital al50 arises frem the necessry ro
ensure profitabiliry. Without profitabiliry, the survival of the individual fum and
the enrire eapitalist economy would be in jeopardy. Profitability depends upon

28

--.. . ----~1tS.
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 afirm's produets and services, which translates into a need ro reduce me cosrs of production, of which
labor is a large omponent. This encourages capitalists ro pressure labor ro work
more efficiently. which is accomplished by inventing new forms of managerial
control over workers and work processes. The control systems become additional sources ofantagonism between management and workers who attempt to .
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 will be taken up in Chapter 11.
Because capitalists own me means of production (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
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 teplang worker control over work with managerial control, creating competition among workers via differential pay or through the division of
labor. A1l of these tacties reduce the workers' collective political influence and
hence their ability to resist management's efforrs ro control them. This concern
with power can be rraced to discussions of organizational power and polities,
which we will examine in Chapter 9.
Once labor is defined as a cost ofproduction, rather than as a means ro achieve
a collective purpose for the good ofsociety, workers are disenfranchised from the
produet of their own work effortS, a condition that Marx charaeterized.as alienation. According to Marx, alienation occurs when labor is transformed into a
commodity to be bought and sold on an exchange market, which leaves humans
with only an instrumental relationship with o~e another based on the economic
value oftheir labor potential. Unless the workers organiz their resistance (e.g.,
via unioos), managerial exploitation and the disempowerment and alienation of
workers will grow unabatecl. Thus, according to Marx.,the resu1t of antagonism
betvieen capital and labor is a build up of instirutionalized fonns of mutual conrrol and res5rance (e.g., management vs. unioos) temporari1y held in place by the
dynarnies ofa capitalist economy. This line ofthinking has been a major influence
on contemporary discussions in industrial sociology and labor process theory,
which we will discuss in Chapter 10.

I
1

I
I
j

I
I
!
-i
I!
\

...i

29

po,,~~~,;:::<: S-i"
')" I

.(,;,v::,~),

r({(' l.;\:,'j-

~"_ J- '(" <:\!;.,~,,~

,'JO

-:.

i1,
i

I
\

..1

,
's , f'l
Uetaphors , and Perspectives
Hlstone
.' d fine the task.s that workers performed, an~
system permitted managemeT" te eh d these task.s. Notice also how'Taylor s
aftsworkers to management. ..'~
also to determine how they approac fre
method shifted control of work task.s om cr a direct attack on worker soldier, .
S tifi Management was
. .
. ' d he' output in the interests of maxuTUZIn Taylor s V1eW. Clen e
. .
hicll workers limite t Ir
11
k
g a pracnce m w
. fi r themselves and fe ow wor ers
m
.
. . ' gJ.ob protectlo n o
'.
ing their irlcomes and assuru::
f ork done slowly reqw.res more
d th .
d that a glven amount o w
(workers reaso ne
. . ed th authoriry of the workers an
err
,
tem
undernun
e
.
.
db
.
.al control and superV1SlOn . an Y
workers). Tay1or s sys
master crafumen by irltroducmg managenhich eroded worker solidariry. These
'al
for performance w
offerirlg differeno pay
d.
iderable and lasting ill-repute as
Management
earne lt eons
d
aspects of Scientifi e
d
peration berween management an
db T 1
.
t ofthe trust an eoo
beirlg ruirlously Ignoran . .
d
d So much furor was create y ay or
ch 'garuzaoons epen .
al .
b'
f n Americail Congression mvesworkers upon w hi oc
twas the su ~eet o a
.. .
f
men
that Scientific Manage
d irl postrnodem cnnosm o
has recently re-emerge
.
.
el
ereTa lorism and its subsequent dev opgation. This controversy.
mo dernist management prac~lces wh
Yoduco n assembly line which sorne
ments by Henry Ford (invOI~ t~e ~~;~~~rite target along wirh the Tayloristic
2
management (TQM) movement.
postmodernistS refert~ as Fer mal ar
aliry
. t d WIth the tot qu
f . a1iz tion
.'
practices assooa e
e fTa lor is as a promoter o raOon a
Perhaps the most enduong rrnag o
Yf b'e"";ve ineasuremrit and the dis. b r f' th powers o OJ
in o.-=nizations. H1S e le ID e .
. d into the modernist perspec-.
work effiClency are carne
fi
covery oflaws goverrung
l'
chniques lay the groundwork or
. th ry where Tay or s te
.
.
tive irl organizaoon eo
d m organization theonsts remter- ,
1(
.
1 temS Today postmo e
'.
fth managerial ideology of contrO a
manage:;nent contrO sys
.
n
1y manifesrano o e
h
) Th see Taylor's system, not so muc as
ret Taylorism as an ear
P
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
.
this'
Taylorism legitinuZes manageterms of the '1111 l1I.e lor ra
V1ew,
.
f
. ID e tury In
. 1
t by -sserting that the praeuces o
early part of the rwenne c n
.eul 1 . its role as contro agen,
'"
. al
ment, paro ar Y m
b'
ted because they are raoen .
p
Scientific Management must e acce ,

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 The
DiYision ofLaborin Society, published in 1893, Durkhel111 extended the concept of
the division of labor beyond manufacturing organizations to explain the structural shift from agricultural ro industrial societies that accompanied the industrial
revolution. Durkheim desrnbed ths shift in terms of increases in specialization,
hierarchy, and the interdependence of work tasks, Early modernist organization
. theorists regarded these concepts as key dimensiolls for defining and describing
complex organizations, as you will see in Chapter 6.
Durkheim also proposed the distinction between fcrmal and informal aspeets
of organizations and emphasized the need to attend ro workers' 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~avior, 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 contribution to establishing sociology as a scientific discipline through bis work on
methodology. Particularly with bis books The Rules of Sociological Method and
Suicide, which emphasized objective mt.asurement and statistical description and
analysis, Durkheim helped lay positivistic methodological foundations, not only
for sociology, but also for modernist organization theory.

'-Lo<

Frederick Winslow Taylor, Founder of Scientific

Management (American)
At the turn ofthe century, Frederick W. Taylor proposed applying scientific methods to discover the most efficient working techniques for manual forrns aflabor.
Taylor called bis approach Scientific Management, and he claimed that its successful application would fully exploit the efficiencies of specialized labor
through the close supervision of employees carrying out highly specified physical work.. Efficiency was to be encouraged and supported by a piece-rate incentive 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

30

l
l

CEO and Administrative Iheorist

'
Henri FayoL Engme er,
(French)
. th
;n;ng industry. and eventualiy
d f
.
d manager m e m........
.,
any His successful tumaroun o
Fayol had been an engmeer an
ailing French muung comp .
.
h
. . . F ance and upon bis retrrement e
became CEO o f an

d him gre-t adrniraoon m r

the company earne
'"
.

-, -

31

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspectives

" rocracy or landhol ders (traditi~nal
.
oups su eh as aOS
al' d
with being objective and imperson. an
ditional rights of do~ant gr
acy
'th 'ry) Weber credited bureaucr
.
1 f, this eW form was ratlonal,.:,
aU 00 ' .
d rational (hence his labe or
n
therefore unblased an
f th ' and
legal authority).
alon With its central them es o au Ooty .
ber's theory ofbureaucracy,
g;.,.
.r Social and EconomlC
We
d' bis book The 1 "eory D)
,
.
rationaJiry, were presente.ID .
nnan in 1924 and in English translan~n
OrganiZa tion which was published m Ge ro ratio~alize the social environment ID
y
. 947 Weber saW bureaucracy as a wa ,
. aliz' influence on the physical
1Il l
irnil'
chnology s rauon mg
. ' th .
fthe 1950s and 1960s ro
that was s
ar tO te
er
a mann
d ~;.t orgaIUZanOn eonsts o
. al
. oument. This led mO euu->
.'
th their concems for technic
enV1!
b ' alizauon Wl
equate Weber's ideas a out r.atl:nd the engineering rOots ofindustri~m): In
ro Weber bet..veen bureaucratic ratlon~a
efficiency (the l~gacy of!aY:
ed
any event, the link that JS a
"modernist organizational theory which
.
chni al efficiency perslstS ID
uon and te
c
f' founding fathers.
.
tl
gnized that the uses of rationalizauon
considers Weber ro be one o lts
"'eber hiroself, however, apparen . Yreca e this
found in bis distinction
VV'
,

EVldence lor
eh
rest upon value-based cnten~,
. aJity Formal rationaliry involves te twe en fonnal and substantive rau~n
., aliry refers ro me desired ends of
be
hil
bstantlve raLlan
ds ill
niques of caleul ation , w e su eulative techniques. Different desire~ ~~ W.
aetion that direet the uses of cal . aJi Weber warned that formal ranonaJity
lead ro different uses of ~orm~ ratl~n ub~~antive rationaJity leads, in bis colorful
without conscious conslderauon o s. risonin humanity and making man a
g
.' Weber closer ro
"iron cage" capable of lffip
phrase, ro a n .
. m "3 Sueh sentiments pasman
.
..cog in an ever-movmg meeharus . . . theory while bis interest m values
anon
srrnodem criries of modernis t orgaruz
,
po
.
b lic_interpretive researchers.
is camed on by sym o

What is Organization Theory?

established a center for rhe Stl.ldy of ~dministrationin an effrr ro codify and pass
on the wisdom he had gained. In rus book General and Industrial MalUlgement, first
published in 1919, but not available in English rransIation unill 1949, Fayol presented what he believed to be universal principies for me rational administration
of organizational activities.
Fayol"s efforts Iaid the grc.undwork for much discussion among 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 (subordinates should deal with routine matters,leaving managers free ro handle situations 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 hierarehy (the scalar principIe Jinked al1 organizational members inro a control structure 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 organization theories whieh we will take up in Chapter 6,
Fayol also emphasized the imporrance 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 contemporary organization theory in the early conceptualizations of organizarional
culmre, ro be d:scussed further in Chapter 7. Fayol also speci.fied the responsibilities ofthe manager, The functions he speci.fied were: planning, organizing,eommand, 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, one of whieh he saw as an unavoidable
increase in bureauaacy, In contrast to feudal and other traditional forms of organizing, 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, bureaucracy provided
the benefits of rationalization, Whereas, in his view, earlier forms of authority
rested on the personal attractiveness ofleaders (charismatic authority) or the tra-

32

IS

Chester Barn ard

1':

Management Theonst (American)

I

. , 'dea of informal organization ro Classical

Chester Barnard extended Dur~eunths I naaing this aspeet oforganizing was a
b
ggesung at ma -.
hieh
management theory Ysu
. Bamard emphasized the ways m w'
key function of the successful. exeeutl~e. .
into cooperative social systems by
.
d 1 thelr orgaruzatlons
.'
f al
d
exeeutives rrught eve o~
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 that ma
b.
. .
anention ro worker mouvauon,
anization theory. However, ti e
.
na!
behavior
than
ro
org
f
field of organiza no
h d ro 'J.e cooperative aspeets o orga.
th
d bis fol1owers anac e
significance Barnard an
,
.n blinded early organization theorlStS to e
nizations is sometimes blamed for haVl g
f al1 organizations, Nonetheless,
.
f nfliet as a fundamental aspect o
Importance o co

33

Te ~ -

What is Organization Theory?

of value and semiinem in the workpl",

ldentified
themes thar
are echoed
the consiclci"aaon
Barnard
gave ro.Issues
.
om, m"ning, =d 'J'll'boll,m whkh
w,
will
""",
mi.
m comempo" 'kary
h on o,g=iz>tioo,1
,up
m CMp'"
7.

CONTEMPORARY INFLUENCES ON
ORGANIZATION THEORY
Just. as Classical
ideas formed a b d e
i rdis
'
.
op c
to our
.
za~lO~ m. eory in general, there aare key
ideas a dCUSSIO~ of me roots of organiass<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, symbolicf'
. n
secnon th
'd
mea~s o mitiating discussions ofme perspectives f ese l. e~ 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
on organizarion
COnUDUltIeS, in thought from bich Y
th
me COntmUltIeS, as well as me dismat. th e or der of appearance
1
W
e
perspectives
emerge d. But remember
is re!ated to m . fl

~o.

~~~ce

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

dis:plines before organization meorisrs
caught wind of mem and applied m
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 .
emporary organizati m
on eorists. Next we will
amme enactrnent theory and m '
d
h
e SOCIal constrli'
f
.
leas t at underpin me symbol"c .
.
cnon o reallty, two related
..
I -mterprenve pers
.
glve conslderation to postmod .
pecnve. Following tbis we will
errusm and sorne ofth
are currently influencing organization theory.
e postmodern concepts thar

Modernist: General 5ystems Theory

In me 1950s, German bio h siolo .
.
..
intended to explain all s . P tifi~ hglSt 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 all me
m
h a , groups and
..
'
. soaenes. He recognized mat all
ese p enomena were related-s . . '
. diVI'duals are comprised ofoaeues
contam
g
u a15 ,In
or ans
roups, groups conrain individg
organs of cells, cel1s of molecules and
molecules of atoms. To generar
h
lZe, e re erred to all of these phenomena'
as sys-.
.

34

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspectives

""nti~

1''"' md prinpl" dm would '!'PI",

,n
'l'",m,.
Thu>,
d"
,h''1
h'
,n""ioo,d
invol><ed
g,n",fu,oo",
<kawn
" ,"d>
' high Iml of ,b"'''OOO ,h" d" ""n" of,n ,,ntifk
knowkdg'
would'"
clarified and imegrared. He called his vision General Sysrems Theory.
Berralanffy based General Sysrems Theory on me assumprion mar me commo 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.
mena
of inrerese
would continue ro investigare me unique features of meir pheno
Meanwll general sysrems meorists would foeus on me similariries underlying
e
and uniting al! phenomena. Thus. General Sysrems Theory knocked down sorne
of the barriers betwe en me sciences. proposing cross-disciplinary research as a

"n>'. B,mhnff ,h,n ,ough' d"

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 dng
inrerrelated parts. Each pan is conceived as affecting the others and each depends
w
upon me whole. The use ofme term "thing" shows youjustho general General
Systems Theory is. This meory can be applied ro any thiltg 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 do~ for me purposes of scientific srody. meir essence can only be identified when rhe
iS
confronred as a whole. This is because subsysrem inrerdependence produces fearores 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.understand abour the relationships among frog parts, there was no way your new understanding would
enable you ro put it back togemer again. Thar difference between me reassembled 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 understood 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 that, 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.
Another importan fearure ofsubsysterns is 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.

sysr~m

35

iz at io n Th eo ry ?
What is O rg an

.
.
y'
ff
a
an
d
aJ
an
d
en
ar
Pponers,
s mOSt
utor to
One' of B
sU
e
en
s
bi
i;
m : Contrib
G
enneth BOU
s T he or y in
K
em
as
st
, an
W
Sy
t.
aJ
di
gh
ul
er
ri
en
o.wn
d g. BO ng
.
om is t co
es as an o rd ere hi er a eh
on
nc
ie
ec
sc
an
e
ic
th
er
ed
sys f'
m
f
iz
A
o
al
y
tu
ep
r
i~
'
nh
i
4
BOul~g's er ar ch y of Stems is Widely Used t
aj or
tems. Today,
o exp 2m th e m
sY
: bl
(1
ry
eo
co .
th
s
m
2 e 2.2).
nc ep ts o fs ys te

Level

Examp(es

1. Framework

inology
labe~ and term
stems
sy
n
io
at
ic
claSslf

CYclical events
lar
simple with regu ns
otio
m
d)
te
la
gu
o (or !:
s of
te
sta
or
eqUJlbria
balance
rol
3. Control
o self-cont
o feedback
ion of informati on
o transmiss
)
self -mal. ntenance
4. Open (living
of material
throughput pu
t
in
tic
ge
ener
reproduction
5. Genetic
of labor (cells)
o d!vision
dlfFer en ti ated and mutual!y
d
ependent parts
"
follows "blue- pri nt
o 9rowth
l'
b'
.
al
m
m
o
o 11 ty
6. Ani
e
o self-awar
ed s
o specializ
ensory receptors
highly develo
~ectd nerv~us system
knowledge str Ures (lmage)
ciousn ess
7. Human
o self-cons
c a ' to produce, absorh
'
a ~a.C1ty
symbols
n lnterpressting time
sense of pa
zation
B. Social organi
value system
meaning
s"
al
ble unknowable
9. Transcendent
o "inescapa
2. CLockwork

8a se d an 8

36

I
--

(d'

omie ' geographies

ranat .lndexe
s, catalog s
lSts,

solar system
s
simple machine
y)
lle
pu
'or
k
(doc
m
equi[ibirum syste
of economics
thermostat
'homeostasis
auto pilot
cel!
river
fl.ame

I
1

f'1

plant

dog
cat
elephant
whale or1iol phin

"

/:

,.

you
me
businesses
governments
sthetics
metaphysics, ae

rspectives
aphors, and Pe
Histories, Met
d by
at it is organize
hierarehy is th
s
g'
em
st
in
sy
ld
t"
ou
es
B
pl
t
ou
the sim
g te notice ab
It begins w it h
.
.
ss
:~
ne
an
ve
T he fust th in
er
si
hi
en
e
preh
level in th
ex.ity and com
ch successive
~r

ea
gh
h
hi
it
a
w
leve!s of compl
of
s
ity
ex
system
gr ea te r compl
e em be dd ed in
sys
and moves to
ve! systems ar
le
er
stem contains
ow
sy
ll
r
al
de
y
arch
hi gh er or
ch
ch
ea
.
ea
nd
y.
W it hi n the hier
ou
ch
ar
ar
er
ay
th e hi
t ir th e ot he r w
hi gh er levels in
te
ve
e
ha
ov
s
m
order, or, to pu
em
u
st
yo
sy
as
er leve!
er order. T hu s,
vels. bu t high
s
le
hi
er
T
w
s.
lo
te m s of a lo w
em
of
st
s
wer level sy
aracteristic
lo
ch
h
e
it
th
w
s
ed
de
at
du
ems of a
level in
be associ
applied to syst
ics th at carmot
be
st
ri
n
te
ca
ac
s
ar
em
ch
vel syst
ed within
un iq ue
ab ou t lower le
theories produc
es
e
ri
us
eo
n
th
ca
e
at
w
th
th at thes is why
implies
ber. however.
t vice versa. Thi
em
no
em
t
R
.
bu
r,
ns
de
tio
or
always be
hi gh er
organiza
ro help explain
vel systems will
s
le
ce
er
w
en
lo
sd
l
of
s
ra
el
th e na ru
lely on m od
ts.
za!on ba se d so
system manifes
th at
ories or organi
e higher level
th
which means
at
th
y,
rit
ss
e.
ne
pl
m
ue
iq
co
)
un
an
e
th
um
to
(h
blind
level 7
mals), while
are systems of
th ro ug h 6 (ani
)
e
w
ks
or
at
th
ew
e
m
ic
ra
N ot
and 9 (tranlevels 1 (r
organizations)
l
are systems of
ia
us
oc
(s
in
8
ed
ls
ve
dd
em be
ted at le
. are more
in systems loca
bjecr of study
su
ed
r
dd
ou
be
.
em
ns
e
tio
w e ar
ed in orgaganiza
we are embedd
m ea ns th at or
at
s
th
hi
T
e,
or
).
al
rm
nt
he
scende
an d fu rt
y are at th e
te m pt te stud
at
e ourselves are,
w
d
an
an
r
th
.te
ex
un
pl
com
u enco
ganization
e do m ai n of or
he r systems yo
th
ot
e'
of
os
h
M
uc
.
m
ns
le
nizatio
, whi
ve on orgals of complexity
Your perspetti
.
ve
le
ity
ex
er
pl
w
m
lo
co
or
sa m e
leve! of
ld. It is one
oye you~ ow n
ence of th e wor
ri
ab
d
pe
te
ex
ca
ur
lo
yo
is
in
th eo ry
ipant (t ha t
y un iq ue
ctive of a partic
efore, relativel
pe
er
rs
th
pe
e
is,
th
ns
tio
om
niza
srudy rr
whelrns, yo ur
ts th at yo u can
, and on en over
ee
es
bj
ed
su
rs
w
pe
fe
su
e
of th
complexity
tem) and w ho se
is as a subsys
ing parts and
they have mov
is.
at
th
.
ic
rn
.
na
ow n
are dy
only static sysup, all systems
stems, involve
on
sy
l2
k
ve
or
le
ew
em
am
Fr
l 1, or rr
ures th at are
mes and struet
sorne sorr. Leve
he
of
sc
ge
n
an
tio
ch
za
y
ri
impl
carego
gh all systems
nding, su ch as
raphy. Althou
ra
og
rs
ge
de
d
un
an
of
y,
s
te m
this. Leve! 2
g, anatem
uc h m or e than
, like a buildin
m
le
e
ar
ab
st
up
y
el
on
tiv
2
rela
level
routine pate in reperitive or
k, systems rrom
or
ov
m
ew
se
am
he
fr
T
a
s.
have
ains using
ic system
as tr on om y expl
mplest dynam
ch
si
hi
e
w
di
s
ts
on
en
as
es
se
repr
e! of planeg of th e
do ck w or k mod
elical re tu rn in
a
cy
d
e
an
th
e
em
st
lik
sy
!s
teIT
e so la r
ept of system
am ew ar k of th
archy, th e conc
rr
er
al
hi
e
tu
th
ep
of
nc
ls
co
th e
higher leve
s you move to
ta ry morion. A
city for concomplexo
ng
s have the capa
es increasi ly
m
em
st
co
sy
be
,
s
up
ic
rn
on
dyna
atio~ rrom
archy
to co rr ea devi
Boulding's hier
in
ck
ba
l3
ed
ve
fe
le
e
om
us
Fr
rate an d
a control sys~
od example of
r ability to gene
go
ei
a
th
is
t
to
e
ta
os
du
tr ol
th er m
systems, are
d !o w er leve!
sired states. The
de
an
,
ed
se
in
he
m
T
er
.
et
pr ed
designed and
etic system
once they are
n as a cybern
e.
ow
us
kn
ca
so
be
al
s
,
te m
se d system
ferred to as do
so m et im es re
37

Histories, Metapho rs , and Perspectives

systems;~

What is Organization Th eory?

Lunlnann's theory of se!f-organizing and se!f-reproducing social

But
en
even these developments leave an enormous gap betwe what sence offers and
es
the leve! of complexit)' Boulding claimed characteriz organizations. Until W
gap is narro
, organization theoristS must use the relatively simplistic theones
wed
oflower leve! system if they want ro coririnue ro follow the path cut by the nats
ural sciences, which is the objective of most modernist organizatiQn theorists.
You should be sure ro notice that 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
systems ed
view is one of systems operating within systems operaring within systems ... every system has subsystems, but is also a subsystem of a larger system.
ach
any phenomenon as
Thus, in applying systems theory, it is necessary ro appro
. a nested system consisting of: me supersystem, the system itself, and its subsystems. Thi.s aspect of systems meory is sometimes referred ro as embeddeclness,
and it can create all kinds of confusion about leve!s of analysis. The particular sysrem 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
e
higher leve! of analysis) and appropriate subsystems (mos at me next lower leve!
of arialysis). To make matters worse, you also need ro disringuish levels of analysis from anomer use of rhe terro '1evel" ...yith which you may alrea9Y be familiar_management leve! in an organizational hierarchy (i.e., executive, manager,

built
. addi'Dona1mpurs t
with , they d o nor requlre
. .
kincls respeet to me purpos es m ey were b ilo operare.e They are self- mamtamillg
.
of cybemeric sysrems ro correet be u r ro sen: . Organizations use man

,no~ m ,h", prie,. ''"'' volum' =d

h,V>OL Fu< m"=ce. mly", of flbe;{

as mQicators
of investor saus'f acuon
.' Wlth
. employee
rurnover are used ' r especnve
. l. r
.
..
y,
SatlSlaCnOn
wim
products
and
.
orgaruzaDonal
performance
. .
serv1ces and
1
' cusromc::r'
ruzanon and wim meirJ'obs . This SOft 'of inflemp oyee
. satisfaction with th e orgaormanon provides the b . r.
assessment and for plannin fu

Lm14 in m hi
e

~ ~" o, ,'f-

rore eom", of ,crion

=;

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 system
eones. In this mod el, a system takes m' n. mental to moderrusr
. organization
m
.,
of
mpurs
fr
.
.
sou.
" ___ _ ,,"'gy ('_g_. cubon. """' h, o
om "" ,nwonm,m ,uoh "
ormed Ulro
outpurs' a proce ss m at sustams
g '. xygen).
m
..
m lif; These inpurs are m en rranse .orgaruzanon, inputs include raw mar . e e ~f me system. In me case of
eqw?ment, and rhe transformatia
en~s, capItal, knowledge, labor d

:~:::~oh

::/:=:;,~: ;:~ucrion
r~f

'" m,n oU,!,"' ro

due,d by mm'ti ,,=fo,m,tion pco,,",,'_ lb, "1,,

a~d;:'

r of goo<h
cls orher sysrems to
o goo and services ro-

Dpcov>d" a vl>u," rep,,,,nt>tion o'i:::~on ~o eontinu, funetioning_ F;;'''

.

e company allow me or

..

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 stru,...,.,.m~ this~ne on genetic systems using .~e
mo els of the fifth 1evel of systems meory
'-L""re, h work'15 b egU4ung
. . ro suggest
suc as Ger man soclOlogisr
.
Niklas

Inputs

ORGANlZATION

---....j.-

Transformation
proeesse,

l
---.1- - " " " ' ' - '

\
Outputs

FIGURE
2.1. AN OPEN SYSTEMS VTEW OF !HE ORGANIZA
.

TIs model depicts the ergaruza'ti'

nON
raw m at ena
. ls mto
.
engoods
as a mech
.
f or transforming inputs such
eutputs such as
an dams~
semces.
as

38

.\

supervisor).
Figure 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 confusion 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
ents
will be regarded
as me sysrem ofinterest, which means mat unirs or deparan
as subsystems, while me environment will. be considered me supersystem
in
ation
which it is embedded. But yOU could define a department within the organiz
as your sysrem of interest, 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
General System Theory' to any system you choose 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
ve
of the system of interest.
A second source of confusion les in me differences in perspectitionmat are
typical of different levels of managemenr. In modernist organiza
meot)',
ed
in terrnS of the
rop management's perspeeti.ve is usually conceptualiz

39

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspecti ves

vel
or
hierarchy, and men, with0'-': realizing it, you will switch your analyticalle
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 organizaron theory. Press on; you will evenrualiy come mrough
me haze and discover new powers of cbnceprualzarion along with developing

What is Organization Theory?

5ystems level

Level of analysis

Hierarchicallevel

SJpersystem

Environment

Top management

System

Organization

Subsystem

Unit or

your understanding of me modernist perspecrve.

Middle management

departm~nt

5upervision

Symbolic-Interpretive: Enactment and the Social

Construction of Reality

FIGURE 2.2. CONCEPTS OF LEVEL

!he concept of 'level" is used in severa; difiere
.
1Il organization theory. 'For instance
h th nt b~t n?t entirely unrelated ways'
.
. w en e orgaruz-ti . th 1
lt
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 ise, 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 th~u~: o~ co.ordinating and intemanagers or supervisors are focused on th
b'
g~ation. and lower level
ility.
e su umt for which they have responsib-

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 ~eory focuses anention on the -.
subjective origin of organizational realires. WeiCk states mat he purposely used
me term "eruunnent ro emphasize mat managers consrrua, rearrange, single
en
out, and demolish many 'objective' fearures ofmei.r surroundings. '?0 people
aa they unrandomize variables, insert vestiges of orderliness. ana literally create .J.

becom~s

~rganization's

relationship with its environmem M'

defined in relation te the m'temal actlVloes
... o f'the or
Iddle managemem
generally
..
.
translating tep management's strategic vision inte
with
the organization's unl'ts . The pe
' of su
rspectrve
.. . nate acoVlty among
the day-to-day problems of man'
k
IS normally equatedwith
agmg wor ers Wlthin o'
. Th
spectives ofthe different levels of
.
ne umt.
us, the perlysis described as environme t mana.ge~ent can be related te the levels of ana.
n , orgamzatlon and . II
theyare equivalent. However there are
' . umt. ou could Imagine that
inaccurate.
, m a n y clrcumstances when this would be
15

c~~;:aoo~, es~e~a1ly

perv~sl~n

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. n t'm th e process of selling contaa
ds etween the
goo to customers.
Th erefore, the levels depiaed' F
agement) are conceptually relamted Ibgure 2.2 (levels of analysis and levels of man1 1
.'
.
, ut not necessarily e . al
anguage of organization
th eory you will Wlint te b . qUlv. ent. n earnmg the
_
1
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
. kmg abour an aspect of organization at one level of analysis' with th g
,
e perspectlve of a particular leve! within a

40

,.
.;

'.';

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 pretending 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 between miming and enactmem is mat we are aware ofthe difference 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 organization appear, but once we have done so mere is little difference between our
creation and reality. of 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

SI

r:; \...",. ,,'

t~;'i~':~::.,
pJj~(

o,.

cc':
e:ot-t..'

.':,~

l ' )

J ;,.' " ' , . :

!,.;-: (/

~)C<:{.,

J ..

..c<'~r 1~(.:.

. :.,' "''': \. ...' .

:.;

...

~';;, ~

:.:'

.~. bl..~. (\, (\

41

What is Organization Theory?

r iPeter
and Th amas -L.l.1ckm:!:::!' tw
nuennal
f lBerger
' book
.
entided The S . 1e -,
o German sOClologisrs who w
.
OClLl
onstruction ofReahty 7 Th
rote an
that hu
.
.. man SOGal order is produced thr
.
.
ese theorisrs ar ed

unpum und",u",ng> dm

>re

buil, u ough

m"'p"'oo~ oogon,no",gumd

ence, What sustains social '-Je'

Vla shared
history and shar~d
to b
r IS at l eastp partO
al
~ expen-.
e perceived and the me<Jlin f
.
l consensus about how thin
members of a '
gs or which they stand Thr
.
gs are

w Id d
>Dao')' m,ko p,n",,, of mo
.
ough m",p"uooo
m : m mon "'um"hmho p,nom, m mmg om of mou "tiviti" m ,h;
pretanons
F . that produced the m.
L

ey Imposed exist apart from th e mter.

ili

or mstance
ck ~~gues that the environment f
strllcted
fr om We'
l.
.
e aCOVlLes
of collecting and al .0 an orgaruzation
is conenvir
.
onment and fram decisions taken
an. yzmg mformation about th
IOUS activities, induding fu h
on the basls of analysis which l d
e
ea to varenvir
rr er constr"rtions of th
onment is assumed to ha
-~
e environment Whil h
that for
th.
ve generated the anal s' . .
.
e t e
.
rns e envrronrnent to which th
. Y.IS, lt 15 acrually the analysis ~
soaal constIUetion t h e o '
e organlZatlOn responds A
.
.
caused both ana1y .
dry,d'
enacted environment is the
. ccording to :

~.
,~ m"',,,,,,,'

od~on m>km. by ,0Uocrmg

,nd ,:,~ u wo" "P"''' from mom. Sm" .;:: I
zmg
ment they respond
we say they sOcil
information, create the environ-'~'
d

~alnact

to,

o p",umod <o h,

:b::c~:uct
~es

m:;;: and
what they take to be the
thlde reality oftheir environ- ['
e SOG constIU . .
J
wor
lan a e
cnornst position explicitl reco .'
.'
g used ro understand organizations (s:eh
thar the categoriesf.
are not real or natural'
..
as enVlronment, Strll
beliefs held b
ID an obJecove sense. Insread th
crure, culf
Y
of",ocio')'. Tlm
'J' otro mo produa of j
o terms that we th
' we mvenr and s
. th
"

tur~)

.~ombm

acron w.dtin
rural andrro
'gnifi
p

~~'~

~.

.en "'''0 undmund mo wocld Th

o moaning>

o~:~aoc~turalconten of our own m~inus ;e aet and ~terpret ~

U",,"

1:'" C\i\fo,d Gwtz pm i'. "

.
g. '." Amon"n ruI- ,
, Th a",,, ho hUru;ou h" ",un.".
- ",'n '"n anim,l<uppod m wob, of

soaal construc'
. p"",ocrve paro
"iliode m
no"",
d
.
''
tion owocld go" on i"" ,," do" fu< mo" y mo om m ,h"oo" dm. once "
,0dillHOWOV". mo id" motr ",Ji')' no, ro
a pm<ly o,*,tivi"
.y constIUcted in a way that m ke ... ,.
as it is objectified
i,.
_ding of"""billly and mo
o_bJ".ove) m",odu,,, , now
'

mu:h~'''''
~ ~f~nve

pm,":~ f~"'~

po~'i
e

un~:S

.~~\,

are SOGal COrlStIUetiOrlS th

r orgaruzanonal change If o
. . ..'
were'
' en we reconstrllct 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. ""'",,,"cron
orgaruzanonal
realities ' b
' to make
. us co
g the subJectlve ' social tioundanons
'
niz
. al
egms
of. "
. anon processes. This dawning r liz . nsaous of our participation in o
oves w.th
ea atlon links
b'
rgawho want ro rake
ohc-interpretive perspec01. of rhese processes and
the orgaruzational world along m
ore emanopared lines.

P"''''' 1

recons~uc/ostmode:rusts
42

co~~

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspecti....

es

postmodernism in Organization Theory

It is impossible ro choose a core theory, or a ty'1ical set ofideas, ro exemplify postdem
.modernism-the incredible variety of ideas 1.abelled postmo
defies summacization, and the postmodem value for diversity contradiets the yery idea of
unifyi.ng these different understandings int0 a single, all_encompassing explanation. For these reaso many organizarion theorisrs working outside the postns
modern perspecti regard posrrnodernism as an anyUUng goes approach. This is
ve
irIaceu
becaus , although postmodcrnism is relativistic in the sense that it
rarenotiorlS eof universal crireria for trurh or excell ence , it does not sacri.f1ce
abandons
standards alrog
(wroch is a naiveview of relativism). lnstead, postrrlodether
emists tend ro view quesriOrlS of right and .'.rrong, good and bad, as social constructions that would be usefuliy redefined as matters for personal reflection and
practice.
The critical aspects of posrrnodem organization theory trace to Marxist and
neo-Marxis theorizing, partieu1arly in Europe. However, sorne of the earliest
al
uses of the tterm "posrrnodemism" referred ro aspeets of architecrur style that
emerged in the mid- to late rwentieth century, as described by American architeet9
]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
od
re
1960s. The major critique offunctionalist (modemis t) architeeture by pOStIn em architects is that it is sterile and lifeless. posrrn odern architeets seek ro renew
traditions of making built spaces symbolically rich and meaningful by invoking
past styles and reinterpreting them using the marvelous neW materials and construction 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, postmodem architeets' use of modem
consrructio methods allows them ro juxrapose several period styles in unapeeted waysn 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 CroatDay advertising agency building in Los Angeles sports a gigantic pair ofbinoculars, and the Disney headquarters building displays larger-than-life Disney

cha~les

ved
cartoon
charaeters.
As it applies
to organizaron 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)rougn applications of linguistic: semiotic, and literary
n
43

.. -----.--..-------.. . . .

iiiiiiiiii_~~-

.~

What is Organization Theo ry.?

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspectives

rheoI")' va l!;~ interesr in

.
.
..
rneamng and mrer
..
.
.
prerarJOn mrroduced by symb li
Interprerlve organizarion r h
h'
eOosts Like pos
o cP iJoso?hy developed in Opposirio~ ro mOde;modern archirecrure, posrmodern
errusm IS generally described as che l '
. illsm. In posqnodern theory, mod. 1"
eu mmanon of th Enli
'
rarrC.J lZe human culture and socie
d.
". e
ghrenmem Project ro
for r.. rionality and for its efforrs ro d~~:~ IS c~nclZed for its unquestioned value
based on scientific pnn' . 1
d
P an mregrated theory of rhe
.
Clp es an methods ( .
umverse
.
discover universallaws .
e.g., Galileo and Newton's e cr
m asrronomy and h .
uores ro
theory (e.g., General Systems Theo
p ~SICS). M~dernism in organization
explanations thar could approach I'f ry)'chi,:hich has likewise soughr universal
al
' nor a eve th
w open ro postmodern cor
' e srarus ofnarurallaws IS th
.
~~.
'
~
~ostmodernists challenge rhe mode
.
.behet !bar knowledge is fundamemall ~t deslre for Unifying views with their
duced in so.many diiferem bits and ie:es ~gmented, that is, knowledge is proranon rhat Ir will ever add up to p.
ar rhere can be no reasonable expec
F
h
an IDtegrated d'
an smgular view. For instance,
renc POstmodernist Jean-Fran~ois L or
.
unrversal undersranding 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
1lotous agmented
d
o ern
d'
,an conrradictory notion th
musr leam nor to rake fo
ar we
r grante as we are
aSSumprions that make most fo
f.
encouraged ro do by rhe simplii)rin
Fragmentation.
E
. rrns o saence possible.

g
h'
IS a aVonte theme amon
-.
t IS concept ro posr-industrial b kd
. g many postmodernists who relar
ell
rea owns ID the [; il
e
as 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 rking (i e w kPth and spanal separation between them
.., Or
at can b d
.
11 d
e. one anywhere and th e:-r ch anlne e ro rhe organiz ao On rhrough com
apses the distinCtion between public and p~renz~d communication links) colvare
from their homes, places individuals in th pr:
Me and, when employees work
roles of employee and family memb
slmultaneous and often conrradictory
I
s Can fragmenr rhe idenrities of famil
members / workers who are gul elr.
re ar y ca1led u
Y
b
.
.etween one ldentity and another Ar rh
~on to make rapid rransitioTlS
tIa1ly distributed (or even virtual) o~
. e ~am~ time releworking produces spafurther fragmented by the spatial ~lZarlO~s m which individual work lives are
between workers and their organizati:~ces ~erted between co-workers, and
This ~agmented condlrion is com licared by rhe variety oftypes of 1
society (
l".
ro es extreme differenti h
p
e.g., arm hand to astronaut.
. . atlon as wroughr upon
wor~er) which is One explanation oft:ne~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 ofperception thar

I
I

n:

underlies most ofmodern scence. Ir challenges che claim mar sensory per~ption
is me rme and on1y way te knowledge, arguing mat seflSory perception is.~
more tmthful, and may even be less vaJid, man ocher ways we could know somerhing, such as mrough inruinon or aestheric experience. And, f sen"c T)' perception does nor serve as the sole basis for (objective) empirical tests of C'\lr meorjes,
then me scientific view ofknowledge is opened te debate. As opposed ro ies selfinrerpretation as me search for Tmth, modernism is reinrerpreted by posrmodemises 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. Postmodernises 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 sence and rechnology lead ro a
berrer life. CaJlng this unexamined assumption the progress myth, many postmoderrilies 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 ofdefining a murually desirable future due ro hwnan diversity,
which is an important 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 ofcultures. pohtics, and reli.. gions that were kept bounded and well-apan during che industrial era.
As 1mentioned already, one ofthe 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 predominantly service- or information-oriented and will use automated production
strategies and computer-based technology.lo As a result of 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 us~. The
rapid absorption of knowledge, especially social knowledge. means mar organizational 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 ofprediction and control, which has been ies primary value
to modernists all along.

44
45

..._ - - - _.

_------~-~
. . .~-=---"~
'<

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 perform 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 problematize and deconstruct is power, which, in most indusoial organizations, accumulates at the top of
the hierarchy. For instance, modernist organization theorists argue that organizations 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 dominance of
managers -and the capitalists who employ them. Dominance of the capitalisti.c
ruling elite is the objective of modernism, according ro these critica! posrmodernists. Thus, the greater strength of management's voice within organizations
and society, while seemingly explained by modernist organization theory; is acrualJy only legitimized by it (e.g., the critiques ofTaylorism and Fordism). They further 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 entrenched ways ofthinking and speaking
that suppOrt the powerful, you will undermine old concepts and dispute the categories 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 experience of the world will come under your control (or at least within your conscious
experience).
A1l ofthese suggestions demand se1f-refiexivity, using your methods ofunderstanding and discovery on yourself as well as on the world around you inorder

46

Histories, Metaphors, and PeTspecti~es

.
hen you produce or use kn0wledge.
. . that you are assuml?tg w
ro reve al what lt 15
fb ' g 'Willing ro use many contra,
rrunistic in the sense o em
'..~J f
you will become oppo
ctives in arder ro avoid the traps o
us
. al and incongruo perspe
.
dierory, para dOXlC,
. . gul
.
f view As a result of your increasmg
f s'elf as a sin2Ular identity with a
dominance hidden within sm ar pomts ~
will destroy your concepoon o
b , .
. li .
mulop oty, you
In the colorful words of one ofthe major inspiraoonstO postve
' h M' eh 1 Foucault ro be postrnodern you
urutary perspecO .
.
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 ,yo
must
sappear
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 sta~ 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 UD the irnportant quesoo n o eplSdtem d.in how we can know the world. .
,
, lf th un erstan g.
ltse Wl
h
be known (l' e the kinds ofthings
Philosophy that concerns
..,
.
hich
cerns w at can
Along with ontology, w
con
hil
hi al thinking Thinking about
.
. e
the
foundation
for
all
p
osop
c
.
.
S
that exlS t), l~
. s is a useful undertaking because epistemology 15
differences m ep15temologle
dr w between the three perspecf,
d difference we can a
.
probably the most pro oun
h'
logy is a diffieult philosophical
,
. aoon
. theory Althoug ep15temO
.
uves of orgaruz
.
.
will hdp you considerably m your
.
.. me maner sorne attenUon now
lssue, glVlllg
'ves of organization theory.
efforts ro understand the perspeco .
b
h w knowledge is obtained or ereaSsumptlOns a out o
Epistemology concerns..
dr
distinction between objectivist
. al' th ooal SClences ro aw a
ated. I~ is typlC ID. ~ ~
d b' ctivist (e.g. anti-positivist, idealist) episteII an'd British organiiatian theorist
(e.g., positivist, empmos t ) ~ s~b~e B
.. h
'Olog15t Gl son urre
.
mologies, as BnOS soo
. lo . al Paradigms ami Organizational Analyns,
Garem Morgan ~o in ~eir boo~~:a~~epistemology is built upon a belief that
whieh was published m 19~9. t.~ou h independent observation. Notice that tak
one can only know something
b gli ' th t the world exists independent of
. ..
.'
eans e evmg a
ing an obJecoVlst posmon m
. ,.
II kn wkdge of the world, if the world
our know1edge ofit. For me subJecovlst , a
o
.

lOm:

47

What is Organizanen Theory?

' tenes,
'
Uetaphors , and Perspectives
1"'1
HlS

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
A rhird posirion, similar in many ways ro the subjectivisr, argues further ve
beca use al1 knowledge is shaped by social and culrural processes, dichoromies
such as subject/objecr and epistemology/ 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.
You can see in the third position rhe line taken up by posrmodemists and rh.e ,
ease with which such a stand resol ves inro the metbod ofdecoIlStruction in which
categories are questioned and concepts undermined. Likewise, you will see rli'"
seeds of rnodernisrn in the objectivist episrernology, and of syrnbolic-inrerpre. I
'ivi'm in tho ,ubj"tivi" op;"omoJogy Modomi" 0'l:'niz'tion !hoo"'" ''gUt
tbar the phenornena they srudy exisr "our there" and thus their theories Can be
tested against 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 inrer~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 independenr ofthe observer; it 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 individual subjectivities as themselves consrrllcted within rheir social and CUltural contexto 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.

tba~

"

g performance,
""
es rhar rhey achieve (e ..,
org2nizations rake and rhe ourcom rspective takes an objectivist eplStemolod
pe
'rh dirn . ns rhe.t
Pronrabiliry, conrro 1) . The mo errusr
" "
died as an obiecr WI
enslO
".
rh
nizatlon 15 sru
J
1
rh
gical position in rhar e o~ga
ou mi ht measure rhe height of a tab e or e
perspeaive
on rhe o:gacan be reliably measured,
weighr of an elephanr. The SYedOminantly subjectivst 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 treate as a
tive changes the subjea once agall1: s
undersrood. The postmodern pe.rsp~c theory and theorizing. That is, the tocus
. .
ro rgaruzatlOn
.
h'
rime from orgaruzaoons .
the researcher or practitlOner w o mes
ofpostmodernist
perspectlves
organization itself, such as ir is con. . n as .emllbracethse
we as
know the. orgaruzatlo,
r

JUS~~:lic_inte~prerive

r~ ectl~n

ro
ro know 1t.
al f1 . with
strueted by attempts
"
d on hsrorical analysis and person.
.
of authoriry) and prescnpove gUldelines
Classical methods are base fi
typ
" d Th e
ologies (e.g., '"
vveb er's three orms
. ") being rhe typical result prod uce.
( g
.
f the executlve
. . al
. t'on
on the orgaruza
l itself
. relying on staOstlc
.
e. ., Fayol's functlons oti
mo
dernisr perspective ocuses"
.
b' '"ry which produce comparatIve
.
ded ID o 1ecov1
1
description and analys15 groun . .
. research methods often emp oy
. .
Symbohc-mterpretlve
srudies of orgaruzaoons,
'.

TABLE 2.3. DIFFE

THEORY

perspecriv~

48

~CES TI{ THE MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES Of ORGANIZATION

Method

Perspective

SubjectfFocus

Classical

observation and
the effects of
organization on
historical analysis
society
personal refiection
on experience
management of the
organization

Table 2.3 surnmarizes key differences in rhe mulriple perspectives ffered by

organization theory according to the central issue Or subject ofconcern, the preferred 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 modernist
changed the subject fro m Sodety and managemenr to rhe organization itself This perspective seeks explanations for the various forrns rhat

focu~es

Modem

the organizatio~ "

through objectlVe
~
measures
Symbolic the organization

Interpretive
through ~subjective
perceptions
Postmodem

organization
and theorizingtheolY
practices

Result

typologies and
theoretical
frameworks
prescriptions for
management
practice
.
descriptive measures comparative
multivariate studles
corretation among
tatistical analyses
standardized measures .. 5 .
h
rti . ant observation narrative te~ suc
pa Clp h'
as case studles and
~thnowa~ lC
organizational
lOtelV1ewlOg
ethnographies
deconstruction
critique
of theorizing refiexivity and
refiexive accounts
practices

49

Histories, Metapho rs , and Perspectives

'} r
,
,
. m class .1C a! pe n'od me tvnologies,
r this does ro your per~t',-.::tlve (e.g., m e :anagers used producec!.. metr
h
d
w a
. rions researchers an m
." .
.
framework.;, and prescnp
m than me other way around).
,
d e.xpenences ra er
m " b,ecr m m:e:
observauons an
. ,.' ~ word play concerning e term o J.
. .
Norice a!so me posslbiliues .or
. the subjeet-objeet disrineuo n , clailllb
P 'moderrusts ques non
d
are arbidifficulr' ro keep separare, an anyway
paragraph a ove. os.
ing that in research ilie tWO are dernist uses of language. Thus, when we say
b m disrinctions are invoked and crea~e a
trary disrinctions unposed by mo
mey object to (vs. affum) som~thin;~deOan object (by me modernist ?erspeeuve)
een bemg . '
there is another meanmg!-of me
powerfu! contrast. betw
.
.
(
obJeeuved
and resisring obleetifica~on an, e istemologica! position renders posrmo posrmodernisr pt:rspeeuve). Thetr phich may account for their preference for
. ts highly sensitive ro language: w
f nsrrucring organizations and
ernJS
.
. the diverse ways o co
meraphor as a way te trnag me
organizarion theory.

What is Organization Theory?

eilinographic rechniques (e.g.. participaD[ observation and emographic interviewing) 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 approaches of
Marxist. neo-Manst, and feminist theory. One importam outcome of posrmod.
ero research on organizations is an increase in selfreflexive theorizing.
You may wonder whether there is any difference between the Classical management theory method ofpersonal reflection (Le., among the executives such as
Taylor, Fayol, and Barnard, who pioneered 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 full 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 ther 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 managers) have the responsibility ro reveal their subjeetive understandings and motivations, and the obligation not to impose them on others. The modernJ~r
l.
orientation serves to concentrare authority in the hands of management, while
the postmodern orientation tries to diffuse authority by indeasing the number of
stakeholders whose voices are heard in the organizational decision-makng
process. Where the modernist perspective:: concerns itself with creating and sustaining managerial power and control, the posrmodern is marked by concern for
the morality of organized action, especially as it is (often negatively) influenced
by modernist ways of thinking.
You ~hould 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 1 use throughout the book. Remember, postmodernism challenges distinctions 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 organization theory and theorizing in ways mat reproduce and legitimize the modernist 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, postmodernists might deconstrUa those that strUcnIre the Table 2.3 analysis. For instance,
a postmodernist might argue that, what is cast as method and what as result is
arbitrary. She could pIayfully encourage you to reverse their meanings and see

50

THE METAPHORS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY

.
th models of rraditiona! science
d
,
f
. ation built upon e
Almough theones o orgafilZ a find as symbolic-interpretive and P9stm~ ~rn
continue to be usefuL you m y th' are not enough to satisfy yourcunOS1ty.
anization theorists have, that ey
d
dings built on methods bororg
. als develop un erstan
.
Many organizarion theonsts :es One of mese methods-metaphor-1S a ~arrowed from the arts and humaru . .. and understanding the essence of a glVen
ticularly useful means of recogroz~g tion theorists use different metaphors to
phenomenon. For example. or~ . hould notice, however, that metaphor
communicate different persp~ct;es. ou ~ sciences, tOO. The chemist Friedrich
has pIayed a significant ~ole m a;=:covery of the ring stnictur.e of ber:z~ne
th
. ail His metaphonc assoaano n
Kekul a , for example, clalmedak
ing to eat lts r .
d
was based on a dream of a sn e try f th
crure of the benzene molecule le
of the snake image and the problem o f e st~phor for theory 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!fadinon m
d
kind of experience m terms o
dersran one
Metaphor a1lows you to 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
hor encourages you to explore the par
and a lion. $0 long as you underst
th Thus metap
'd
thing thar is better known to you, or
something about th e o er.
.
f'
est an some
'
.
allels between an obJeet o mter
at least known in a different way.

51

~-_

..

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

_-,-_._--

Histories, Metapho rs , and Perspecti

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

with the machine metaphor of organiz ation theory. The machine metaphor
aroSe during the 18005 when many neW machines were invented as part af th.t
indusmal revolutia n . This metaphor dominated art and \iterarure in the nine'-'
teenth and early twentieth cenrories and. e~tered Classical management theory

What is Organization Theory?

:0

atlo
. In lmages of Organization. Briti h
med many ways in which meta
c_6"amz
n the~rist Gateth Morgan e.xam
understanding and ana]y'
p rhas served orgaruzation theory as a means
b
zmg orgaruzaDons 14 For .
to
erween organizations and machn
b"] . mstance, he explored parallels
"
es, 10 oglCa] o r '
b
. al
po . De. systems, and psychic rr.o sonso Other metaph garusms,
rains, culrures '
] li
h
anty among organization theori ts' el d
ors t at have enjoyed popu
s m u e text dis
.
. ' course, art, Jazz, and drama.
a e 2.4 shows how each of the
rv
bl
T
equated with a [miding o
perspectlves of organization theo can" b
"'_
r root metaphor A
.J
e
and fundamental way of seein think. . root metaphor
offers a distinetive
15
ng
ofa well-established type ofexpge'.
th , and talk.ing. It caprures the esse-ce
Id .
nence at orga'
II th
H
wor UltO a singular, overp.awerin ers
. mzes a o er experiences of the
we will explore these four infiuenri~ ~et;e~tlve.~ the remainder of the chapter
~f the perspeetives of organizaron theo p aors. we d~ so, ay to imagine each
mterpretive lens of its roar metaphor. ry nd the Classlcal period through the
o'

via its concerns for strUcru re and effidency.

The machine metaphor framed discussions ofhow to best design the organizational machine as an instrument for accomplishing specific (usually producers
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 are 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
metapho of the computer, which organization theorist Martn Kilduff identified
r
as an updated machin e metaphor.16

The Organic Metaphor: Organizations as living Systems

TABLE 2.4. THE ME TAPHORS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY

Perspective Metaphor lmage of

the organization as ..

lmage of
the manager as

a machine designed and constru.cted by management to

achlevepredefined goals
Modern
Organism a livi~g system that performs the
fundions necessary to survival
esp. adaptation to a hostile world
a pattern of meanings created
SymbolicCulture
interpretive
and maintained by human
asso.d.ation through shared values
tradltions, and customs
'
Postmodern Collage
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

an.engineer who designs

bUllds and operates the
organizational machine
an interdependent part
of an adaptive system

Classical
period

Machine

an artifact who would like

to be a symbol of the
organization
a theorist
the theorist is an artist

I
\

The Machine Metaph Or.. OrgamzatlOns

. .
as Tools of
Management
]ust as you might build a machine for accom . .
a hole in wood or affixin
b
phshmg certain tasks, such as drill'
mg
"
g a umper ro an automobil e, so you can build entire-

S2

ves

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 metaphor 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 rransformation
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 af
organic functioning and adaptation within an ecological system. While organiical
zation demands life-sustaining funetions just like thase ofthe biolog
organism
(digestion, respiration, circulaton), both organism and organization must a.lso
adapt ro the wider environment on which they depend for their survivaL The
organic metaphor focus es on organizational process es related to survival, and
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 r should remind you that different rypes oforgan.izational
species will face different demands and respond in different ways. Thus, there can
be no one best way oforganizing that will work equally well for all organizations.

53

Histories, t-\etaphors, and Perspectives

Wilat is Organization Theory?

similar fashion, the collage meraphor reincroduces inrerest in contrac4crion,

e
arnbiguiry, and parado , and redefines ;'sues of power and chang (ro be taken up
x
in Pa IlI). This rneraph or equates the manager with the theorist. It calls on a
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 idents
riry ar the heart of the posrmodem metapho r- the manager is a theorist, and'the

yo~

Tnt
h mer"'\"o
.
"J'. r o f rh e organism frames th
r eory and emphasizes environmemal de e modernlst approach ro organizatlon
non process, and srrucrural adaptarion pendence, technology as a transforma
(themes we will pick up in Ch aprers 3 through
' as strategles
for organizarion a1 survlval
. \'
6).

is an
artist.
theorisr
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
a ntO be
offered. Among the mo st compelling thus far have been: the organiz ri9 is rsa
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 representaton or discovery. Try irnagirlirlg an organizarion that you have participared
n as an example ofyour favorite art forrn (e.g., a rock concert, a painring. a ballet or an opera, a novel). What aspects of the organization does your metaphor

The Culture Meta por.

h . Orgamzations
.
as Cultures
U'
.
.
. smg
. culrure as a metaphor rl or orgamz
t'
.
mg ItS tail because, in a conscious way at IOns IS perhaps a lirrle like a dog chasy
thfran you do about organization Ho~:t, y~uf prhobabl know less about cule
l~lers om whar you kn ow ,bom o<g>niz,tion
.
ver, 1che
w uI
at you kn ow,b on< rulom
new,o

;!r

ffi
U"", ofo,g.miz,,on,1 undem,nding Th' . e "'" mmpho, "n =e>1
o ers to organizarion theory.
. IS IS what the culture metaphor
vlew . t h e proble . h
From your point of'
ab out culrure befo "you "n
' ,dop' chem IS1 t at you need to 1eam ,ome<hing
b

;:"ou' o'gmization. Th" we Ime uneil c~ Me mmpho, " a w'y of lea<ning

~e

bring to light? What aspects does t hide?

ow that the culture metaphor em hasizaprer 7: However, for now, you should
and myths, artifacts and symbols of p
.es
customs and traditions stOri1,

''J'ffib~1 o;~e '~p"~en"

"n" 'ome ochenlllng lile

che man'g" ,
non who is interpreted in

culM~

d
o'gamzaoon (a "mbol " chin eh'
"
eNe
pea,,). In che
m:' "P'"

multi;:g:~lZysa~onh

07~:: I~
I

a storyteller and a bearer

y t e members of the orga'
. .
nlZauon.

A Pos:modern Metaphor: Colla e as a Metaphor for

9
Orgamzation Theory
r

~eproductions

<Dllage " a m
mg new-an an obje" in i" own .
' " amnged
holdin
. "apho, fo' o'ganizacon eheo
nghc, When you me

Collage is an art form in which o .

.
of other works of a;te~:s~nd pleces of objects (often inc1udin
ogether to form someth.
as museum postcards)
g

;dis~tlPlle
~e:spectives and using par~ ~~~:re
:ecognizing the value of
p ay Ullts own . h Th .
eones to form a
ng t.
e Implication is tha
. new work
.
a10ng 'h ehe ehey "c Iike mi,,, makinga coll
Th cwhen o'g.m~"ion ehe'
crea" :'~ew ~knowledge and expetien" chey ::.: coll':"m; bi" ofold cheoti"
worthyg

orists theoriz

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~wenul ide>' and feelin];' "p,~~:~",ng incongruou, im'g"

or

54

er accustomed ways of s eemg

. and exprovokmg
viewer to
. . the
penenang
the world 1

. n

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 mir differences. When yOu identify.life wim a long and wirlding road you gloss over its
breviry and intensity. sinlarly. calling a rnan a lion irlvokes
image of characterisrics such as courag and dominance. but ignores his rnouse-like fears and shye
arion
theory create blind
ness. This irnplies that the root metaphors of organiz
en
spots irl perceprion and reasoning.
Because metapho depends upon identification of me sirnilariries betwe
r
non-denrical 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. t is easy to get carned away wim a new persPective, overextending me metaphor by taking it to ridiculous extremes. Each' of the root
metapho of organiz
meory either has been. ar is capable ofbeirlg, overexation
rs
me limitations of mese metaphors will he1p you ro avod
tended. Acknowledgirlg
overextension. For irlstance , the machine metapho r depends upon me similarities
between rnachines and organizarions and underemphasizes me human aspecrs of
son
organizirlg. such as emotion and syrnbolism. overexten
of the machine
eer
metaphor leads sorne people ro talk about how to engirl
cornmitrnent or

an

55

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspecti

ves

What is Organization Theory?

culrure, a use of metaphor mat produces a simplistic and misleading understanding 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 meraphor leads LO seeing an organizarion as being much more physically bounded and environmentally derermined man ir aaually is. For insrance, organizations 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 metaphors can lead LO seeing organizations as much more chaouc and unmanageable 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 contribu red ro contemporary organization theory It is my comention, and the
theme of this book, that farniliariry with the 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 ofthe rwenry-first
cenrury

KEY TERMS
enactment theory
reification
social construction of reality
objectified (vs. objective)
diversity
Enlightenment Project
gra nd na rrative
fragmentation
progress myth
deconstruction
voice
self-reflexivity
epistemology
metaphor
root metaphor

three phases of industrialis m

post-industrialist so~ety.
post_industrialorgamzatlOn
division of labor
theory of capital
alienation
.
Scientific Management .
forms of authority (charismatlc.
traditional. rational-leg al)
theory of bureaucracy
.
.
forma,l vs. substantive ratlonallty
system
hierarchy C?f systems
open system
embeddedness
level of analysis

ENONOTE5
. pon
. meory as
the product of mis tension, see Perrow

1. .For diseussions of orgaruza

(1973) and Barley and Kunda (1992).

2 Wren (1987); Bemard (1988); BOJe and
. Winsor (1993); Steingard (1993); O'Connor

(forilieoming).

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 today help to maintain them. The perspecrives were compared on
the bases of differences in their epistemological assumptions and dH~ir roor
metaphors. Each of rhese perspecrives of organization meory have contemporary adherents whose research can be found in books and professional journals
devored ro the srudy of organization such as: Aeademy of Managemen.t Review,
AdministTative Scien.ce Quarterly, Journal of Managemen.t Inquiry, Journal of
'. Managemen.t Studies, Organization Scien.ee, Organization Studies, Organization, and
Studies ofCultures, Organizations andSociety.

3. Quoted in Seott (1992: 44).

4 Boulding (19S6).
5: Luhmann (1995). Note mat ir is difficu1t tO
.
_1..: work as strictly moderrust.
f
catego nze Ul1 s
Luhmann conrinues ro foUow me pam o
natural sdenee, but me leve! 5 systems he
'b s push him tO eonsider mearong
d
escn e
.
. ulls him in me
and interpretanon. This p
. .
. o f symbolie-interpreoV1sm and
direcnon
-;~ Nonemeless, his modpostmode,,_....
. .
.
1
. gs reassert memse!ves In his
errust earon
systematic attempt to inte~te mese perspectives intO a grand narranve.

6. Weick (1979 [1969}: 243).

7. Berger and Luckmann (1966).
8. GeertZ (1973: 5).

9. Jendes traces me terro tO even earher uses

in me art world.,

10. Heydebrand (1989); Johnston (1~87);

Clegg (1990); Kanter, Stein andJlck
(1992).
11. Derrida (1976, 1978); Martin (1990); Calas

and Smircich (1991); Kilduff (1993);

Linstead (1993).
12. Foucault (1973).
. .
13. Rorry (1989) diseusses this posmon and

ealls it me ironie disposition.

14. Morgan (1986).
15. $mirdch (1983).
16. Kilduff (1993).

57

56

What is Organizanon Theory?

Histories, Metaphors, and Perspectives

,r'
an4 spau London: Sage.
_'. .
]
o) ngrtSof orgaruzatlons.
. . .
1n ]ohn Hassard and Mamn _
rry, ohn (1994). Economia
. . .1.. srudy
Deeonsrruenon m UI~
-_,,-J
Sreve (1993).
. an4 or anizarions. London: Sage. 49-70.
1'f. 5 nfordlSm
Park"r (eds.),
Poslmodrrn
.
1
g
(rrans
]ohn
Bednan:.
jr.).
Palo
Alro,
Ca
1..
ra
.
.
95) SOCUl systcms
Luhmann, Niklas (19.
.
_ 1984)
_
Lash. Seon. an

dU

Linst~ad,

REFERENCES
Barley, 5rephen, and Kunda, Gideon (199:2). Design and devotion: Surges o rarional and nonna:
rive ideologies o( control in managerial discourse. Adrninistraliv< Sciau, Quana/y. 37: 363--;'>.
8dl, Daniel (1973). Th,cOrning OfpOSI.inustTia/ sociay. New York: Basic Books.

~:o~aJ ~aboos:

The suppression ofgender confhe!

Universiry PTeSS (first published Ul Genoan
. oanne (1990). DeeonsrructlIlg orgaruz
Mamn.]
. . SCl'C7U:e 1: 339-59.
.' ds _1. VI<:
..
Organ1Z4tlon
in orgaruzanons.
.
undalions, orrhe Critilpu ofPolitical Econorny. Hanoon WOCUl.
Marx, Karl (1973). GT1lndns~c Fo
1
.

Berger, Perer L., and Luckmann, Thomas (1966). Th, soLia/ conslrucrion of rea/iy: A t"alise in th,
soci%gy ofknowl<dge. Carden Ciry, NY: Doubleday.
Bernard,
Books. Doray (1988). Frorn Tay/orisrn lo Fordisrn: A ratioTUl/ nuuInas. London: Free Associarion
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 ofstudy. London: Rourledge. Kegan and Paul.
Burrell. Gibson, and Morgan, Carerh (1979). 50cio/0giJ:al paradigrns and organisarioTl4/ analysis.
London: Heinemann Educarional 800les.
and Smirdch. Linda (1991). Voicing seduction to silenee leadership. OrganizatUln
Calas,
Marra,
Studia,
12: 567--{j02.

1
I

Clegg,
5age.Srewarr (1990). Modan organiuzrions: Organization studia in th< postrnodan world. London:

. P guin (first published 10 1839--41).

d Wisharr (firsr published Ul 1867).
1 L don' Lawrenee an
ds
h UI<:
M en
Karl (1974). Capital. Vo . 1. on
. ..
d G Benron). Harmon worr.
arx,
writin s (rrans. R. Llvmgstone an
.
g
'oo' hilosophical manuscripts. 1844).
Marx, Karl (1975). lr/y
bli h d as EconomlC aTU< p
Penguin (first pu s e
. tUln Newburf Park: 5age.
Mo
ro-:ln
Garerh (1986). Imagcscnds'
oforgantza
rransrorrning
our livcs, New York: Wamer
b
,
Trn
n~ d~1"et'ons
1
l'
Naisbin. john (1984). M<garr
.
ks
Boo .
.
h oming) Lines of authotiry: Reaumgs o ffoundational texts
. '.on rhe
. pro.
OConnor. Ellen S. (forr e
.
<mrnt History.
. . /
' 'fession of managernenr.journal ofMan;g .
history of organizarona! rheory. Or;gamzanona
Ch des (1973). The shorr and g onous
Perrow,
a
.
"
P ess
Dynamics, Surnmer: 2-H.
: y an4 solidarity. C;rnbridge: Cambndge UmveTSlry .r .
Rorry, RiChard (1989). ContlTtg"")'. lTon , -.
sciau:cs: Insights, inroads. and ,nrTUP li e Marie (199:2). Postmo dcmlSm a
Rosenau. au n
_ . PTeSS
'~,. )
.
Prineeton: Prineeron Uruvers,ry
' . 1 na.~ra I, and oprn rystrntJ (3rd eUloon.
slOns.
. ro . Ranona
S
W Richard (1992). OrgartlUl 1 1 $ . .
"
con,.
.
:1. Prenriee.Hall.
. Englewood Cliffs, N;_
..'
don' Random House.
.
.
Senge, Perer (1992). 1M Fifth Di.SClplt",. \onre ~ organizational analysis. Adrninistranve SClma
S . 'eh. Linda (1983). Concepts of cu tu

~,

nd-th<~~l
h.

Derrida,jaeques (1976). Ofgram7tUlt%gy. Balrimore:johns Hopk.ins University Press.

Derrida.
PauL jaeques (1978). Writing and diffarnc, (rrans. Alan 8ass). London: Routledge & Kegan
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).

Durkheim. Emile (1984). Th,division oflLIbour in sOci,ty(rrans. W. D. Halls). New York: Free Press
(firsr published in 1893).
Fayol, Henri (1949). Grnaalan indusrria/7tUlnag'ntrnt. London: Pitman (firsr published in 1919).
Foucaulr. Michd (1973).
orda of rhings: An arcJuuology of th, hU7tUln sciaua (rrans. Ajan
5heridan-Smirh). New York: Vinrage Booles.

pr~rssr ~~oI~~:f

n,

Foucaulr. Miehel (1977). Powa/knowledg, (ed. Colin Gordo ). New York: Panrheon.
n
Geerrz. Clifford (1973).
inrapr,taticn ofcultura. New York: Basil: Books.

TQ~

=m
Qu.a1Urly. 28: 339-58. A osrmodern deeonsrruetlon
.
of toral qualiry rnanagemem (
.
p
mt 6/4: 72-87.
5reingard, D. S. (1993).
g
j
oumal ofOrganizaronaI Chang' Mana <m,r '. ! iJic rnanag'ntrn!. New Yorle Harper.
.
(1911) 1M pnnap es o) scun ,
Taylor. Fredenck W . .
k: Random House.
ID
(1970). Ful'UT' shocle.
New
Yor
. organruznon
_ . (d
To ero Al'
VUl
if ocU!l
and
'COnornlC
e. A . H. Henderson and Talcon
Weber. Max(1947). 1M tMoryo s
b1' h d in 19:24).

-~

Parsons). Glencoe, Ill.: Free

organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison.Wesley.
p y h ht (3 d edition). New York: WiJey.
Weick, Karl E. (1979 [1969]). ne s
r
W r~n, D . (1987). n, (Vo/unon
. o).rma nagcmrnt t oug

n,

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 Quana/y, 18 (Winrer): 83-107.
Heydebrand, Wolf(1989). New organizational fonns. Work an OccupatioltS. 16: 323-57.
Jencks, Charles (1977). Th, ILInguag, ofpost-rnodan architmuT(. London: Academy.
Johnsron.
Instirure.W. B. (1987). Worleforu 2000: Work and workasfor

t~ 21st crntury. Indianapolis: Hudson

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 ofMaTl4g'ntrnt

58

R~, 18: 13-;31.

FURTHER READING
_ for posrindus. d for furrher
reading
. Chaprer 1, rry me following
In addition ro che sources ore
.
d '10
. . m in relanon ro mo errusm.
oo,
trialism and posrmoderrus
- (1993) (eds.). Postrnodcmisrn aTU<
Hassard.john. and Parker, Mamn

;~'!l'Ons . London: Sage,

organ~

49-70.
r_ad- London: Sr. Mamn 's Press.
. (d)
e .. n'l'0stm odcm .....
jeneks.
Charles (1992)

59

What 1S Organization Theory?

Kumar Kri h

.
s an 1995). From poseinduscrial eo ost-rnod
.
p
nn socucy: N= chcotie.r ofche contanporory
wor/d. Oxford: BJackwelJ.

Lash. Scoee. and Uoy.joM (1987) Th _~

.
:
.
e.,,,, oforganlUd ca ica/"
lore. Miehad, and Sabd Charles (1984) ."
. pUm. Cambridge: Poliry Press
Re d M'eh J

''le sccond Industrial d'vU 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
Jcng o :;"/Itzanon: N= directions .
.
. on On: age..
In argo
Rosenau. Paulme
Mane (1992) P
d'
.
.
'.
. OSC-mo amsm and che social s .
.
.
.
SIOns. Pnnceron; Pnnceron Univer;iry Press.
=cs. Insghcs, 'nroads, and inm..

Part 11

p'

On meraphor, see che following sources:

lf.

Lakoff, George. andjohnso n, Mark (1980) Meca ha

.
Press.
.
P 1; We ve by. Chicago: Universiry of Chi
M'll j
cago
I er, ames G. (1978). Living sYSCans. New Yo k: M G
.
r
e raw-Hill
Morgan G th (1
are
986). Irnages oforganiZ4Cion. Newbury Parle S~ge"

I
~

60

eore Concepts and

Theories
We now be~in our study of organization theory and theorizing in detail.
In the chapters that malee up Part JI, you wiU build your understanding
of six core concepts that organization theorists rely upon to construct
their theories-organizational 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 graduaUy 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 syrnbolicinterpretive 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 structure, 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 warnyou that Chapters3through 6 are highly modemist. This is because the concepts discussed in these chapters helped
to develop the modemist perspective in organization theory and it is
togh to relate their meaning and significance without giving a great
deal of attention to this viewpoint. Nonetheless, postmodem perspectives 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

61