1/18/2010
ORGANIZATIONAL
THEORY
SUMMARY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND
ORGANIZING
Reviewd by:
Prof. Dr. İlhan Atilla DİCLE
Prep. by:
İlhan ÇİFTÇİ
SUMMARY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZING
Bahçeşehir University
Page 1
Contents
Chapter 1: The Subject is Organizations: The Verb is Organizing ........................................................... 4
The Elements of Organizations ........................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Organizations as Rational Systems ........................................................................................ 5
Taylor and Scientific Management ...................................................................................................... 5
Fayol and Administrative Theory ........................................................................................................ 6
Weber and Theory of Bureaucracy and Authority .............................................................................. 6
Simon and Theory of Administrative Behaviour ................................................................................. 7
Chapter 3: Organizations as Natural System ........................................................................................... 9
Major Contributions To Natural System ........................................................................................... 11
Barnard’s Cooperative System ...................................................................................................... 11
”Hawthorne effect” ....................................................................................................................... 11
Parsons’s AGIL Schema.................................................................................................................. 12
Selznick’s Institutional Approach .................................................................................................. 13
Chapter 4: Organizations as Open Systems .......................................................................................... 13
Organizations as Cybernetic Systems ................................................................................................ 14
Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems....................................................................................... 15
Organizations as Hierarchical Systems .............................................................................................. 16
Chapter 5: Combining Perspectives, Expanding Levels ......................................................................... 16
Contingency Theory........................................................................................................................... 16
Thompson’s Levels of Model ............................................................................................................. 17
Scott’s Layered of Model................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 6: Conceptions of Environment ............................................................................................... 20
Organizational Groupings .................................................................................................................. 20
Environment Typologies .................................................................................................................... 20
Subjective vs. Objective Definitions of Environments ...................................................................... 21
Organizations and Environments ...................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 7: Creating Organizations ........................................................................................................ 22
Various Theoretical Perspectives on the Emergence of Organizations ............................................ 23
Chapter 8: Goals, Power and Control .................................................................................................... 23
Organizational Goal &The Dominant Coalition ............................................................................. 24
Anarchies, Adhocracies & Learning ................................................................................................... 26
Control Systems............................................................................................................................. 27
Bahçeşehir University
Page 2
Authority ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 9: The Dyadic Enviroment of Organization.............................................................................. 28
Transaction Cost Economics .............................................................................................................. 28
Resource Dependence Theory .......................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 10: Organization Environment ................................................................................................ 30
Population Ecology ............................................................................................................................ 31
The New Institutional Approach ....................................................................................................... 31
Chapter 11: Networks In and Around Organizations ............................................................................ 32
Interlock Networks ............................................................................................................................ 32
Indirectly Networks ........................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 12: Strategy, Structure, and Performance: The Sociology of Organizational Strategy ........... 32
Forces Shaping Industry Competition ............................................................................................... 32
Threat of entry by new competitors ............................................................................................. 32
Intensity of rivalry among existing competitors............................................................................ 33
Chapter 13: The Rise and Transformation of the Corporate Form ....................................................... 37
Changing Forms of Organizations ..................................................................................................... 37
Railroads ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Corporations in the 20th Century....................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 14: Changing Contours of Organizations and Organization Theory ........................................ 38
From Unitary to Multiparadigm ........................................................................................................ 38
From Monocultural to Multicultural Studies .................................................................................... 38
From Present – Centered to Longitudinal and Historical Analysis .................................................... 38
From Micro to Macro Units and Levels of Analysis ........................................................................... 39
From Structure to Process ................................................................................................................. 39
Bahçeşehir University
Page 3
Chapter 1: The Subject is Organizations: The Verb is Organizing
Organizations play a leading role in our modern world. This presence affcets – some would insist that
the proper term is infects – virtually every sector of ceontemporary social life. What organizations
do?, how they changed and how people have thought about them questions will be solved with this
summary.
The Elements of Organizations
Organization charts are enormously useful but convey only a small part of what we mean by
“organizations.” There have been many models that render the diversity and complexity of
organizations manageable by focusing on a few central dimensons- somewhere between an
organization chart and actual organization.
The Essential Ingredients
Essential ingredients of organizations are environment, strategy and goal, work and technology,
formal and informal organization.
Environments are all those of significant elements outside the organization that influence its ability
to survive and achieve its ends.
Strategy describes the choices organizations make about which markets or clients the organization
intends to serve, the basis on which it competes in its domain.
Works describes the tasks that the organization needs to accomplish given the goals it has set for
itself.It includes the character of the work flows and the level of interdependece among the parts of
the organization.
To focus on the technolgy of an organization is to view the organization as a place where energy is
applied to the transformation of materials, as a mechanism for transforming inputs into outputs.
Formal Organization codify more or less explicitly how they do their work and how their parts relate
to each other. Informal organization refers to the emergent characteristics of the organization that
affcet how the organization operates. This includes the organization’s culture, norms, and values:
social networks inside and outside the organization; power and politics; and the actions of leaders.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 4
Culture describes the pattern of values, beliefs, and expectations more or less shared by the
organization’s members.
Three contrasting definitions of organizations have arisen, each associated with one of three
perspectives on organizations: the rational, natural, and open system. The first definition views
organizations as highly formalized collectivities oriented as social systems, forged by consensus or
conflict, seeking to survive. And the third definition views organizations as activities involving
coalitions of participants with varying interests embedded in wider environments. The three
definitions frame analytically useful, if partial, views of organizations based on differing ontological
ceonceptions. And all three perspectives, albeit in varying combinations, continue to guide and
influence the ways we think about organizations and organizing.
Chapter 2: Organizations as Rational Systems
The two prominent characteristics of rational systems are:
Goal Specificity:
Goals are conceptions of desired ends. In the rationalistic view, it is important that goals are clearly
defined and are not vague. Vague goals do not provide a solid basis for formal organisations.
Formalisation:
A structure is formalised:
- to the extent that the rules which are governing behaviour are precisely formulated
- to the extent that roles and role relations are prescribed independently of the personal attributes
and relations of the individuals, who are occupying these positions in the organisation.
Taylor and Scientific Management
Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.
Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather than passively leaving them to train
themselves.
Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are being followed.
Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific
management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 5
These principles were implemented in many factories, often increasing productivity by a factor of
three or more. Henry Ford applied Taylor's principles in his automobile factories, and families even
began to perform their household tasks based on the results of time and motion studies.
Fayol and Administrative Theory
Fayol was a qualified engineer and also held a high position industry: managing director of a large
French company. A year after the death of Taylor, he published his most famous book entitled:
General and Industrial Management
While Taylor reorganized from "bottom up", administrative theorists looked at productivity
improvements from the "top down". Early influencers were Henri Fayol (1949 trans.), Mooney and
Reiley (1939) and Gulick and Urwick (1937).
Fayol attempted to develop a science of administration for management. In contrast to a later
management expert, Peter Drucker, he believed that there was a universal science of management
applicable to commerce, industry, politics, religion, war or philanthropy. He was not a theoretician
and was one of the first practicing managers to draw up a list of management principles
Fayol thought that his principles would be useful to all types of managers. He truly advocated the
notion that if a manager wants to be successful, he only needs a certain set of management
principles. If a manager climbed the corporate ladder and reached higher positions, this manager
would depend less on technical knowledge and more knowledge of administration. When Fayol
worked on his principles in France, Taylor’s scientific management was developing “independently”
in the USA. Although he was trained as an engineer, he brilliantly realized that management of an
enterprise required skills other than those he had studied.
Weber and Theory of Bureaucracy and Authority
Max Weber wrote about the emergence of rationality in the West by comparing and contrasting
differing cultures and historical periods.
His typology on authority -- traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic -- proposed that rational-legal
authority was becoming the dominant system (supplanting traditional authority) through the
modern state and capitalism, mainly due to it's "purely technical superiority over any other form of
organization".
Bahçeşehir University
Page 6
Traditional Authority -- resting on the established belief of sanctity of traditions and legitimacy of
those exercising authority under them
Rational-legal authority -- resting on a belief of the legality of patterns of normative rules and the
right of those elevated under those rules to issue commands
Charismatic authority -- resting on devotion to sanctity, heroism, and character of a person, and the
normative rules ordained by him or her.
Bureaucracy arose by sub-dividing the functions that the owner-managers originally did themselves
such as supervision, personnel selection, accounting and financial management, record keeping, job
design, and planning.
Simon and Theory of Administrative Behaviour
Simon (1976) clarified the processes by which goal specificity and formalization contribute to rational
behavior in organizations (Scott p. 45). He criticized Fayol's platitudes and Taylor's "economic man"
assumptions, proposing the "administrative man" who pursues his self-interests but often doesn't
know what they are, is aware of only some of the possible decision alternatives, and is willing to
settle for an adequate solution than continue looking for an optimal one
Simon distinquishes between the decisions a person makes to enter or leave an organization and the
decisions they make as a participant. Organizations simplify decisions and support participants in the
decisions they need to make.
Organizations simplify decisions by restricting the ends toward which activity is directed. Goals
supply the value premises that underly decisions. Value premises (assumptions of desirable ends )
are combined with factual premises to make decisions. The more precise the value premises, the
greater effect they have on decisions.
Participants in high positions make decisions with a higher value component, people in lower
positions make decisions with a higher factual component. The top makes "what" decisions, the
bottom "how" decisions. Choice of ends can only be validated by fiat or consensus, choice of means
empirically.
While goals are often vauge, they can serve as the starting point for a series of mean-ends chains
where one develops a set of means for the overall goal, redefines each mean as a sub-goal, and then
develops means for the sub-goal, branching until the means are activities.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 7
Each goal in the means-end hierarchy is an end to things below it and a mean to those above it.
Activities can only be evaluated against the goals above it. Goals can be delegated to different units
which simplifies the decision making process for participants. Scott notes that "from this perspective,
an organization's hierarchy can be viewed as a congealed set of means-ends chains promoting
consistency of decisions and activities throughout the organization".
According to Perrow (1986), Simon's model stresses unobtrusive control of participants through
training, information, standard operating procedures, etc. -- channeling of attention and information.
Simon also notes the cognitive limitations of decision makers through his and March's concept of
bounded rationality (March and Simon, 1958).
Overall, Simon helps us understand how the decisions of hundreds or thousands of individuals in an
organization can be directed toward ultimate orgnizational goals.
When comparing the various schools, important differences in the approach to the normative
structure can be identified:
 Taylor: pragmatic approach, bottom up –method
 Administrative theory group: lees pragmatic & more prescriptive, belief in general
principles
 Weber was less concerned with discovering methods to improve organisation but
was trying to define characteristics of the bureaucratic structures
 The 4 schools used different levels of analysis, Taylor and Simon used the social
psychological level, while Fayol (administrative theory group) and Weber worked at
structural level
Characteristics of the rationalistic perspective:
 Control is the means of challenging and co-ordinating behaviour in order to achieve
specified goals
 Structure is celebrated, action is ignored
Bahçeşehir University
Page 8
Chapter 3: Organizations as Natural System
 Organizations are collectivities (not existed to rational)
 Specificity and Formalization as characteristics differentiating organizations from other types
of collectivities (rational) but shared with the social group (natural)
 Organizational goals and their relation to the behavior of participants are much more
problematic.
Two general themes characterize of organizational goals:
 There is frequently a disparity between the stated and the “real” goals pursued by
organizations.
 When the stated goals are actually being pursued, they are never the only goals governing
participants’ behavior
Two Types of Explanations have been proposed to account for the survival instincts of organizations:
 The Organizations are social systems charecterized by a number of needs that must be
satisfied if they are to survive.
 Other theorists reject such assumptions as being anthropomorphic at worst and unnecessary
at best. They suggest instead that one does have to posit a survival need for the collectivity it
self.
 The main difference between the two perspective scholars background
Bahçeşehir University
Page 9
Classical
(Rational)
Theorist
Natural
System
Managerial
Experince
(Pratical)
Fayol

Mooney

Urwick

Industry
Engineer
(Pratical)
Academic
Background

Taylor

Mayo
Weber

Gullick

Roethlisber
ger

Selznick

McGregor

Parsons

Bendix

Dalton

Gouldner

Dahrendorf

Barnard

The rational and the natural analysts concentrated on different types of organizations
The rational system analysts were more likely to investigate industrial firms and state bureaucracies,
while the natural system analysts tended to focus on service and professional organizations-schools,
hospital, and voluntary organizations
Rational system theorists
 only selected aspects of behaviors of participants are relevant to the organization.
Natural system theorists:
 Such behaviors have an impact on the task behavior of participants and hence are emprically
relevant to an understanding of organizational behavior
 Organizations as social contexs affect the participants’ well being, a situation that has
normative significance to anyone concerned with bettering the human condition.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 10
Major Contributions To Natural System
Barnard’s Cooperative System
 Barnard stressed that organizations are essentiallay cooperative systems, integrating the
contributions of their individual participants.
 Organizations rely on the willingness of participants to make contributions.
 Many ideas that are consistent with a rational system conception of organizations what sets
them apart is his insistence on the nonmaterial, informal, interpersonel, and, indeed moral
basis of cooperation.
 The most critical ingredient to successful organization is the formation of a collective
purpose that becomes morally binding on participants. Developing and imparting a mission is
the distinctive “function of the executive.”
 The necessity of survival can override the morality of purpose.
”Hawthorne effect”
 Between 1924 and 1932, at a factory called the Hawthorne Works, (a Western Electric
manufacturing facility outside Chicago IL, U.S.A.), a series of experiments on factory workers
were carried out.
 Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more
productive in higher or lower levels of light. It was found that the workers' productivity
seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded.
It was suggested that the productivity gain was due to the motivational effect of the interest
being shown in them.
 However, it was then found that subjects improved their performance in response NOT to
changes in experimental manipulation in illumination of their task area BUT simply in
response to the fact that they are being studied. In 1955, the term was coined by Henry A.
Landsberger when analyzing the experiments from 1924-1932.
 In a 2009 reassessment of the original data, University of Chicago economists John List and
Steven Levitt found that productivity varied due to other factors such as the weekly cycle of
work or the seasonal temperature and so the initial conclusions were overstated and the
effect was weak or illusory.
 Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne
effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles,
and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods of time.
 In appropriate sense, the Hawthorne effect is a term used to identify any type of short lived
increase in productivity.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 11
Parsons’s AGIL Schema
He developed a very explicit model detailing the needs that must be met if a social system is to
survive. The model is identified AGIL.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 12
Selznick’s Institutional Approach
He was a student of bureaucrarcy under Merton at Colombia but an intellectual descendant of
Michels and Bernard, developed his own unique system model, one that has recently been
refurbished and elaborated to constitute an influential approach to the analysis of organizations
known as institutional theory.
“The important thing about the organizations is that, though they are tools, each nevertheless has a
life of its own.”
He agrees rational system except:
 individuals who participate in the organization as “wholes” rather than acting merely in
terms of their formal roles
 Organizational structures that include the formal aspects but also the complex informal
systems that link participants with one another and with others external to the official
boundaries
 Institutionalization: The process by which an organization “takes on a special character” and
“achieves a distinctive competence or, perhaps a trained or built – in capacity”(Selznick
1996)
 Thus institutionalization refers to a morally neutral process: “the emergence of orderly,
stable, socially integrating patterns out of unstable, loosely organized or narrowly technical
activities” Selznick argued that teh most significant aspect of institutionalization is the
process by which structures or activities become “infused with value beyond the technical
requirements at hand”
 He views organizational structure as an adaptive organism shaped in a reaction to the
characteristics and commitments of participants as well as to influences from the external
enviroment
Chapter 4: Organizations as Open Systems
The open system perspective emerged as a part of the intellectual ferment following World War II,
although its roots are much older. The general movement created new areas of study, such as
cybernetics and information theory; stimulated new applications, such as systems engineering and
operations research; transformed existing disciplines, inclıding the study of organizations; and
proposed closer linkages among scientific disciplines. The latter interest was fostered especially by
general system theory. Its founder, biologist Luwing von Bertalanffy, was concerned about growing
compartmentalization of science.
Open system theory was intially developed by Ludwig von
Bertanlanffy (1956), a biologist, but it was immediately applicable across all disciplines. It defines the
Bahçeşehir University
Page 13
concept of a system, where "all systems are characterized by an assemblage or combination of parts
whose relations make them interdependent". As one moves from mechanical to organic and social
systems, the the interactions between parts in the system become more complex and variable.
In mechanical systems the parts are highly constrained. In social systems, the connections are loosely
coupled. Also important is the flow of materials, energy, and information across system boundaries
separating the system from its environment. Simpler systems transmit primarily energy, while higher
order systems transmit information.
Open systems like organizations are "multi-cephalous : many heads are present to receive
information, make decisions, direct action". Individual and subgroups form and leave coalitions.
Boundaries are amorphous, permeable, and ever changing. But the system must exchage resources
with the environment to survive.
Organizations as Cybernetic Systems
in the second-half of the 20th century, cybernetics is equally applicable to physical and social (that is,
language-based) systems.
Cybernetics is preeminent when the system under scrutiny is involved in a closed signal loop, where
action by the system in an environment causes some change in the environment and that change is
manifest to the system via information, or feedback, that causes the system to adapt to new
conditions: the system changes its behavior. This "circular causal" relationship is necessary and
sufficient for a cybernetic perspective
Contemporary cybernetics began as an interdisciplinary study connecting the fields of control
systems, electrical network theory, mechanical engineering, logic modeling, evolutionary biology,
neuroscience, anthropology, and psychology in the 1940s, often attributed to the Macy Conferences.
Other fields of study which have influenced or been influenced by cybernetics include game theory,
system theory (a mathematical counterpart to cybernetics), sociology, psychology (especially
neuropsychology, behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology), philosophy, and architecture.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 14
Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems
Understanding an organization as a loose coupling of actors, rewards, and technology may help
better explain how organizations adapt to their environments and survive amidst uncertainties.
Weick observes that manifests of loosely coupled systems often are:




situations where several means can produce the same result
lack of coordination
absence of regulations
highly connect networks with very slow feedback times
While these manifests appear negative, they actually may help the organization by:





allowing the organization to temporarily persist through rapid environmental fluctuations
improving the organization's sensitivity to the environment
allowing local adaptations and creative solutions to develop
allow sub-system breakdown without damaging the entire organization
allow more self-determination by actors
In general, loosely coupled systems probably are cheaper to coordinate, but are very difficult to
systematically change.
Loose coupling "conveys the image that coupled events are responsive, but that each event has it's
individual identity and the coupling can vary over time'. It also suggests that you can break many
Bahçeşehir University
Page 15
organizations into largely self-functioning subsystems, and loose coupling is really the "glue" that
holds them together.
Two coupling elements often discussed are technical couplings (between technology, task, role) that
are task-induced and authority couplings (positions, offices, rewards, sanctions) that somehow hold
the organization together.
This is not to say that open systems do not have boundaries. They do, of course, and must expend
energy in boundary maintenance.
Organizations as Hierarchical Systems
General systems theorists also stress that hierarchy is a fundamental feature of complex systems –
not hierarchy in the sense of status or power differences, but hierarchy as a mechanism of clustering.
Systems are composed of multiple subsytems, and systems are themselves contained within larger
systems. This is such a common feature of virtually all complex systems that it is easily overlooked.
Chapter 5: Combining Perspectives, Expanding Levels
Contingency Theory
Contingency theory is a class of behavioural theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a
corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal course of action is
contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation. Several contingency approaches
were developed concurrently in the late 1960s
They suggested that previous theories such as Weber's bureaucracy and Taylor's scientific
management had failed because they neglected that management style and organizational structure
were influenced by various aspects of the environment: the contingency factors. There could not be
"one best way" for leadership or organization.
Historically, contingency theory has sought to formulate broad generalizations about the formal
structures that are typically associated with or best fit the use of different technologies. The
perspective originated with the work of Joan Woodward (1958), who argued that technologies
directly determine differences in such organizational attributes as span of control, centralization of
authority, and the formalization of rules and procedures.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 16
Scott describes the Contingency Theory in the following manner: "The best way to organize depends
on the nature of the environment to which the organization must relate". Other researchers
including Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch, and James D. Thompson were complementing to this statement
and were more interested in the impact of contingency factors on organizational structure. Their
structural contingency theory was the dominant paradigm of organizational structural theories for
most of the 1970s. A major empirical test was furnished by Johannes M Pennings who examined the
interaction between environmental uncertainty, organization structure and various aspects of
performance.
Thompson’s Levels of Model
James D. Thompson in his work Organizations in Action states that all three perspectives apply in
differing amounts to different organizations, and suggests researchers should be more flexible in
their approach. He borrows Parson's levels (technical, managerial, and institutional) and claims that
the rational perspective is more suitable to the technical level, the natural to the managerial, and the
open to the institutional level .
Thompson states that organizations "strive to be rational although they are natural and open
systems". Rational notions of effectiveness and efficiency presume a closed system. Organizations
attempt to seal off their technical core from external uncertaintities as much as possible. At the
institutional level the organization is open to the environment and must adapt to its changes. At the
managerial level managers mediate between the open institutional level and closed technical level
and need the flexibility of informal structures prevalent in the natural system perspective to ensure
organizational survival.
Scott’s Layered of Model
Scott works out three ideal typical perspectives on organizations: organizations as rational systems,
organizations as natural systems and organizations as open systems. Although these categories are
certainly not new, the comprehensiveness of the discussion is very valuable. Within the rational
perspective, organizations are seen as strongly formalized entities aimed at the fulfillment of specific
goals. Within this mechanistic approach toward organizations, the formal structure is emphasized.
However, within the natural systems approach, organizations are seen as fundamental social
Bahçeşehir University
Page 17
collectivities attempting to fulfill their own individual needs. The natural system theorists put a
greater emphasize on the informal and social structure of the organization as well. Finally, the open
system approach pays particular attention to the reciprocal ties and the mutual dependence
between organizations (with different interests) and the environment. The open character of the
system is the most important difference between this and the other two previous perspectives.
According to Scott, this theoretical division uses ideal types which “partially conflict, partially overlap,
and partially complement one another” (Scott, 2003:31). This statement is not problematic in so far
as the perspectives are not presented as mutually exclusive. However, Scott takes the view that an
attempt to integrate these perspectives is necessary
Bahçeşehir University
Page 18
Levels of Analysis
Social
Psychological
Closed System Models
1900 - 1930
1930 - 1960
Rational Models
Natural Models
Open System Models
1970 Natural Models
1960 - 1970
Rational Models
Scientific Management
Taylor (1911)
Human Relations
Whyte (1959)
Bounded Rationality
March and Simon (1958)
Organizing
Weick (1969)
Bureaucratic Theory
Weber (1946)
Cooperative Systems
Barnard (1938)
Contingency Theory
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967)
Sociotechnical Systems
Miller and Rice (1967)
Administrative Theory
Fayol (1919)
Human Relations
Mayo (1945)
Comparative structure
Woodward (1965)
Pugh et al. (1969)
Blau (1970)
Decision Making
Simon (1945)
Structural
Ecological
Transaction Cost
Williamson (1975)
Organizational Ecology
Hannan and Freeman (1977)
Knowledge - based
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
Resource Dependence
Pfeffer and Salancik (1978)
Institutional Theory
Selznick (1949)
Meyer and Rowan (1977)
DiMaggio and Powell (1983)
Bahçeşehir University
Page 19
Chapter 6: Conceptions of Environment
Organizational environment refers to the forces that can make an impact. Forces made up
opportunities and threats. Organizations dose not exist in isolation. It works with the overall
environment. Scholars have divided these environmental factors into two main parts as, Internal
Environment, External Environment
Organizational Groupings
Scott notes four common groupings of organizations in research at the ecological level:
An organization set refers to the fact that an organization has different relations based on which
partner in the environment it is dealing with (supplier, customer, agency, etc.).
Organizational population: aggregates of organizations that is alike in some respect (that have similar
blueprint in organizational action).
Areal organizational fields: looks at a collection of organizations within a geographical area. It has
been labeled ecological community model, inter-organizational model, or the collective-action
model, and tends to focus on the network of relations between organizations in the same area.
Functional organization fields: collection of organizations that critically influence the focal
organization (suppliers, customers, owners, regulators, competitors, etc.)

Organizational fields and environments evolve over time. Organizations may develop
temporary alliances with other organizations for specific purposes (even when competing in
other arenas).
Environment Typologies
Various researchers have developed typologies to describe organizational environments. Emery and
Trist classified them by extent of ‘interlocking relationships’ and Warren based his on ‘decisionmaking structure’.
The socio-technical perspective (Emery and Trist, 1965) defines four fields:
 Placid, randomized environments (resources unchanging, random distribution)
 Placid, clustered environments (resources unchanging, but location becomes
important for survival)
 Disturbed, reactive environments (org. strategy to get resources important for
survival)
Bahçeşehir University
Page 20
 Turbulent environments (all actors are interconnected, and overall field becomes an
important force)
Warren based his typology on decision making structure:
 Social-choice context
 Coalitional context
 Federative context
Subjective vs. Objective Definitions of Environments
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) and Weick (1979) suggest that basing it on participant's perceptions is
the best (if not only) way. Weick notes that participants enact their environment, selectively
perceiving and modifying their environment, often unconsciously.
March (Cohen and March, 1974) adds to this through definition of an attention structure to
"describe the distribution of connections among people, types of information sent and received,
distribution of problems, and (decision rules) “.
Ultimately, we can't separate subjective (enacted) and objective characterizations of environments.
Parts of the environment can affect organizational outcomes even if they are not perceived.
What we measure depends on what we are trying to predict -- predicting organizational choices may
rely on participant perceptions, but predicting organizational outcomes requires additional
information potentially unknown to the participants.
Organizations and Environments
Contingency and resource dependency theorists argue that organizations can adapt to
environmental changes, while population ecologists emphasize structural inertia that prevents
adaptation -- more optimal organizational forms are selected, and less optimal ones are replaced.
Organizations can absorb part of the environment (through vertical integration) or return part of
their organization to the environment (outsourcing). All of this makes boundary definitions difficult.
The prevalent view is that modern organizational environments are becoming more complex at an
increasing rate (Emery and Trist, 1965), largely through technical change. This means that
uncertainty also increases, and the ratio of externally to internally induced changes also is increasing.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 21
This trend is still unclear, however. And there are instances where changing governance structures
and technical changes may actually reduce uncertainty.
Chapter 7: Creating Organizations
Why are there organizations, and what are the conditions that foster the creation of organizations?
These are important questions in organizational theory. Scott notes that "...the history of the
development of modern society is also a history of the development of special purpose
organizations..."
Various
historical
trends
helped
create
modern
organizations:
The Changing Relations of Individual and Corporate Actors
In pre-modern organizations, the participants were wholly contained in their organizations, who had
full authority over them. Their rights and interests were determined by the membership. They were
built on a strict hierarchy. Over time individuals gained rights, and corporate actors also gained rights
and were allowed to pursue interests too (often under a charter of the ruler).
These new corporate actors no longer contained their individual actors but just the resources
invested by the owners. They now contracted to individual participants to engage in certain activities
for wages. Individuals were only partially involved now. This trend created a surgence of
individualism
that
cooincided
with
the
development
of
special-purpose
organizations.
Societal Conditions Favoring the Devlopment of Organizations
Stinchcombe (1965) suggests that "the capacity of a population to develop and support special
purpose organizations is determined by general factors like literacy, specialized advanced schooling,
urbanization, money economy, and political revolution (Scott p. 153). Others like Parsons and
Eisenstadt add role and institutional differentiation, allocation or roles by achievement instead of by
other criteria, and competition for resources.
Stinchcombe adds that these factors have helped motivate individual to form organizations and have
improved the chance that this new form will survive. "Stinchcome (also) asserts that organizations
Bahçeşehir University
Page 22
suffer from the liability of newness -- new organizations and in particular new forms of organization
are likely to fail"
Various Theoretical Perspectives on the Emergence of Organizations
Each theoretical perspective has a different explanation as to why organizations are created. The
rational system perspective emphasizes that organizations are formed to improve efficiency and
effectiveness through division of labor, reduced transaction costs, more efficient information
processing, and more effective monitoring of agents. "From a rational system perspective,
organizations arise to take advantage of the production economies offered by an elaborate division
of labor and to meet the cognitive and control challenges posed complex and uncertain
environments"
"From a natural system perspective, institutionalists propose that organizations emerge as an
embodiment of rationalized belief systems that proliferate in the wider social environment. Marxists
argue that organizations arise as structures created by capitalists to expropriate surplus value from
productive labor".
But all parties agree that industrialization has caused the growth of large organizations.
Resource Mobilization
Organizations emerge through the collective mobilization of resources in pursuit of a goal. How an
organization is formed is partly the result of it's intial resource mix, incentives, membership
demographics, and ability to acquire resources. The failure rate of new organizations is high.
Chapter 8: Goals, Power and Control
5 alternatives uses for organizational goals





Cognitive – Rational Approach
Cathetic (Motivational) – Natural System
Symbolic – Institutional Approach
Justification
Evaluative
Bahçeşehir University
Page 23
Simon (1964: 1997) has most forcefully urged the distinction btw individual goals that govern a
participant’s decision to join or remain in an organization, and organizational goals that are expected
to govern decisions of individuals as participants.
Organizational Goal &The Dominant Coalition
Acc. to The Classical Economist’s is to point to the goals of the entrepreneur and to equate the
organization’s goals within this person’s objectives.
The most satisfactory basis for adressing the question of who sets organizational goals is provided by
Cyert and March (1963)
Acc. To Cyert and March; organizational goals being set by a negotiation process that occurs among
members of the dominant coalition.
Participants and Stakeholder
Owners and Managers : Those who own property, whether in the form of capital, land, machinery, or
disposable goods, have “ a socially defensible right to make a decision on how to use” these
resources.
Owners delegate control over resources to managers who are expected to act on their behalf.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 24
Labor: Organizations depend on the energies and skills of workers who carry out the work of
transforming resources.,
Boundary Roles: Enviromental changes lead to change organization unit and power. Environmental
change is determined internal structure
External Actors:
Power over organizations is not restricted to those within its formal boundaries (Mintzberg, 1983)
The power of external constituencies to shape organizational objectives has been clear. (Selznick
1983)
“Political economy” perspective provides a systematic framework for examining both internal and
external sources of power affecting organizations (Zald 1970)
Modes of Capital
The power of capital resides in
Financial Capital: Property, ownership, cash, investments, creditworthiness
Human Capital: Personel attributes and skills, education and experince
Social Capital: Putnam defines “those features of social organization, such as networks, norms and
trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”
Size of Coalition
Acc. Galbraith (1967) one of the most fundamental changes in the organization of the modern
corporation has been the shift from an entrepreneurial mode in which a single powerful person
dominates the enterprise to a flatter structure in which power is more widely diffused.
Thompson (1967) argues that the size of the dominat coalition, is affected both by the nature of
organization’s technology and by its task and institutional environments.
Uses of Power:
What difference, if any, does it make when power shifts from one group to another or is shared with
a wider range of individuals and by the organization.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 25
Missues of Power:
Crime: A useful distinction differentiates criminal acts organizations into “occupational” and
“corporate” crimes.
Occupational Crimes are committed by individual employees against their employers for their own
gain.
Corporate Crimes are committed by individual employees acting on behalf of the corporation itself.
Corruption: is by no means limited to developing societies, or societies in transition to a differing
mode of governance. Enron, Worldcl etc.
Anarchies, Adhocracies & Learning
All systems provide for the development of a set of goals by which organizational decisions can be
made.
Rational System Perspective -> Bureaucratic – Administrative Model
Natural and Open System Perspective -> Coalitional – Bargaining Model
Decisions and Structures
Thompson and Tuden (1959) focus on decisions and structures by constrcuting typology that
combines 2 dimensons:
 How much agreement there is among organizational particiapnats about the goals or
preferred outcomes of the system,
 How much agreement there is about the means or the causal processes by which these
outcomes can be realized.
 The cross – classification of ends – and – means distinction produces 4 types of decision
contexts, each of which is calls for different decision strategy:
Bahçeşehir University
Page 26
Beliefs About Causation
Agreement
Preferences About Outcomes
Agreement
Disagreement
Computation
Compromise
[bureaucracy]
[legislature]
Judgement
Inspiration
[collegium]
[charismatic leader]
Disagreement
Organized Anarchies
Acc. to March and his colleagues, decision making under conditions of “inconsistent and ill – defined
preferences,” “uncler technologies”, and “fluid participation” lead to change or shift in members
decision. These conditions are identified Organized Anarchy.
Turbulent Environments
A major factor often accounting for the absence of clearly specified goals is the nature of some
organizational environments. If environments are turbulent, then it is difficult to establish clear and
specific objectives around which to design a structure and orient participant activities.
Unstable enviroments undermine clear and consistent goalsi just as they unsettle rigid formalized
structures.
Conceptions of Goals and Theoretical Models
Grandori (1987) argues that there is a close relation between an analyst’s conception of
organizational goals and the choice of a theorretical model for explaining organization structure.
She takes contingency theory as the base line model, a model assumes that organizations are
pursuing single or consistent objectives that are capable of rationally adapting their structure to fit
changing circumstances.
Control Systems
Power: Emerson views power as relational, situational, and at least potentially reciprocal.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 27
Power in Formal Organization: It is determined at least in part by design: sanctioning powers are
attached to positions, avaliable to any individual who occupies one, regardless of his or her personal
qualities. Power is not personal but structıral.
Power in Informal Organization: It is based on the characteristics of individuals – individual
differences that can function as resources allowing some to reward and punish others.
Authority
Acc. Weber (1947): No organization is likely to be content with establishing a power structure; in
addition, it will attempt to create am authority structure. Most social scientists define authority as
ligitimate power. Acc. to Dornbusch and Scott (1975) mentioned two types of authority : endorsed
and authorized
Endorsed Power or Authority of endorsement: Social norms that regulate power relations provide
the legitimate control structures, Who –what group of participants- defines and enforces these
norms. In most informal groups, there is only one possible source: the set of participants who are
subject to the exercise of power and hence are subordinates of the power wielder. This subordinate
group can limit and regulate the exercise of power over them by a superordinate.
Authorized power or Authority by authorization: A familiar safeguard built into most hierarchies is
teh principle of appeal, by which subordinates who feel that their immediate superior is making
unfair or unreasonable demands on them, may turn to their superior’s boss with the expectation that
he or she will enforce authority norms that curb the superior’s power.
Chapter 9: The Dyadic Enviroment of Organization
This topic is related to micro economics. It is stressed Transaction Cost Economics and Resource
Dependence Theory.
Transaction Cost Economics
Transaction Cost Economics mostly granted with Ronald Coase. He wondered two questions:
 Why speciliazed exchange economy such as ours, are there firms?
 What is a firm?
Bahçeşehir University
Page 28
Firm is “the system of specialized relationships which comes into existence when the direction of
resources is dependent on an entrepreneur” rather than on price mechanism.
Where the firms boundaries come from as they are transformed from raw materials to final
consumption?
At each step of production, along the chain, value is added. “Value” is an operational definition.
Transaction Cost Economics provides tools for analyzing where the boundaries around organizations
arise.
Organizations are open systems. It stresses produced goods and services exchange between outside
of the system rather than production system and technology used by the organization.
Produced goods and services exchange is more important than production.
Summary of the Transaction Cost Economics is:
Organizations want to work at least cost to produce goods and services. One of the way to ensure
less cost is cheap transaction costs. Although high level management can decrease cost, boundaries
rationality, and personal benefits sometimes prevent it.
Resource Dependence Theory
Resource Dependence Theory is one of many theories of organizational studies regarding the
behavior of organizations. In many ways, the predictions of Resource Dependence Theory are similar
to those of Transaction Economics, but it also shares some aspects with Institutional Theory.
Foundation of the Resource Dependence Theory was
James Thompson in 1967. Aldrich, Pfeffer
and Salancik provided this theory improvement also.
Organizations use received inputs, to survive its existence. Inputs consist goods and services such as;
equipment, energy, knowledge, talent, labor force etc.
Variety, relative price and importance, acquisition of inputs are changed from organizations. Critical
value of inputs are differ also. There may be inconsistency to provide some inputs. Organizations
take measures to prevent input bottleneck such as:
Licensing , Joint Ventures, Consortia , Legal Agreements , Common BOD members
Bahçeşehir University
Page 29
Precautions prevent to cut operational activities. Moreover it provides to reach resources easily.
Organizations, who do not get precaution to provide input, face to suffer get input.
Resource Dependency Approach emphasizes the open system. This approach stresses the
relationship between organization structure and behavior with other organizations to sustain its
presence.
Organizations must be integrated its environment to survive its existence. Resource dependency and
scare ratio of necessities determine the organizations environment dependency in the form of
quality and scope.
Organizations are active rather than passive with respect to its environment. This means,
determination of their future realize their own decisions. This seperated the resource dependency
theory from ecology approach.
Chapter 10: Organization Environment
The newly formulated population ecology approach to organizations and the refurbished “new”
institutional approaches to organizations both burst on the scene in the late 1970s. Both approaches
defocalized attention on a single organization and its immediate environment to examine wider
systems- comprised either of similar kinds of organizations (populations) or of organizations
operating in the same domain (fields).
Bahçeşehir University
Page 30
Population Ecology
Population ecology or natural selection has been considered in social systems since the 1940's, but
was best defined by Hannan and Freeman (1977) and Aldrich (1979). It primarily applies to
populations of organizations, and tries to explain why some organizational forms survive and others
fade away.
They propose that organizational forms with the best fit to environmental characteristics will be
selected and proliferate. In natural selection, a variety of forms are created, some are selected for
better fit, and the form is retained through reproduction or duplication. They contend that
organizations usually don't change or adapt but are replaced by organizations with forms that better
fit the current environment. It has become very popular due to its defined and accepted biological
paradigm and it's quantitative methodologies.
One important concept from population ecology is density dependence, which suggests that the
concentration of a certain organizational form follows a curvilinear approach -- rising legitimacy
increases founding rates early on and later competition reduces founding rates.
The New Institutional Approach
Institutional theorists examine the rules norms, and beliefsthat constrain and support social
structures and processes, including organizations. While economists and political scientists stress the
importance of rules and regulations (both externally) in the guise of the state and internally in the
form of governance systems), sociologists and organizational theorists have emphasized the role of
shared norms and beliefs that proivde the cultural foundations of social order. Social order, including
organizations in all their forms, is not simply constrained by institutional rules; it is constituted by
cultural models. Such models are sometimes conflicting, always contested, giving rise to different
kinds of actors, interests and appropriate actions. The examination of such processes at work within
organizational fields has provided valuable insights into the co-evolution of organizational forms and
institutiional patterns.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 31
Chapter 11: Networks In and Around Organizations
Network thinking has a long history in sociology. Many consider Georg Simmel (1955), a German
contemporary of Weber, to be a founder of the sociology of networks with his discussion of the
dynamics of triads and the “web of group affiliations” Triads is, of course, small networks, but they
have interesting possibilities. A friend
of my friend may be a friend, an enemy of my friend is likely
to be an enemy- but there are more interesting possibilities when my friend acts as a broker (keeping
the two of us separate and acting as conduit), an arbitrator (mediating conflicts between us), or a
spoiler (fomenting conflicts between us)
Any organization or other social system can be represented as a network. Indeed, “network” is a
general concept applicable at any level of analysis. A few examples of networks will illustrate this.
Nodes can be people tied by friendship or acquaintanceship, as in the triads described by Simmel.
Interlock Networks
Interlock networks is related to different companies hold Board of Director Members on their Board.
Sabancı Group in Turkey shows the best application of interlocking networks. For instance, Kordsa
and Brisa hold BOD Member to their Board mutually.
Indirectly Networks
Indirectly network is related to different companies hold Board of Director Members on other
company Board. For instance, Kordsa and Brisa hold BOD Member on Enerjisa Board.
This application provides information of companies each other and managing reciprocal.
Chapter 12: Strategy, Structure, and Performance: The Sociology of
Organizational Strategy
Forces Shaping Industry Competition
Threat of entry by new competitors
Economies of scale, in microeconomics, are the cost advantages that a business obtains due to
expansion. They are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as scale is increased.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 32
Economies of scale is a long run concept and refers to reductions in unit cost as the size of a facility,
or scale, increases.[1] Diseconomies of scale are the opposite. Economies of scale may be utilized by
any size firm expanding its scale of operation. The common ones are purchasing (bulk buying of
materials through long-term contracts), managerial (increasing the specialization of managers),
financial (obtaining lower-interest charges when borrowing from banks and having access to a
greater range of financial instruments), and marketing (spreading the cost of advertising over a
greater range of output in media markets). Each of these factors reduces the long run average costs
(LRAC) of production by shifting the short-run average total cost (SRATC) curve down and to the
right.
Loyalty: The state or quality of being loyal
Switching costs: The negative costs that a consumer incurs as a result of changing suppliers,
brands or products. Although most prevalent switching costs are monetary in nature, there are also
psychological, effort- and time-based switching costs.
Intensity of rivalry among existing competitors
The intensity of rivalry among competitors in an industry refers to the extent to which firms within an
industry put pressure on one another and limit each other’s profit potential. If rivalry is fierce,
competitors are trying to steal profit and market share from one another. This reduces profit
potential for all firms within the industry. According to Porter’s 5 forces industry analysis framework,
the intensity of rivalry among existing firms is one of the forces that shape the competitive structure
of
an
industry.
The intensity of rivalry in an industry affects the competitive environment for the existing
competitors and influences the ability of existing firms to achieve profitability. High intensity of
rivalry means competitors are aggressively targeting each other’s markets and aggressively pricing
products. This represents potential costs to all competitors within the industry.
High intensity of competitive rivalry can make an industry more competitive and decrease profit
potential for the existing firms. On the other hand, low intensity of competitive rivalry makes an
industry less competitive and increases profit potential for the existing firms.
Intensity of Rivalry – Determining Factors
Several factors determine the intensity of competitive rivalry in an industry. If the industry consists of
numerous competitors, industry rivalry will be more intense. If the competitors are of equal size or
market share, the intensity of rivalry will increase. If industry growth is slow, the intensity of rivalry
Bahçeşehir University
Page 33
will be high. If the industry’s fixed costs are high, competitive rivalry will be intense. If the industry’s
products are undifferentiated or are commodities, rivalry will be intense. If brand loyalty is
insignificant and consumer switching costs are low, this will intensify industry rivalry. If competitors
are strategically diverse – they position themselves differently from other competitors – industry
rivalry will be intense. An industry with excess production capacity will have greater rivalry among
competitors. And finally, high exit barriers – costs or losses incurred as a result of ceasing operations
– will cause intensity of rivalry among industry firms to increase.
And of course, if the opposite is true for any of these factors, the intensity of rivalry among
competitors will be low. For example, a small number of firms in the industry, a clear market leader,
fast industry growth, low fixed costs, highly differentiated products, prevalent brand loyalties, high
consumer switching costs, no excess production capacity, lack of strategic diversity among
competitors, and low exit barriers all indicate that the intensity of rivalry among existing firms is low.
Intensity of Rivalry – Analysis
When analyzing a given industry, all of the aforementioned factors regarding the intensity of rivalry
among existing competitors may not apply. But some, if not many, certainly will. And of the factors
that do apply, some may indicate high intensity of rivalry and some may indicate low intensity of
rivalry. The results will not always be straightforward. Therefore it is necessary to consider the
nuances of the analysis and the particular circumstances of the given firm and industry when using
these data to evaluate the competitive structure and profit potential of a market.
Intensity of Rivalry is High if:
Competitors are numerous, Competitors have equal size, Competitors have equal market share
Industry growth is slow, Fixed costs are high, Products are undifferentiated, Brand loyalty is
insignificant, Consumer switching costs are low, Competitors are strategically diverse, There is
excess production capacity, Exit barriers are high
Bahçeşehir University
Page 34
Intensity of Rivalry is Low if:
Competitors are few, Competitors have unequal size, Competitors have unequal market share
Industry growth is fast, Fixed costs are low, Products are differentiated, Brand loyalty is significant,
Consumer switching costs are high, Competitors are not strategically diverse, There is no excess
production capacity, Exit barriers are low
Intensity of Rivalry Interpretation
When conducting Porter’s 5 forces industry analysis, low intensity of rivalry makes an industry more
attractive and increases profit potential for the firms already competing within that industry, while
high intensity of rivalry makes an industry less attractive and decreases profit potential for the firms
already competing within that industry. The intensity of rivalry among existing firms is one of the
factors to consider when analyzing the structural environment of an industry using Porter’s 5 forces
framework.
o
Pressure from substitute products
o
Bargaining power of buyers
o
Bargaining power of suppliers
 How are Strategies and Structures Chosen
o
Overall cost leadership
o
Differentiation
o
Focus
o
Prospectors
o
Defenders
o
Analyzers
Porter
Miles and Snow
 How are Strategies and Structures Chosen (cont.)
o
Plan: intended course of action
o
Ploy: manoeuvre intended to mislead
o
Pattern: consistency of actions
o
Position: a location that specifies the domain of action
Bahçeşehir University
Mintzberg
Page 35
o
Perspective: a way of perceiving the events
 Founding Conditions
o
Available labour
o
Information and other technologies
o
Contracting laws to create organizations
 Law and Public Policy
o
Sets the ground rules for possible structures
o
Regulatory changes can eliminate existing forms and enable new ones
 Organizational Performance
 Multiple criteria and indicators
o
Outcomes: focus is on the specific characteristics of materials or objects on which the
organization has performed.
o
Processes: focus is on the quantity or quality of activities carried on by the
organization.
o
Structure: assess the capacity of the organization for effective performance.
 Shareholder value
 Internal assessment of performance
o
Bounded rationality of mangers
o
The match between organizational structure/practices and their environment
o
The parallelism between individual and corporate goals
 External assessment of performance
o
Standard-setting bodies
 Rating agencies
Bahçeşehir University
Page 36
Chapter 13: The Rise and Transformation of the Corporate Form
Changing Forms of Organizations
 Predecessors of modern corporations
o
The guilds in the Middle Age
o
Chartered companies that held monopolies on trade during the age of empire
 Corporations are differed from earlier, traditional forms by having;
o
Separate legal personality
o
Unlimited life
o
Limited liability
 These features enabled the organizations to grow to vast size and influence.
Railroads
 New methods for managing rationally the larger masses of men, money and materials were
developed.
 Railroads incubated the private, professionally managed corporations in the second half of
the nineteenth century, and mass-production manufacturers established the characteristic
features of the contemporary corporation, which are;
o
Multidivisional structure
o
Professional management
o
Ownership by dispersed shareholders
 Railroads are associated with the development of the functional, unitary or U-form structure,
composed of a central management unit and several functionally organized departments.
Corporations in the 20th Century
 The twentieth century corporations have a multidivisional or M-form structure, which
consisted of a general corporate office and several product-based or regional divisions, each
of which contained functionally differentiated departments.
 Globalization, information technology and competitive pressures have reversed prior trends
towards increasing scale and scope in many industries.
 Contemporary multinationals challenge many of the categories and assumptions of
modernist theory.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 37
 Corporations have come to look more like states in the range of their activities, while states
have come to look more like business corporations as both compete for each others’
business.
Chapter 14: Changing Contours of Organizations and Organization
Theory
5 major trend to explain changing organization enviroment





From Unitary to Multiparadigm
From Monocultural to Multicultural Studies
From Present – cnetered to Longitudinal and Historical Analysiss
From Micro to Macro Units and Levels of Analysis
From Structure to Process
From Unitary to Multiparadigm
It should be examined from two dimensions:
Sources of Multiplicity:
Organization studies are the amalgam of sciences. It has been studied from the perspectives of
socilogy, psychology, political science, social science. Scholors bring their disciplinary habits with
them to their object of study.
Proposed Solutions:
Given the complexity of the problem posed by multiple paradigms, it is not suprising that the
solutions proposed cover a similarly wide range.
From Monocultural to Multicultural Studies
It should be examined from two dimensions:
Myopic View and Signs of Process
Acc. to myopic view, social experince is filtered through cultural lenses.Although their exists great
variance of cultural experince and expression within most societies, on the one hand, and societies
are struggling to maintain relevance in a globalizing world, on the other, nation states and their
associated cultural systems continue to be significant and influential social contexts for
organizations. Changing myopic view has been defined Signs of Process.
From Present – Centered to Longitudinal and Historical Analysis
Bahçeşehir University
Page 38
It should be examined from three dimensions:
It’s about time:
Social Mechanisms:
Longtudinal Studies:
From Micro to Macro Units and Levels of Analysis
It should be examined from two dimensions:
Levels of Unit: From an earlier, simpler time when all organizations were local, situated in spesific
geographically delimited contexts, we now find ourselves in a world in which the reach of many
organizations is worldwide.
Levels of Analysis:
Organizations today are no longer stable and fixed, but transitory and flexible.
Operations are more expand, and merge with related forms.Not also boundaries of fileds and
industries also undergo change.
From Structure to Process
It should be examined from three dimensions:
Changing Conception of Structure:
A process view is taken not only of internal operations of the organization, but of the organization
itself as a system persisting overtime. Recent decades organizations are:
Organizations as shifting coalitions of participants (Cyert & March, 1963)
Organizations as shifting relational networks (Burt, 1982, Nohria & Eccles, 1992)
Organizations as a “nexus of contracts” (Jensen & Meckling, 1976)
Organizations as a fluid “network of treaties” (Powell, 2001)
Organizations as “portfolio of financial assets”
Organizations as ongoing narratives of conversations among participants
Bahçeşehir University
Page 39
The Boundary Problem:
The world of organizations circa 2000 is vastly different from that of 1950 or 1900.
The Rhythm of Field Development:
No scientific field develops in a predictable or orderly manner.
Uncertain and shifting process that charecterize organizational field development also apply to any
scientific field.
Bahçeşehir University
Page 40