DPLS 701sp13 Organization Theory
DPLS 701 Organizational Theory
Spring 2012
3 credits
Professor: P. Caroline Fu, PhD
E-mail: fu@gonzaga.edu
Office Phone: 509-313-3488
Office hours: Please e-mail for an appointment
Meeting Logistics: 8am - noon, Room 405, Tilford
We meet on: Saturdays; Jan 19, 26, Feb 9, 23, Mar 9, 23, Apr 6, 13
Course Overview
The course explores the foundations of organizational theorizing, philosophizing, and practice.
One of the key texts for the course is an anthology of ‘classic’ organizational writings by Shafritz
et al. that will help frame and contextualize our more or less Hatch’s postmodern approach to
understanding organization theory. The text by Hatch explores organization theory from
modernist, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. The symbolic and postmodern perspectives
are theoretical perspectives acting on and responding to modernist practices that have become
increasingly institutionalized over the past 200 years. These relationships and the theories and
practices that arise from this confluence of perspectives will be the core focus of the course.
Hirschhorn (1997) emphasized the psychological implications of the authority in leadership and
followership. By presenting and analyzing the many diverse experiences, Hirschhorn explained
the pain and hardship that we experience are part of developmental process of moving toward a
postmodern world.
The work by Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice is an attempt to develop a model of
the organization or community that reflects the symbolic interactionist perspective as it tries to
map behavior and practice with meaning and identity. Building off modernist perspectives this
work explores, through an ethnography of a claims processing unit in a large insurance company,
the intersection of the structures and rules of existing institutions with the always alive and
changing nature of people working, thinking, and making meaning.
Other readings will be provided that touch on and extend the discussion of the postmodern
perspective. Underlying all of these perspectives is an orientation toward holism, the biological
basis of mental processes, and a social constructionist perspective toward knowledge and
identity. Be prepared for discussion, dialogue, and engagement.
The purpose of this core DPLS course is to help chart both a practical and theoretical mapping of
organizational thinking as it relates to the personal and global dimensions of leadership. This
relationship is continuous and philosophically rigorous in that the interdisciplinary approaches
binding our physical, social/linguistic, and transcendent levels of inquiry.
Course Structure
This course is composed of reading, writing, discussion, lecture, and group activities. We will
acquaint ourselves in small working groups during the first meeting that will remain intact
throughout the course. These groups will serve multiple functions. Among them are:
Content & process support - group participants will have an opportunity to discuss readings,
writing, and presentation assignments.
Writing and editing – Please review the DPLS course paper rubric (see Blackboard under
Assignments) and use as the context for this joint editing process. It is recognized that underlying
good writing is both clarity of thought and an adequate grasp of concepts and frameworks. These
forums used in conjunction with my own critique of student work will assist in the development
of sound scholarship. This will be a particularly important part of your essay assignment.
Please use 1 inch margins, 12 point Times-New-Roman font in APA-6 format for all your papers
and essays. Please visit DPLS website to obtain course paper template, writing instructions, and
on how to write scholarly paper?:
http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Colleges-and-Schools/School-of-ProfessionalStudies/Degrees-Programs/PhD-Studies/Current-Students/CSW_Section/Templates.asp
You have the option to e-mail your course papers to the DPLS Center for Scholarly Writing
(CSW), cswhelp@gmail.com for editing before you submit your papers.
Pre-class and capstone papers are to be emailed to me, fu@gonzaga.edu on or before the
assigned due dates.
Peer-review Process – Please post your essays on the Blackboard’s Discussion area for peer
review. This process mimics a peer-review journal process. Prior to posting on the Blackboard
completed essays, each person’s essay can be read and edited by their peers in a structured
editing activity. After posting, the peer-review process begins. Page limit will be observed
(essays exceeding the limit will be considered as being rejected from entering the review
process). Each person’s essay will be reviewed for content, writing style, and format by his or
her peer group. The essay and the peer reviews will be further critiqued by the whole class.
Project and classroom activity work - One of our first activities will be for groups to develop
an agreement about group process and individual responsibilities. Other group activities will be
developed.
Most 4-hour meetings will open with an overview of the readings. Small group discussions of
course notes and readings will then follow. We will generally take a 20-30 minute break.
Following the break we will work on projects, conduct full group debriefs, continue discussion,
or review readings.
I will share my interpretations to stimulate discussion and/or communicate concepts and ideas to
frame dialogue when we meet. I also hope to inspire students to interpret and analyze the
readings from their own perspectives.
The intentions & aims for the course:

To develop an understanding of self-leadership as a bridge to practical strategies for
living, leading, and working in organizations.

To absorb and reflect on the possibilities of current innovations in social tools - peer to
peer networking and a general decline in the cost of organizing (transaction costs).

To develop a working knowledge of the history & concepts of organization theory as it
relates to leadership studies.

To understand both conceptually and historically the role of modernist theories of
organizations & groups.

To understand both conceptually, personally, and historically the role of symbolic,
interactionist, and social theories of organizations & groups.

To survey, discuss, and develop an understanding of postmodern interpretations of
organization theory as well as issues of power and diversity in organizations.

To connect a leadership theory of transformation to organization theory and the
possibility of transformative change in both private and public organizations and
institutions.
Expectations, Assignments, & Grading

Please read all assignments and my course notes posted on Blackboard. These notes are
meant to be an initial factor in the reading triangulation strategy that involves the
author(s) work, your interpretation of that work, my interpretation, and finally our
collective interpretation. This process is much more effective when all participants
commit to doing the reading. Some group activities will be structured around these notes.

Participants will be expected to attend all sessions. If you miss a meeting please inform
me via email or phone prior to the missed meeting. Missing more than two meetings will
result in an incomplete and require either taking the course again or auditing it at some
future time. (Participation - 10% of grade)

Participants will be expected to complete a pre-course writing assignment on
(Hirschhorn, 1997) and Blackboard posting, Cooper & Burrell article. Specific guidelines
are on Blackboard under Course Assignments (10% of grade)

Participants will write two 3-page essays (excluding cover page and reference page) on
selected chapters from the text: Classics of Organization Theory (see Blackboard under
Course Assignments) (20% of grade).

Participants will present in teams of 2 or 3 persons in an 1-hour presentation synthesizing
and/or facilitating a discussion on the selected book chapters from: Classics of
organization theory, comparing them to leadership in current context. The instructions
will be posted on Blackboard at the first meeting. (10% of grade)

Write a capstone paper synthesizing the readings and discussions central to Organization
Theory. This will be a 10-page paper (excluding title page, abstract, table of content, and
references). You can exercise wide latitude and judgment in writing the paper but it must
be grounded in one or more of the three broad perspectives of the course (Modernist,
Symbolic, and Postmodern). Your paper should include references citing course materials
but also should include references and sources not found in the assigned course materials.
See Blackboard under Course Assignments for more details. (50% of grade).
Expectations and Assessment
Assessment of doctoral work in leadership studies is challenging. Interdisciplinary work dealing
with complex and sometimes contested theories and concepts requires (from my perspective) a
tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and contingency. I am also struck by the need for a high
degree of self-directed behavior on the part of doctoral students and candidates. I would like my
teaching style, assessment policy, and rubrics to support and facilitate self-direction.
However, behind my questions about assessment and uncertainty in evaluating anyone in an
absolute manner there does reside (in my view) a set of skills that serve to hold and shape work
with language in a complex world. I believe we need a grammar, syntax, and semantics of
clarity, coherence, depth, and breadth. My assumption at the beginning of the term is that all of
the students taking this course possess the requisite skills, talents, and propensities needed to be
clear, cogent, and complete. I admit that the standards I refer to are objectively stated and
subjectively enacted. My assessment will be based on the quality and content of expressed
thought as exhibited in both written assignments and presentations and participation.
Grading Criteria for Written Work (adapted from the DPLS Academic papers rubric)
Content Criteria:
The content of papers should reflect the level and style of content in readings and discussions.
There is an expectation that doctoral students will reach outside of their comfort zone in terms of
appropriation of ideas, concepts, and frameworks. The substance of papers and other writings
will be weighed against the general level of discourse in meetings and the style and density of
expression of the readings. On the other hand, papers should not be too wide in scope. The art of
scholarly writing is (in part) to go into a narrow area deeply and show its relevance to the wider
literature.
Thought and Expression Criteria
Student writing should raise vital questions or issues, formulating them clearly and precisely. I
will be looking for evidence of breadth and depth and the insightful, in-depth analysis of
complex ideas. Main points should be developed and supported with relevant information and
references that are appropriately incorporated.
The organization and logic of your writing is critical. The expectation is for well focused, well
organized, and well reasoned conclusions. The writing should flow with the reader not getting
lost or having to work to determine what you are saying.
There is also an expectation that your writing/thinking has an open and inclusive character when
exploring alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as appropriate, their
assumptions, implications, and/or practical consequences.
Technical Criteria
Your writing should be clear and demonstrate a high level of vocabulary through careful word
choice. Sentences should be constructed skillfully and purposefully. Transitions between
paragraphs and sections are important and will evaluated for their efficacy in weaving your
concepts, themes, and purposes together. Summaries and conclusions are also vital elements of
good writing and will be evaluated based on their appropriateness and effectiveness.
Of course grammar, punctuation, and spelling are expected to be flawless. Careful proof reading
of your paper is a basic expectation.
Papers, unless otherwise noted are to be completed in APA style. References should be cited
properly within the text and a complete reference list must be provided. Appropriate use of
headings will also be noted.
Point/Grade correspondence:
95-100%
90-94.99%
85-90%
80-84.99%
=A
= A=B
= B-
Table 1: Class Meeting Agenda
#1
1/19
Pre-class Readings
(Hirschhorn, 1997)
*Cooper & Burrell
(Hatch, et al, 2006,
pp. ix-62)
(Shafritz, et al, 2010,
pp. ix-9)
#2
(Hatch, et al, 2006,
pp. 63-139)
1//26
(Shafritz, et al, 2010,
pp. 401-543)
#3
(Hatch, et al, 2006,
pp. 141-250)
2/9
(Shafritz, et al, 2010,
pp. 271-400)
*Blackboard posting
#4
(Hatch, et al, 2006,
pp. 251-345)
2/23
(Shafritz, et al, 2010,
pp. 196-270)
*Blackboard posting
#5
(Shafritz, et al, 2010,
pp. 31-197)
3/9
(Wenger, 1999,
pp. xi-142)
*Blackboard posting
#6
(Wenger, 1999,
pp. 143-277)
3/23
*Blackboard posting
#7
*Blackboard posting
Pre-class Writings
3-page essay reflection
on: (Hirschhorn,
1997) and Cooper &
Burrell.
Class Theme
Introduction & dialogue on the
debates, housekeeping
Post reading notes on Bb
Organization Theory, Environments,
Culture, Reform through Changes
Group Presentation I Classics Ch.8-9
Post reading notes on Bb
1st Organization Theory
3-page essay (Classics
Ch.6-9) Due – Post to
Bb for peer-review
Post reading notes on Bb
Technology, Organizational Culture,
Power, Politics, Physical structures
and Space
Group Presentation II Classics Ch.6-7
Post reading notes on Bb
2nd Organization Theory
3-page essay (Classics
Ch.1-5) Due – Post to
Bb for peer-review
Post reading notes on Bb
Motivation, Hierarchy, Organizing,
Meaning and Practice
Post reading notes on Bb
4/6
#8
4/13
4/21
*Blackboard posting
Post reading notes on Bb
Power, Control, Conflict, Economics,
Structures, & Structuring,
Group Presentation III Classics Ch. 4-5
Group Presentation IV Classics Ch.1-3
Identity, Participation, and
Reification
Group Presentation V Wenger Ch 1-9
Organizational Design/Change
Café conversation on organizational
change/design/capstone paper ideas
Capstone presentations and Wrap Up
A capstone paper on
Organization Theory
* Readings available in the class meeting folders, Course Documents on Blackboard
Required Texts
Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority : Leading and following in the post-modern
organization. Cambridge, Mass. USA: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-58173-8
Hatch, M. J. a. C., A.L (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern
perspectives. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. IS BN – 0199260214
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2011). Classics of organization theory (7th ed. / [edited
by] Jay M. Shafritz, J. Steven Ott, Yong Suk Jang ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson/Wadsworth. - B004ONKDTM
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice; Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN - 0521663636
Other Required Readings will be provided on Blackboard
Some Related Literature:
Agre, P. (1997). Computation and human experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational
change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. Malden. Massachusetts: Blackwell Business.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the
environment of human behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Bowker, G. C., Leigh-Starr, S., Turner, W., Gasser Les, & Eds. (1997). Social Science, Technical
Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the great divide. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organizations: A social-practice perspective.
organization science, 12(2), pp.198-213.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational technology, 33(3), 10-15.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Fu, C. & Bergeon, R. (2011). A Tao model: Rethinking modern leadership for transformation. In
G. R. Hickman & J. Barbour (Eds.), Leadership for transformation (ILA Building
Leadership Bridges). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Fu, P. P. & Fu, C. (2009). The Tao of value leadership and the power of interdependence. In D.
Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (Cambridge
companions to management) (pp. 355-71): Cambridge University Press.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins Hunter, L. (1999). Natural Capitalism: Creating the next
industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Heft, H. (2001). Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy
of William James's Radical Empiricism. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Hickman, G. R. & Barbour, J. (Eds.). (2011). Leadership for transformation (ILA Building
Leadership Bridges). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Ho, M.-W. (1991). The role of action in evolution: Evolution by process and the ecological
approach to perception. Cultural Dynamics, 4(3), 336-354.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind - Intercultural
Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw Hill.
Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Jaques, E. (2002). The Life and Behavior of Living Organisms: A General Theory. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Jaques, E., Clement, S. D., & Lessem, R. (1994). Executive leadership: A practical guide to
managing complexity (developmental management) (paperback): Wiley-Blackwell.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning; Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge; The biological roots of human
understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W.
Morris, Ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Nonaka, I. (1997). A new organizational structure. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in
Organizations (pp. 99-135). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review
of Psychology, 48, 515 -532).
Salomon, G. (. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schein, E. (1997). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning in the 21st
century. WWW (Cambridge, MA), http://learning.mit.edu/res/wp/three.html.
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody : The power of organizing without organizations. New
York: Penguin Press. ISBN - 9781594201530
Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.
Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions : The Problem of Human-Machine
Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tjosvold, D. & Wisse, B. (Eds.). (2009). Power and interdependence in organizations
(Cambridge companions to management): Cambridge University Press.
Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art, new ideas for a world of chaotic change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (pp.175-190).
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zohar, D. (1997). ReWiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how we
structure and lead organizations: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.