Hatch Cunliff.pdf

8/14/2019 Hatch Cunliff.pdf

1/26


2/26

PREFACE TO FIRST E ITION

post-graduates MBAand Ph.D.), and executives.Because I have not simplified thecomplexunderstandings that organization theory offers, but rather have clarified the language inwhich these ideas were originally and of en subsequently) presented, 1find that the material in this book is useful, attractive, and accessible to a wide range of audiences.

There is another aspect to this book that bears mentioning here. At about the timethat 1 concluded my Ph. D. training and took my first job as a faculty member, the pushto internationalize business schools reached peak levels in the United States. At the time,1 observed that attempts to internationalize the business school curriculum oftencon-sisted of simply using examples of companies headquartered or operating in foreign countries. As a culture researcher, I was suspicious of this approach to internationalizationbecause 1 realized that examples will always be presented using concepts and perspectivesthat are rooted in the experiences of their author. Thus, i an author has only made brief orno) visits to other cultures, then his or her analysis is unlikely to invoke anything like aninternat ional perspective. My opportunity to live and work in Denmark presented itselfatjust the moment these ideas were forming and provided me with an alternative. Moving toDenmark 1 lived there three and one-half years all told) afforded me the chance to internationalize myself, along with the content of my course. My experiences taught me thatinternationalization goes way beyond the examples and knowledge that you offer, i t isabout profound changes in the ways you understand that affect your approach to description, analysis, and explanation in other words, how you theorize.

My internationalization took root at about the same time that I was writing up thefirst version of this textbook. This coincidence had several important effects on what I wasto produce. First, since 1was teaching Danes who were fluent in English, but were not nativespeakers, 1 found that I had to restrict my vocabulary. While Danish students could easilyfollow complex and abstract arguments, and were, from my experience as an American,remarkably and delightfully fond of such arguments, they appreciated my keeping the language simple when I explained complex ideas. I obliged them and became intrigued by thepuzzle of retaining the complexity of ideas, while reducing the complexity of how the ideaswere presented. As I was teaching and writingat the same time, the language I used with mystudents slipped naturally onto the pages of my textbook. This turned out to be a real blessing, as it improved the means to write a demanding book about a complex subject that isaccessible to anyone with areasonabie proficiency in the English language, a proficiencythat has become practically essential in the international world of business. When Ireturned to the U.s. two years later and began using my manuscript as a text in myAmerican MBA classes, I was startled at the strength of the positive response it received. Inretrospect, I suppose it is not surprising that accessibility to complex ideas was appredatedby native as weIl as by non-native EngIish speakers.

A second effect of my time in Denmark was the profound appreciation for multipleperspectives that it provided. I had already been introduced to the idea of multiple perspectives through my research training which involved struggling with debates overwhether qualitative or quantitative methods provided a better means of addressing theproblems of organizing a debate that was raging at the time of my Ph.D. training. Aftermoving to Denmark, the idea of accepting multiple perspectives began to take on newmeaning. First of all, I became aware of the differences between European academie traditiom of sodal sence that focused on ontology and epistemology, and American academie


3/26

l i l PREF CE TO FIRST E ITIONtraditions that were far more concerned with the issues of theory and method. At first 1simply substituted my preferred set of terms (theory and method) for theirs (ontology andepistemology), but slowly 1began to discern the differences. Eventually I came to an understanding of just how much slips between the craks of translations of any sort, and on thisfoundation built my concern to preserve differences even while acknowledging theimportance of crossing between different views which highlights their similarities. Out ofthese experiences, my views about organization theory as offering a fundamentally multiplicitous approach to understanding began to take shape. t is this theme that, as myScandinavian friends would say provides the red thread that holds this book together.

The particular perspectives that I identify as crucial to grasping what organizatlon theory has to offer I label modernist, symbolic (or, to be more accurate, symbolic-interpretive),and postmodern, after current fashion in the field today. At other times and in other places,these perspectives have been labeled differently. The modernist perspective has also beenknown as the rational perspective, the open systems view, the positivist school, and thequantitative approach. The symbolic-interpretive perspective has been known as thequalitative approach and is sometimes equated with the organizational culture school. Thepostmodern perspective has links to critical organization theory, the labor process schooland radical feminism as weil as to poststructuralist philosophy and literary theory. Whilethese three perspectives will be distinguished throughout the book, in the end it must beadmitted that the con ours of these and other perspectives constantly shift and change sothat there can be no final categorizing of ideas.

Still, there is value in making, tor the moment at least, distinctions between severalperspectives. For one thing, this practice broadens intellectual horizons and stimulates theimagination, both of which help to build knowledgeand feed creativity. For another, learning to appreciate and rely upon multiple perspectives increases tolerance for the views ofothers and the capacity to make positive uses of thediversi ty multiple perspectives bring toorganization and to life in general. It is my belief that, if we are ever to realize the value oftheory for practice, then we must master the use of multiple perspectives, for it is in bringing a variety of issues and ideas to the intellectual table that we williearn how to be botheffective and innovative in our organizationaI practices.

Please be aware that I am not attempting integration of the multiple perspectives oforganization theory. Each perspective has contributed something of value to my understanding of organizations and I want to relate that understanding to new students of thesubject of organization theory, whether they be undergraduates, postgraduates, or practicing managers. I have attempted to communicate my enthusiasm for these ideas and tobring them to life for the reader. The structure 1 offer, such as it is is provided by thechronology of the ideas, whieh typically progresses from modernist, through symbolieinterpretive to post-modernist. I am not trying to privilege any particuIar viewpoint, I justwant to let students vieariously experienee the ideas in the rough order of their influeneeon the field (which was not always their order of appearanee in the larger world).

Above all, I want students to feel free to play wUh ideas, but also to accept the discipline of focused study.To learn through their own experience that the hard workofstudyingother peoples' ideas ean liberate their own thinking. The book is demanding-studentswho have used the book say they feel they have to underline v rything beeause it allseems important. They report that they must (and do ) read the ehapters multiple times.


4/26

PREFACE TO FIRST E ITION

What is most important, they start talking abaut these ideas in class, and by their reports,outside of it as weIl. The baok seems to stimulate interest in organization theory, and that,I think, is s greatest strength.

1do not, however, sufferunder the illusion that the book has no faults. lam sure it hasplenty. Most of all, it is incomplete-a work in progress as any book on a dynamic field ofstudy must beo I know also that it inspires contradictory p i n i o n ~ p o s t m o d e r n i s t s com-plain that it isn t postmodern enough, modernists have said that it goes too faro My viewis that organization theory is an open field, filled with controversy and contradiction.I want this book to reflect the many aspects of the discipline and to grow along with thefield. In this I rely upon your support and feedback; together we can make this a book thatgets better rather than worse with each successive edition. But I get ahead of myself here.First let me thank those who have already provided volumes of feedback and who haveshaped the book you have in your hand.

The most important group to thank for inspiring this project, and for providing feed-back in its progress, are the many students whose company I have enjoyed in the classroomas we as in private discussions outside of class. The learning experiences we have sharedare what made writing th is baok possible and enjoyabIe, I have had enormous help fromcolleagues and friends who, along the way to finishing th is version, have offered theirexpertise as advisors on various chapters. They checked andcorrected the content, offeredsuggestions abaut the flow and structure of the arguIllents, and without their sound cri ti-cism, guidance, and encouragement, I would not have the confidence necessary to publishthis material. I offer my deep gratitude t9 Ria Andersen, David Boje, Finn Borum, FrankDobbin, Eigil Fivelsdahl,joe Harder, Gerry johnson Kristian Kreiner, Livia Markoczy, BertOverlaet, Susan Sc.tmeider, Ellen O Connor, jesper Strandgaard Pedersen, Mary Teagarden,Carol Venabie, Dvora Yanow, and several anonymous reviewers, I am also indebted toMajkenSchultz and Michael Owenjones with whom I have worked closely in developingrelated classroom material and on numerous research projects.

In addition to those already mentioned I would like to single out two peopie whoseextraordinary contributions have improvedthe quality of this book enormously: my hus-band Doug Conner and OUP editor David Musson. Both of these individuals read everychapter start to finish on multiple occasions and made many helpfui suggestions as to bothstyle and substance. Thanks also to Ann Davies of Cranfield University, and to DonaidStrachan and Brendan Lambon of OUP for their efforts in bringing this project from man-uscript to published work. San Diego State University, the Copenhagen Business Schooland Cranfield University each supported my work in this project during its various criticalstages. The friendship, support, and inspiration of my close friends Kirsten and jacobBranner helped to sustain me during the long hours that this project has filled, Last, butcertainly not least, I would like to thank my daughter, Jennifer Cron, whose consternat ionat my confusion about her ways ofviewing the world initially inspired me to open my mindto the myriad possibilities of exploring multiple interpretations.

M.j.H.ranfield

September 996


5/26

is Organization Theorytheorist/'6I::Jnst n. a holder or inventor o a theory or theories.theorize/'61::Jralz v intr. (also -ise) evolve or indulge in theories.

th oriz r n.th ory /'61::Jn n. pl. -ies) a supposition or system of ideasexplaining something, esp. one based on general principlesindependent o the particular things to be explained (opp.HYPOTHESIS) (atomie theory; theory of evolution). 2 a speculative (esp. fanciful) view (one ofmy pet theoriesl. 3 the sphereof abstract knowledge or speculative thought (this is all veryweil in theory, ut how wil t work in practice?). 4 the expositi on o the principles of a science etc. (the theory of musk;). 5Math. a collection of propositions to iIIustrate the principles ofa subject (probability theory,' theory of equations). [LL theoriaf Gk theria f theros spectator f. there look at]

Oxford Encyclopedie English Dietionary


6/26


7/26

WHAT IS ORGANIZATION THEORY?Table 1 1 Some applications of organization theoryStrategy/Finance Those who want to imprave the value of a company need to know how toorganize to achieve organizational goals; those who want to monitor andcontrol performance will need to understand how to achieve results bystructuring activities and designing organizational processes.Marketing Marketers know that to create a successful corporate brand they need to

get the organization behind the delivery of its promise; a thoroughunderstanding of what an organization is and how it operates will maketheir endeavors to align the organization and its brand strategy morefeasible and productive.Information technology The way information flows through the organization affects work processesand outcomes, so I:.nowing organization theory can help IT specialistsidentify, understand and serve the organization's informational needs asthey design and promote the use of their information systems.

Value chain management has created a need for operations managers tointerconneet their organizing processes with those of suppliers, distributorsand customers; organization theory not only supports the technical aspectsof operations and systems integration, but explains their socio-culturalaspects as weil.

Human resources Nearly everything R specialists do from recruiting to compensation hasorganizational ramifications and hence benefits from knowledge providedby organization theory; organizational development and change are particularlyimportant elements of R that de mand deep knowledge of organizationsand organizing, and organization theory can provide content for executivetraining programs.

Communication Corporate communication specialists must understand the interpretiveprocesses of organizational stakeholders and need to address the manyways in which different parts of the organization interact with each otherand the environment, in order to design communication systems that areeffective or to diagnose ways existing systems are misaligned with theorganization's needs.

Theories and Theorizing OrganizationsYou might be surprised to leam that you use theory everyday, and so does everyone else.ake for exarnple any old adage that seems true or wise to you. One of my favorites is 'You

can lead a horse to water, but you can t make U drink.' Old sayings like this one are filledwUh common sense (e.g., about what you can and cannot do for others) and commonsense is a theory about howto understand and negotiate life. More generally, wheneveryoucreate your own meaning or grasp someone else's, you make things, feelings, ideas, experi-ences, values and expectations into ideas or concepts. In doing this you explain yourselfand your world and this constitutes theorizing. Organization theorists specialize in devel-oping this human capacity to make and use theory. They hone their theorizing skills byrefining conceptual distinctions and using them to create sophisticated explanations


8/26

WHY STUDY ORGANIZATION THEORY

(theories) that f r outstrip common sense. As they do so they participate in the inventionof new ways of looking at experienee and lts phenomena. The basic difference betweencommon sense theorizing and the theorizing academies do is the added care academicstake to specify their practice, correct its errors and share their theories with others, therebycontributing to y s t e m ~ t i c k . n o w l . t ; d g e b u i l d i n g efforts.

Theories are built from abstractions known as concepts. One concept-called thephenomenon of interest-is selected from all the others as a focus for theorizing and h ~ nrelated concepts are defined and used to explain th at one. Consider Albert Einstein's the-OIy that E = mcz. Energy E) was Einstein's phenomenon of interest and he explained tusing the concepts of mass (m) and a constant representlng the speed of light c). Thesquaring of c, and lts multlplication by m, specify how these explanatory concepts arerelated to the phenomenon of interest and form Einstein's theory about the relationshipbetween energy and matter. In a nutshell, E mczshows what theory is-a setof conceptsand the relationships between them proposed to explain the phenomenon of interest.

Sometimes the explanation of a phenomenon ls too complex for precise specificationuslng a mathematical formula. This is the usual case for phenomena involving humanbehavior because human behavior is notoriously unpredictable, except under tightlyconstrained conditions like those psychologists create in laboratories where the ordinaryinfluences of everyday life can be controlled. For this reason explaining organizationswhere humans are at work often demands the use of statistical probabilities rather thanprecise formulae. Alternatively, researchers turn to metaphor or analogy to explain theirphenomena. Sometimes theorists do not even attempt to explain phenomena; insteadthey develop understanding and appreciation or glve practical guidance. You will meet allof these kinds of theorizing in the pages that followas we wend our way from theories oforganization that take physical science as their model, to those that find their foundationsin the humanities and the arts.

Given the volume and variety of organization theories, you may find lt somewhatironic to caU this field of study organization theory. While the name suggests that there isonlyone-a single, integrated, overarching explanation for organizations and organizingin fact there are many organization theories and they do not always fit neatly together.Some people see this diversity as a stumbling block for an academic discipline because, intheir view, if there is no agreement on what a field has to offer then it probably has little tooffer at all. Others try to excuse the situation arguing that organization theory is a youngfield that will eventually work out lts differences and come around to the singular perspectivethat they believe defines a mature academie discipline.

I take an altogether different view. Along with a number of other organization theo-rists, believe that organization theory always has and always wi1l embrace multiple per-spectives because t draws inspiration fiom a wide variety of other fields of study, andbecause organizations will remain too complex and malleable to ever be summedup by anysingle theory. In my view the diverse theoretical base of organization theory is somethingto celebrate, not only because it offers a broad perspective on organizational life thatencompasses scientific explanation, human understanding and artful appredation butbecause it creates more possibilities for effectively designing and managing organizations.


9/26

Cultural StudiesLiterary TheoryPoststructuralPhilosoFhyPostmodern-ArctiHedure , - .LinguisticsSemiotics and HermeneuticsFolklore StudiesCultural AnthropologySodal PsychologyBiology-EcologyPolitical ScienceSoci%gyEngineeringEconomics

PREHISTORY1900 19505

Smith (1776)Marx (1867)Durkheim (1893)Taylor (1911)Follett (1918)Fayol (1919)Weber (1924)Gu/ick (1937)Barnard (1938)

MODERN196 5 and 197 5

Von Bertalanffy (1950)Trist and Bamforth (1951)Boulding (1956)March and Simon (1958)Emery (1960)Burns and Stalker (1961)Woodward (1965)Lawrence and Lorsch (1967)Thompson (1967)

- - - -SVMBOLlCINTERPRETIVE I

198 5Schtz (1932)Whyte (1943)Selznick (1949)Goffman (1959)Gadamer (1960)Berger and Luckmann (1966)Weick (1969)Geertz (1973)Clifford and Marcus (1986)

POSTMODERN199 5

Saussure (1959)Foucault (1972)Bell (1973)Jencks (1977)Derrida (1978)Lyotard (1979)Rorty (1980)Lash and Urry (1987)8audrillard (1988)

Figure 1 1 Sources of inspiration for organization theoryThe boxes show the four major perspectives on organizations used as a framework for this book. The dates inside the boxes indicate the decade whenthe perspective became recognizable within the field. Contributing disciplines are indicated above the boxes and some of their influential thinkers arelisted below. Notice t hat same contributions pre-date their influences on organization theory considerably, indicating the lag in communication betweendisciplines,

II

Cl)o:lZ

N

oZ-1Io:


10/26


Figure 1.1 will give you appreciation for the ambitious reach of organization theory.The figure displays the many academic disciplines from which organization theorists havedrawn inspiration. The top part of the figure shows the academic disciplines that have contributed to organization theory while the bottom part names some major thinkers fromthese disciplines whose ideas have shaped the field. Be sure to notice that the contributingdisciplines range from the natural and social sciences to the humanities and arts.Now look at the middle part of Figure 1.1. The first box, labeled prehrstory, representssources of ideas about organizations that occurred before anyone considered organizationtheory to be a discipline in its own right. Thus the authors listed below the prehistory boxdid not theorize organization from a single perspective nor did they intend to create thefield of organization theory; they had their own disciplinary communities, shown at thetop of the figure, to which they were oriented when they wrote. Nonetheless the authorsgrouped in the prehistory category provided organization theory with its formative concepts and their ideas served as reference points around which the perspectives of organizaHon theory later developed. When you become familiar with these authors, you will hearechoes of their words in the many conceptsand theories that make organization theorywhat it is today, and you wiII recognize how their work contr ibuted to one or more of thethree perspectives that form the remaining boxes in the middle of Figure 1.1.The order of the boxes from left to right in the middle of this figure gives a sense ofhow the field has changed over time (don t panie, you will get more information about themultiple perspectives oforganization theory in a minute). But it would be amistake to thinkthat newer perspectives have replaced older ones; perspectives accumulate in organizationtheory and over time they influence one another as organization theorists take in more andmore of the ideas this field of study offers.To get a grip on what I mean by perspectives, you may find it helpfui to compare themto literary or film genres (e.g., drama, romantic comedy, horror), styles of painting (e.g.,classical, impressionist, post-impressionist, cubist) or types of jazz (Big Band, Bebop, CoolJazz, Fusion). Just as these genres encourage certain forms ofartistic x p r e s s i o n , . . h ~ Q r ~ : t i c a lperspectives encourage certain ways of thinking and speaking. And not unlike genre in thearts, it is only af er the appearance of a critical mass of theories using simBar underlyinglogies and vocabularies that anyone identifies them as having come from the same perspective and articulates what the assumptions underpinning that perspective are.Thelonious Monk, among others, was playing Bebop before anyone acknowledged this as anew type of jazz or gave it a name. Similarly Max Weber, mile Durkheim and Kar Marxwere writing about bureaucracy and authority before organization theory was known bythis name. Thus, the different perspectives on organization theory developed at differenttimes and continue to develop in reaction to one another. Today their proponents formcommunities within organization theory whose members think and do research in similarways that you will soon leam to distinguish from one another.Interplay among the perspectives of organization theory produces continuouschange in each of them which is one reason why i t can be difficult to make a case for oneparticular way of sorting through the ideas of organization theory, including the onediagramed in Figure 1.1. However, if you are a newcomer to the field, you will probablyappreciate aIittle order; most people find it useful to hear about how others have come to


11/26

WHAT S ORGANIZATION THEORYterms with the diversity of organization theory. But please feel free to rearrange, change oreven abandon any of the schemes presented throughout this book when you are ready tocreate your own. In Part III I will introduce you to the organization theorists who are currently challenging the dominant perspectives by inventing new concepts and theories.Eventually some of them will combine their work into new perspectives that will standalongside those that provide the framework for this book. But before you are ready to tackleall these current issues in organization theory, you need to know something about whatorganization theory is and where it came from. Let me start you off with some basicsconcerning theory and theorizing.

Concepts and bstraction in Theory DevelopmentConcepts provide mental categories for sorting, organizing and storing experience inmemory. They are ideas formed by the process of abstraction. Webster's ew Worldictionary defines bstr ction as the 'formation of an idea by mental separation from par

ticular instanees.' This means that you build concepts in your memory on the basis of youracquaintance with instanees that are familiar to you, either as the result of personal experience, or based on what others teIl you. For example, your concept of dog is built upon yourpersonal encounters with representatives of this c1ass of animal such as dogs you haveowned or that have bit ten you; upon stories you have heard others teIl about their experiences with dogs; and upon encounters with non-dogs that when you were a young child,helped you to build this concept by teaching you what a dog is not ('No, that's a cat').Think of your concepts as empty baskets to be filled with experience. If you firstencounter concepts through academie study, you willlikely experienee it as empty. This isone reason why organization theory appears to many as dry and boring when they firstencounter it. To enrich your concepts you must fill them with meaning by relating personal experienees to them in much the same way you did when you learned the concept ofdog as a young child. That is you must gat her specific examples that fit each concept untilit is more or less tuUy formed. Of course you can continue enriching your concepts for theremainder of your life, like experts do. For example, a person who trains dogs learns moreabout them all the time, just as an organization theorist continually seeks different ways ofunderstanding and explaining organizations. This means that at least for experts, someconcepts will be continually expanding. There is no end to the subtlety you can develop byenriching your concepts and, of course, by adding new concepts to your knowledge base.The trick is to get the process of abstraction going.

It is important to remember that, in this book, you wil mostly encounter otherpeoples' concepts. Your task will be to relate these concepts to your own experience ano.other knowledge that you have stored in your memory. I will present the conceptsof organization theory in ways designed to trigger associations wUh experiences you have hadthat you can ru your concepts with your own meanings. With each new conceptencounter, try imagining what it is that you have personally experienced that mightto it. Keep a journalof these ideas wUh different sections dedicated to describing


12/26


les you relate to each concept. Be playfuL Do not feel constrained to obvious associyourself to consider experiences you only intuitively sense are applic

As you do this you will begin to embed concepts in your own experience as weIl asthe context of your conceptual knowiedge. Comparing your

ples to those of your classmates, colleagues, or others you know who are interested inill also expand your understanding and hone your conceptual abilities.

As your pool of concepts and theories expands, you will find yourself analyzing yourthat you never before

of as related, or by seeing hidden or disregarded aspects of a situation in which youother words, use your personal experience to develop concepts with

you can understand or build theories, and then use your concepts and theories torstand your experiences. This sort of give and take between theoretical under

and personal experience is essential to the development of your theorizing skillsand application as weIl as to your knowledge of organizations and

Although concepts are associated with specific examples, a concept is not a simpleof all the information you remember about specific examples. A concept is

more compact than this. To form a concept, ignore the unique elements or featuresh specific examples and focus on only those aspects that are common to

the instances to which the concept applies. Thus, the concept dog is associated with fourtaU a cold wet nose when it is healthy, and two ears, but not black spots, big paws, or

on strangers, which are features of particular dogs, but not all dogs.n in these terms, abstraction is the process of removing the unique details of particular

that only their common aspects remain. Of course abstraction does notin one move; learning is involved in the movement from multiple concrete

an abstraction.You may wonder why you would want to drop all the interesting details out of your

riences in order to build concepts. One reason is that abstraction gives You anto process more information and/or to process information more quickly.

unter a new example of a well-developed concept, you have numerous bitsthat object or idea at your fingertips. f you recognize an object as a

, you may instantly be aware of the possibility that it wiH growl if i t feels threatened.ion has immediate practical value. Concepts also make it possible to commun

to others. For instance, once your children knowwhat a dog is you can teIlthat some dogs bite and so they should not reach out their hands to a strange dog

l they are confident it is friendly.In addition to giving you the ability to communicate with others, abstraction gives you

s powers of thought. I t allows you to associate volumes of information with a singleand thereby to process this information rapidly whenever you think of, or with, theYou can see the importance of this aspect of abstraction in terms of the psycholo

chunking Cognitive psychologists teIl us that humans have thenk about, roughly, seven pieces of information (plus or minus two)atone time.

that you can think about seven different dogs and nothing else, or, throughnking larger portions of your knowiedge, you can think about all the dogs in the universe


13/26

WHAT S ORGANIZATION THEORYand six other kinds of animal as weU. You can even think about the entire ani mal kingdomand have room to think about six more things besides. Chunking illustrates the power ofabstraction using concepts allows you to consider large blocks of knowledge at once, ahandy capacity to have when your daily activity demands that you understand and stayabreast of developments within a complex entity such as an organization.

Chunking makes an important contribution to theorizing it permits us to relatelarge bodies of knowledge to each other. Remember, a theory is an explanation rooted inthe specification of the relationships between a set of concepts e.g., E = mc2). When theconcepts upon which a theory is built are defined at very high levels of abstraction, thetheory becomes very general which means that it applies across many situations with fewor no limiting conditions. Of course this is part of the danger with theory; by leaving out somany of the details of specific circumstances and meanings as we ascend the heights ofabstraction, we can be lulled into thinking that we understand everything. Ifwe assumeour knowledge is more general than it is we may apply it to the wrong situations or be willing to impose our beHefs on others when it is inappropriate or misleading to do 50.Therefore, be sure to notice that there is both something gained and something lost whenyou use abstraction. You gain the ability to think about numerous instances, but you losethe rich detail that the individual cases contain and the depth of knowledge these detailsdescribe.

As a theorist, you will want to learn to use abstraction because t permits you tocommunicate and understand general ideas about complex subjects, such as organizations. This will enable you to see day-to-day issues in a larger perspective that expands yourthinking and gives you ready access to accumulated knowiedge. But you should alsoremember that abstract reasoning alone will not provide the importantdetails that you willconfront in your role within aspecific organization. Applying theory, which is wedded toabstract rea5Oning, demands that you be able to add critical details back into your formulations af er you have analyzed and understood the more abstract aspects of the situation athand. You will want to develop both concepts and theorizing skills with a broad base ofpersonal experience and then translate your abstractions back into specific understanding.

I believe a great deal of the frustration with organization theory that many studentsand practitioners report feeling is the result of not recognizing that the application of theory is a creative act. A belief that abstract theory can generate instant solutions to specificproblems is nave. t is equally nave to reject theory as having little value simply becauseyou have not yet learned how to use it. Theory is better suited to raising important questions at criticalmoments and reminding you what relevant knowledge is available, than itis to providing ready-made answers to your problems. Use theory as a tooI to help youreason through complex situations; do not expect it to guarantee your success.

ultiple PerspectivesDifferent ways of looking at the world produce different knowledge and thusperspectives come to be associated with their own conceptsand theories. This is the


14/26


the multiple perspectives you will study in this book-modern syrnbolic-interpretive andpostmodern. The concepts and theories of a particular perspective offer you distinctivethinking tools with which to craft ideas about organizations and organizing. Dependingupon your intentions, you may find that particular perspectives have greater appeal thanothers for your purpose. The more knowledge you have of multiple perspectives, conceptsand theories, the greaterwill be your capacity to choose a useful approach to dealing with thesituations you face in your organization.

British sociologist Gibson Burrell and British organization theorist Gareth Morganwere among the first to drawattention to the multiple perspectives of organization theoryin their highly acclaimed book Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysispublished in 1979.2They argued that knowledge is based on different paradigrns, a C I withits own assumptions about the world. Paradigms encourage researchers to studyphenomena in different ways.3 However, be sure to notice that paradigm differences are notjust academic; they become practical when knowledge is used to create a more desirabIereality or better ways of organizing. Beliefs, assumptions and knowledge of the worldinfIuence how researchers carry out their research, how leaders design and manage theirorganizations and how each of us relates to the world and to othef people. For example,whether you assume that your organization is best run as a well-oiled machine, a web ofmeaning, or a broken mirror will infIuence what you perceive to he the best way ofdesigning your organization and managing its people. As you will see, the threeperspectives used in this book draw upon significantly different assumptions about theorganizational world and consequently will lead you to think about organizations indifferent ways (e.g., as machines, cultures or fragmented images) and thus to seek differentkinds of knowledge about them.I am committed to maintaining multiple perspectives in organization theory for anumber of reasons. First, today few would disagree that organizations operate in complex,uncertain, and often contradictory situations. Managers and employees are expected to domore with less, to maximize both short-term gain and long-term investment, and be moreefficient as weIl as more humane and ethica . Confronting such a variety of contradictory farces demands the broadest set of concepts and theories that your mind cangrasp. Learning to think about organizations using the multiple perspectivespresented in this book will help you embrace complexity and uncertainty and their contradictory demands. Second, recent corporate scandals, such as those that occurred atEnron, the FBI, and Parmalat, raise questions about the nature of ethical action andthe pressures managers face when trying to act in socially and organizationally responsibleways. Learning to use multiple perspectives can help make you aware of the assumptionsand values underlying your theory and practice, which in turn should make you moreconscious of your reasons for doing things and better able to understand the reasonsbehind the actions taken by others. As you begin to grasp the differences betweenperspectives, you will become aware that what you consider reasonable is defined by theperspective you take. Being able to refIect on your own reasoning processes and comparethem to those used by the people around you will develop your ethica) awareness. Third,by learning organization theory, by knowing how to theorize, and by understandinghow different perspectives influence the way you and others experience, interpret


15/26

WHAT S ORGANIZATION THEORY

and shape organizational realities, you will become a more effective member ofanyorganization you join.

In order to compare modernism, symbolic-interpretivism and postmodernism, youwill need to examine the assumptions underlying each of these perspectives. A good placeto begin is with the important philosophical choices of ontology and epistemology.Ontology is concerned with how you choose to define what is real, whereas epistemologyis concerned with how you form knowledge and establish criteria for evaluating it.Thinking about ontology and epistemology is a useful place to begin because these philosophical cholces explain basic differences between the perspectives of organization theory.Although they are difficuIt philosophical issues, by giving ontology and epistemologysome attention now, you will begin to learn why different perspectives lead to differentways of theorizing organizations and how modern, symbolic-interpretiveand postmodernperspectives make distinctive contributions to organization theory.

ntologyOntology concerns our assumptions about reality. Is there an objective reality out there oris jt subjective, existing only in our minds? In ordinary, everyday life, you probably takeyour assumptions about what exists for granted because you believe you know what the realworld is. You get up, drive towork, do your job as a student, manager or administrator, go tomeetings, wrlte reports, establish policy etc. You don't question whether these things arerealorhave an existence independent of you; you know your car exlsts because you drivi::it.But does your job exist if you are not there to perform it? Does your report describe what isre lly going on or does it describe only what you think is happening? Philosopherssometimes refer to these as existential questions because they attrlbute existence to one setof things reality), but not to another the unreal, metaphysical or fantastical). Dependingupon your perspective, you will give some things the status of being real, while youdisregard others. These ontological assumptions about whether a particular phenomenonexists or is merely an illusion e.g., culture, power, control) lead to arguments betweenthose who malntain different perspectives and cause them to set up separate andsometimes conflicting research comrnunities.

Ontology is also concerned wUh the question of agency-do people have free willand are they wholly responsible for their own actions, or is life predetermined, whetherby sltuations or by God? Subjectivists stand at one end of the reality continuum intheir belief that something exists only when you experience and give it meaning. At theother end, objectivists believe reality exists independently of those who live in it

. Seen from the subjectivist point of view, peopte create and experienee realities in differenfways because individuals and groups have their own assurnptions, beliefs, and perceptionsthat lead thern to do so. Seen from the objectivistpoint of view, people react to what ispening around them in predictabie ways because their behavior is part of the TTl ,TPT.>Iworld in which they live and is determined by causes, just as is the behavior of matter.between these points of view you can find many combinations of subjectivisrnobjectivism.


16/26

WHY STUDY QRGANIZATION THEORY 111pistemology

Epistemology is concerned with knowing how you can know. Typical questions asked bythose investigating epistemology include: how do humans generate knowiedge, what are

t h ~ c r i t e r i by which they discriminate good knowledge trom bad (e.g., true trom false,valid trom invalid, rational trom irrational, scientific trom pseudoscientific), and howshould reality be represented or described? Epistemology is closely related to ontologybecause the answers to these questions depend on and in turn help to forge, ontologicalassumptions about the nature of reality.

Table 1.2 summanzes the key ontological and epistemological differences of themodern, symbolic-interpretive and postmodern perspectives and their. implications fororganization theory.

Positivist epistemology assumes you can discover what truly happens in organizations through the categorization and scientific measurement ofthe behavior of people andsystems_,Positivists also assume that language mirrors reality, that is reality and its objectscan be described using language without any loss of meaning or inherent bias.4 For positivists, good knowledge is generated by developing hypotheses and propositions, gathering and analyzing data, and then testing the hypotheses and propositions against theexternal reality represented by their data to see if they are correct. In this way modernistscan develop general theories explaining many different aspects of one overarching reality,and make predictions about the future.

Positivist epistemology is based on foundational principals that celebrate the valuesof reason, truth and validity. Positivist organization theorists study organizations asobjective entities and are attracted to methods adapted from the physical or hard sciences.They gather data using surveys and laboratory or field experiments relying upon measuresof behavior that their assumptions lead them to regard as objective. Based on statisticalanalysis ofthe data collected using these methods, they derive theoretical models that theybelieve provide factual explanations of how organizations operate.

Antipositivist or interpretive epistemology assu mes that knowledge can only be created and understood from the point of view of the individuals who live and work in a particular culture or organization.lnterpretivists assume that each of us acts in situations andmakes sense ofwhat is happening based on our experience of that situation and the memories and expectations we bring to it. This means that there may be many different understandings and interpretations of reality and interpretive epistemology leads us to usemethods designed to access the meanings made by others and describe how they cometo make those meanings. However. we know that our understanding of others isfiltered through our own experiences. and therefore we can never be objective about theinterpretations made by others.

What interpretivists believe they can do is work alongside others as they create theirrealities and by studying their interpretations and interactions in particular situations,develop intersubjective awareness of andappreciation for the meanings produced. Thisstance is what turns a researcher into an interpreter, bridging meaning between theresearcher's academic experiences and the experiences of organizational members. Both ofthese experiences are subjective, and bias is controlled (but never eliminated) through


17/26

Table 1 2 Summaryof the three perspectives of organization theoryModernismOntologyObjectivism-belief in an objective, externalreality whose existence is independent of ourknowledge of it

Epistemology?ositivism-we discover ]:lJ b through valid

~ n c e p i l i z t i o n and reliable measurementthat aHows us to test knowledge against anobjective world; knowledge accumulates,allowing humans to progress and evolve

Organizations are. Objectively real entities operating in a real.world.'VVhen well-designed and managedthey are systems of decision and act ondriven by norms of rationality, efficiencyand effectiveness for stated purposes

ocus of Organization TheoryFinding universallaws, methods andtechniques of organization and con trol;favors rational structures, rules,standardized procedures and routine practices

Symbolic interpretivismOntologySubjectivism-the belief th at we cannot knowanexternalor objective existence apart from oursubjective awareness of it; that which exists is thatwhich we agree e ~ i s t sEpistemologyInterpretivism-{I11 knowledge i? relative to theknower and can only be un derstood from the pointof view of the individuals who are directly involved;truth is socially constructed via multipleinterpretations of the objects of knowledgethereby constructed and thereforeshifts and changes through time

PostmodernismOntol09Y

. E ) J I 1 l Q : t ~ r n i s m - t h e belief that the world appearsthrough language and is situated in discourse; wh at isspoken of exists, therefore everything that exists is atext to be read or performedEpistemologyPostmodernism-know ledge cannot be an accurateaccount of Truth because meanings cannot be fixed;there is no independent reaJity; there are no facts, onlyinterpretations; Isnowledgeis a power play

----------------------------------------------------Organizations are Organizations areContinually constructed and reconstructed by Sites for enacting power relations, oppression,their members through symbolicaHy mediated irrationality, communicative distortion-or arenas ofinteE''lction' Organizations are socially construc ted fun and playful irony. Organizations are textsrealities where meanings promote and are produced by and in language; we can rewrite them sopromoted by understanding of the self and as to emancipate ourselves from human folly andothers that occurs with in the organizational context degradationocus of Organization Theory ocus of Organization TheoryDescribing how people give meaning and order to Deconstruct ing organizational texts; destabilizing

their experience within specific contexts, through managerial ideologies and modern ist modes ofinterpretive and symbolic acts, forms and processes organizing and theorizing; revealing marginalized and

oppressed viewpoints; encouraging reflexive andinclusive forms of theorizing and organizing

:r(JJo::0Cl):>ZN):>ioZirmo::0-


18/26

HY STUDY ORGANIZATION THEORYtraining in self-reflection. Such training is designed to teach you to separate your

those of the people you study. This method allows you to describemeaning was made in particular situations and among particular people and to offerunderstanding for others who were not there to witness what you experienced.Taking an interpretive epistemological stance helps you to become sensitive to how

meaning to the point where, while you will never be able to fully understandpredict the meanings others will make, you can develop your intuitive capacity tothe range of meanings that are likely to emerge in given circumstances

ecific people with whom you share adequate intersubjective understanding. Perhapsimportantly, your growing appreciation for the limits of understanding will pre

you from ever claiming to fully know another s meaning and will open you to deep

omparing Modern y m b o l i ~ and Postmodern Perspectivesmight think of ontology and epistemology as commitments you make to yourred genre of organization theory. To take a modernist perspective, you must commit

limiting what you count as knowledge to what you can know through your five senses.rse modernists augment their five senses with sense-enhancing devices (e.g., micro

but what counts as data is what is collected by the eyes, ears, nose, tongueskin. Modernists claim that I saw (heard, smelled, tasted or touched) my data, and you

confirm them for yourself by replicating my procedures .Symbolic-interpretivists are willing to extend the definition of empirical reality to

forms of experience that lie outside the reach of the five senses, as do emotion andAs a re sult of this subjectivity, their findings cannot be easily replicated by

commitment these researchers make is to be true to their personal experienceto honor the accounts and explanations made by others. What is more, symboIic

s focus on meaning and understanding as it occurs in particular contexts;their findings should not be generalized beyond the context in which they

e produced. Modernists find this problematic-canwe really call what we create knowwe are unable to replicate studies or apply their findings to other organizations?opposed to generalizability, symbolic-interpretivists sometimes use verisimilitude (the

of one s own experience with the experiences of others) as the basis for claiminghave made a contribution to understanding.Because of the differences in their assumptions, modernist and symbolic-interpretiverchers endlessly debate methodology. For instance, modernists say subjectivity under

nes scientific rigor, while symbolic-interpretivists say it cannot be avoided and, indeed, isto study meaning. Modernists typically believe that subjective under

troduce bias, and bias is precisely what science seeks to eradicate in pursuit ofrational ideals of modernism. Lurking behind these epistemological positions is ansolvable debate between their differing ontologies that permit symbolic-interpretivists

investigate meaning as a subjective phenomenon, while modernists are precluded byof objectivity from allowing the subjective to enter their


19/26

science. As you will see in the following chapters, these differences in assumptions meanWHAT S ORGANIZATION THEORY?

that modernist and symbolic-interpretive organization theorists define organizationalconcepts differently and use different research methods that often cause them to disagreerather violently with one another.

Turning to postmodern perspectives, there is even more trouble to be found.Postmodernism diverges from the other two perspectives in its unwillingness to seek Truthspelled with a capital T to indicate the idea of truth in any final or irrefutable sense), or to

make permanent ontological or epistemological commitments such as those that give riseto modernist forms of scientific endeavor or to symbolic-interpretive descriptions ofmeaning and human meaning making activity. Seen from these other perspectives, postmodernists seem to flit hetween philosophical positions. They of en refuse to take even atemporary philosophical stand because they believe that doing so privileges some forms ofknowledge over others and this violates postmodern ethics.

Many postmodernists trace the ethical foundations of postmodernism to the Frenchpoststructural philosophers, especiallyto Michel Foucault and)acques Derrida. For example,Foucault argued that, since knowledge is power, when anyone privileges particular forms ofknowiedge, they push other forms to the margins where they are likely to he ignored.5Derrida observed that this is hecause modern thought is binary and binary thinking leads usto center our attention on one element of a pair while ignoring or denigrating its opposite orother e.g., true/false, nature/culture, reaUty/representation). Therefore the developmentand use of knowledge are always power plays that must be resisted for the sake of the powerless Many postmodernists commit themselves to uncovering and challenging all forms ofpower including knowiedge) in order to expose the sources of domination that are so easilytaken for granted. They do so by decrying the privileged and bringing those people and ideasrelegated to the margins out of the shadow of their repression. If this and other statementsabout postmodernism confuse you, don t worry, you will find a more elaborate introductionto postmodernism in Chapter 2 and a more thorough treatment of power in Chapter 8.)

The other two perspectives have not ignored the challenge laid down by postmodernists. First, symbolic-interpretivists, and more recently modernists, have tried to respondto this challenge within their own systems of belief and commitment. The result has beensome movement toward greater self-consciousness about the assumptions each perspective makes, and how these commitments apply to the practice of social science and thetheories that result from their application. For example, postmodernists have critiquedcultural anthropologists both modernist and symbolic-interpretive) for their co-optationby Western governments to aid in the subordination of indigenous and aboriginal cultures.Postmodernists argued that cultural anthropologists, seduced by the allure of governmentgrants and a romantic vision of helping Iess advanced cultures progress toward the ideals ofWestern civilization, conspired in the colonization of non-Western peoples to thedetriment if not the destruction of many native cultures. The response by Western10gists was to give voice to the members of the cultures they studied by inviting themhelp interpret the data collected about them, and in some cases to write culturalthemselves. Aboriginal reports are, of course, no freer of self-interestthan any othel,juxtaposing reports from many perspectives you can begin to learn about the


20/26


of biases that appear in all data. Watch the film Rabbit-ProofFence to get a taste of aboriginalself-reporting on the injustices experienced by native Australians when Europeancolonizers attempted to Westernize their culture.

As you can see, the issues of ontology and epistemology are complex and areunderstood differently when viewed from within each perspective. To get a fee I for howdifferent these perspectives can be, take the well-known question: if a tree falls in a forestand no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? To the modernist the answer is yesbecause the tree and sound are real and can be measured; therefore t doesn't matterwhether anyone is there to experienee the tree falling or not knowledge of what happenswhen a tree falls generalizes to all falling trees. To the symbolic-interpretivist there is noway of knowing the answer to this question because there is no one to experience ttJ.etreefalling. Although a symbolic-interpretivist could study how different people make snse ofthe question, if no one is present when tree faUs then there is no meaning to addressapart from that of the rhetorical move of asking a hypothetical question. To a postmodernist the answer is likely to be a set of entirely different questions: Who has the right to askor answer this question? Whose interests have been marginalized and violated in theprocess?

Returning to our prior discussion ofconcepts, you should now be ready to refine yourunderstanding of a concept by applying the three perspectives. Notice that modernistsemphasize the representative aspect of concepts concepts align with objects in the realworld (e.g., the concept of dog represents real dogs). Symbolic-interpretivists emphasizethe agreeme 1tamong the people of one culture to call things by the same names (e.g., theEnglish word og versus the French chien , pointing out that you construct concepts in thecontext of intersubjective meanings and vocabularies shared with other members of yourculture. Postmodernists emphasize the ever-changing relationship between concepts. Forthe postmodernist all words, including concepts, are defined in relation to other words(dog versus cat, mouse, house, life) rather than in relation to objects in the real world; noword s meaning can be fuUy or finally determined because each use brings a word into relationshipwith a different set ofother words and this continually changing juxtapositioningcauses its meaning to endlessly shift.

It is important to understand the differences in the applications of the perspectivesbecause these differences are not only crucial to how theory is created but also to the wayorganizing is practiced. I f you take the objectivist stance that an organization is a formalstructure with an internalorder, a set of naturallaws governing its operation, and roles thatmust be carried out in a deterministic manner by organizational members, you willmanage your organization and act differently toward it and others within it than if youadopt either the subjectivist stance or the postmodern perspective. Similarly, if you take thesubjectivist stance, that organizations have no objective structure but are continuallyconstructed and maintained by people as they try to make sense of what is going on, youwill manage your organization differently than i f you assume the postmodern perspectiveand thereby maintain skepticism toward the idea that knowledge is anything more than aploy to gain power over others. It is important to know what your underlying assumptionsare when you apply your theories because each set of ontoiogical and epistemological


21/26

WHAT S ORGANIZATION THEORYassumptions wilt exercise a different influence on the way you design and manage yourorganization.

Plan of th ookPart I of the book describes the approach I will use to help you learn organization ~ e ) r yand develop your capacity to theorize. Chapter 1 has introduced you to severaI core ilifeastheory, theorizing, concepts and abstraction-and to the three perspectives that form theframework of this book-modern, symbolic-interpretive, and postmodern. Chapter 2presents a historical account of the economists, sociologists and classica I managementscholars whose work inspired the tirst organization theorists and to some of the theoriesthat subsequently shaped the three perspectives of orgaI)ization theory.

Part II of the book will present you with the core concepts that contemporaryorganizatian theorists use to explain, understand and theorize organizations. In thesechapters you will learn to look at organizations as constituents of a larger environmentChapter 3); as social structures ordering the activities of their members Chapter 4 ; as

technologies tor producing goods and services for society Chapter 5); as cultures th atproduce and are produced by meanings that form the symbolic world of the organizationChapter 6 ; as physical structures that support and constrain both activity and meaningChapter 7 ; and as arenas within which power relations express themselves through

organizational poli tics, conflict and control Chapter 8). These core concepts are related innumerous ways, yet each will contribute something unique to your understanding oforganizations and organizing. As you read and reread these chapters, strive to develop yourappreciation for both the similarities and differences between the concepts because thiswill develop your imagination for theorizing.

In addition to providing exposure to the core concepts of organization theory, Part Ilwill present several different theories of organization that were built using the coreconcepts. Within each chapter these theories will be presented in historicalorder; in mostcases this means beginning with modern and proceeding to symbolic-interpretive andpostmodern perspectives, although organizational culture is an exception in thatsymboIic-interpretivists were complicit with modernists in introducing this concept intoorganization theory. This format should help you to experience organization theory as anunfolding series of challenges and disagreements among theorists and their ideas aboutand different perspectives on organizations and organizing.

The theories I am going to present wiIl not only give you exposure to thetypes of explanation, understanding and appreciation offered by organizationthey will aIso provide a means to describe some of the skills and practices VllSD.ll1L..:nltheorists use. In discussing how theorists produce theory, I mean to encourage yobecome more actively theoretical in your approach to organizations and in yourmentpractices.lnthis regard, Part III will show you how organization theoristscombine concepts, theories and perspectives to analyze and recommend action on
http:///reader/full/practices.lnhttp:///reader/full/practices.lnhttp:///reader/full/practices.ln


22/26

111HY STUDY ORGANIZATION THEORY?issues and problems such as organizational design, organizational change knowledgemanagement and organizationallearning Chapter 9). The final chapter will introduceyou to ideas that He on the horizon for organization theory: critical realism, network the-ory, organizational aesthetics, complexity theory and organizational identity Chapter 10).Thus Part III will show you some of the tricks of the trade practiced by.organizationtheorists.

ConceptualModel of OrganizationThroughout this book I will provide many conceptual models such as you see in Figure 1.2.These models v i s u l ~ y represent theories as sets of concepts and their relationships.Organization theorists use them to make abstractions seem more tangible. Figure 1.2, forexample, is a visual way of communicating my definition of organizations as technologies,social structures, cultures and physical structures that exist within and respond to anenvironment. The grey tint over the entire model indicates that all of these elements oforganizing are colored by relations of power.

Diagrams such as Figure 1.2 can help you to remember a great deal about the theoriesyou will be studying. Giving these diagrams close attention will often reveal aspects oforganization theory that are subtle but important. For example, let the interconnections ofthe four small circles in Figure 1.2 remind you that none of these concepts or the theoriesand perspectives associated with them is complete in itselfi each shares some aspects withthe others and t is the combination of these different ways of knowing that will allowy )u toproduce rich and complex explanations and descriptions of organization, or to

Figure 1.2 A model for the concept of organizationThe five intersecting circles of this model represent the organization s five inter-related phenomena conceptualized s shown. Power, a sixth core concept, is symbolized by the grey tint th at infuses the other circles.These six concepts wil be examined n depth in Part of the book.


23/26

WHAT IS ORGANIZATION THEORY?challenge theories offered by others. Now imagine that each of the circles is a sphere spin-ning on its axis and rotating around the others. Let th is image remind you that these coreconcepts are dynamic, mutually reactive parts of an organization interacting with andwithin an environment. Then focus on the intersections of the circles and the gray tintinfusing them all. Let these features of the model remind you that any conceptual distinc-tion can be regarded as insupportable, that from some other perspective your distinctionswill break down and blend jn to each other.I should wam you that as you move toward understanding each core concept, therewil be times when you get caught in the intersections and become confused as to whichconcept, theory or perspective you are using. Expect this. y _ n g H 2 i ~ t 4 . 9 J . $ . Q i ~ ~ whenit happens because this is part of the process of becoming knowledgeable about organiza-tion theory. Trustthat out of your confusion new possibilities for theorizing, designing andmanaging organizations will emerge in ways that you would never have imagined beforeyou studied organization theory.

A theory attempts to explain (modernist), describe so as to produce understanding and appreciation of (symbolic-interpretivel. criticize or create (postmodernist) a segment of reality. Which ofthese purposes you believe theory serves depends on your ontological and epistemologicalassumptions. The particular focus of a theory is cal/ed its phenomenon of interest. In organizationtheory the primary phenomenon of interest is the organization. A theory consists of a set of concepts and the relationships that tie them together into an explanation (or an understanding, crtiqueor creation) of the phenomenon of interest.Because of the complexity and p/uralism of organizations, managers who make sense ofand use multiple perspectives are better able to bring their knowledge of organization theory tobear on the wide range of analyses, decisions and plans their organizations make each and everydaV. This book is built upon th.eframework of multiple perspectives, and in particular, modern,symbolic-interpretive, and postmodern perspectives will structure our discussion . Studying organization theory from multiple perspect ives wil help you to enlarge your knowledge base, mastera wide range of skil/s and see situations in different ways all of which are crucial for understanding, analyzing and ma naging the comp/exities of organizationallife.The modernist perspective focuses on the organization as an independent objective ent ity andtakes a positivist approach to generating knowiedge. Modern ist organization theorists focus on howto increase efficiency, effectiveness and other objective indicators of performance through the app/icat on of theories relating to structure and contro/. The symbolic-interpretive perspective focuses onthe organization as a community sustained by human relationships and uses a predominantly subjectivist ontology and an interpretive epistemology. Instead of treating organizations as objects to be .measured and analyzed (modernist perspective), symbolic-interpretivists treat them as websmeanings that are jointly created, appreciated and communicated. Symbolic-interpretive organltheory explores how meanings are created and rea ities (note the plural made sensible to thoseparticipate in sustaining them.

Meanwhile postmodernism will generate healthy skepticism toward any dominantand willlicense you and others to try something completely different. The postmoderntive does all this by expanding the focus of theorizing from the organization per se, to howspeak and write about organizations. Thus one phenomenon postmodern organizationaddresses is theorizing itself: how what you may perceive as stabie or objective rY"I


24/26

WHY STUDY ORGANIZATION THEORY?

organizations and organization theory (structure, technology: culture, control,etc.) are but the outcomes of linguistic convention and discursive practice. As such, postmodernism always makesyou aware that theories are open to revision and invites you to ask who supports them and why.You should recognize, however, that most postmodernists would object to being categorized asthey are in Figure 1.1 and Table 1.2. Remernber, postmodernism challenges categories, seekingto underr'nine them by blurring their boundaries and exposing the motivations that produced ormaintain them. In the case of Figure 1.1, for instanee, a postmodernist would probably argue thatthis typology object ifies organization theory and theorizing in ways that reproduce and legitimizeseeing the field as constructed of modern, symbolic-interpretive and postmodern perspectives,when other perspectives might be promoted at the same time or instead of these (some otherswil be discussed in Chapter 101.

I believe that the best theories are those that you have found or invented to match your ownexperience of organization. In th is book you will iearn about the theories of organizations and organizing that others have developed and the skills they used;to formulate them. This wi lI give you afoundation for your own theorizing. You can use the already formulated theories as they stand, ifthis proves useful to your purposes, or as inspiration for your own theory-building efforts, but ineither case, using organization theory will require both the mastery of existing theories and personal development of the ski lis of theorizing, analysis, interpretation and critique. Just remember:when you want to apply your abstract reasoning to concrete situations you wilt need to reversethe process of abstraction and that will require you to perform a creative act.Finally, you have your own reasons for studying organization theory. Mine are that organization theory broadens my appreciation of organizations and the world in general and opens mymind to new ideas and possibilities for change and transformation. lam constantly renewed bymy work in this field and find that the ideas it has given me promote an increased ability todevelop new concepts and theories and enhance my ability to learn. Although it may hold othermeanings and possibilities for you, I hope that my enthusiasm, which is built on my own particular needs, values and experiences, wil inspire you to explore and leam to use organization theoryin ways that enhance your life and care'er.

phenomenon of interest postmoderntheory ontologyconcepts objectivistabstraction subjectivistchunking epistemologymultiple perspectives positivistmodem interpretivesymbo/ic-interpretive

1. See Miller (1956). Hassard (1988,1991; Hassardand Pym 1990)has been particularly active in promoting2. The multiple perspectives approach to Burrell and Morgan's (1979) framework.organization theory has been employed bya W. Richard Scott (1992) presented rational,varietyof researchers. ne of the earliestand natural, and open system views ofmost inf luentialof these was American organizations, while]oanne Martin (1992)political scientist Graham Allison (1971), built her analysis of organizational culturewhoanalYl .edthe Cuban Missile Crisis using theory around a multiple perspectiveseveral different theoretical perspectives.]ohn
http:///reader/full/analYl'.edhttp:///reader/full/analYl'.edhttp:///reader/full/analYl'.ed


25/26

WHAT S ORGANIZATION THEORY

approachincludingintegration,differentiation,and fragmentationperspectives.3'. Thisassumptionisimportant becausetheoristsuselanguageto createand communicate theirtheoriesand iflanguagedidnot alignwith

AlIison,Graham (1971).The essence o decision:Explainingthe Cuhan missiIe crisis. Boston:Little,Brown.Burrell,Gibson,and Morgan,Gareth (1979).Sociological paradigms and organizationaf anafysis.London:Heinemann.FoucauIt,Michel(1977). Powerlknowledge (ed.Colin

Gordon).NewYork: Pantheon.Hassard,lohn(1988).Overcominghermeticism inorganizationtheory:AnalternatIvetoparadigmincommensurability.Human Relations ,4113:247-59.- (1991).Multipleparadigmsand organizationalanalysis:Acasestudy.Organization Studies 12/2:275-99.

PrehistorySmith,Adam(1957).Selections {Tom The Wea/th oNations (ed.George].Stigler).NewYork:AppletonCentury Crofts(originallypubIishedin1776).Marx,Karl (1954).Capita/. Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse(firstpublished in1867).Durkheim,mile(1949).The division oflahor insociety. Glencoe,111 : FreePress(firstpublishedin1893).Taylor,FrederickW. (1911). The prindples ofscientific

management. NewYork: Harper.Follett,MaryParker(1923).The nw state: Grouporganization and the solution o populargovernment.NewYork: Longmans,Greenand Co.(originallypublished1918).Fayol,Henri(1919/1949).General andindustrialmanagement. London:Pitman(firstpublishedin

1919).

realitythen itwouldbeimpossibleto layclaimto positiveknowiedge.

4. See Schneider(1993)forfurther discussionandanalysisof this ongoing debate.5. Foucault(1977).

- and Pym,Denis(1990)(eds.). The theory andphilosophyoforganizations: Critica/ issues and newperspectives. London:Routledge.Martin ]oanne (1992).Cultures in organizations:Three perspectives. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Miller,GeorgeA. (1956).Themagicalnumber

seven,plusor minus two:Somelimitson ourcapacityforprocessinginformation.Psych%gicalReview 63/2: 81-97.Schneider,MarkA (1993).Culture and enchantment.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Seott,W. Riehard(1992).Organizations: Rationalnatural, and open systems (3rdedn.).EnglewoodCliffs,Nl:Prentice-Hall.

Weber,Max(1947).The theory ofsocial and economieorganization (ed.A. H. Hendersonand TalcottParsons).Gleneoe,Ill.:FreePress(firstpublishedin 1924).

Gulick,Luther,and Urwick,Lyndall(1937)(eds.).Papers on the scienceofadministration. NewYork:Instituteof PubIicAdministration,ColumbiaUniversity.

Barnard,Chester(1938).The fimctions oftheexecutive.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

Modernist perspectiveBertalanffy,Ludwigvon (1950).Thetheory ofopen systemsinphysicsand biology.Science 111:23-8. (1968).General systems theory: Foundationsdevelopment applications (revisededn.).NewGeorgeBrazilIer.

Trist,Eric,and Bamforth,KennethW.(1951).soeialand psychologicalconsequeneesofthe


26/26

method of coal-getting. Human4: 3-38.ing, Kenneth E. (1956). General systems

The skeleton of science. Management2: 197-208.

on, Herbert (1957).Administrative behavioredn.). New Vork: MacmiIlan (flISt published1945).

G., and Simon, Herbert (1958).New Vork: John Wiley.

Systems thinking.Middlesex, England: Penguin.

and Trist, Eric L (1960). Socio-technicaIn Management scienee models andVol. 2. London: Pergamon.

and Stalker, G. M. (1961/1995). TheOxford: OxfordPress.

ward, joan (1958). Management and technolagy.n: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

(1965).lndustrial organization: TheoryandLondon: Oxford University Press.P. R., and Lorsch,j. W. (1967).

and integration in complexAdministrativeScienee Quarterly, 12:(1967). Organizations in action.

Vork: McGraw-HilL

perspectiveThe phenamenolagyoftheworld (trans. G. Walsh and F Lehnert).

lil.: Northwestem University Pressst published in 1932).F. (1943), Street corner society.

University of Chicago Press.p (1949). TVA and the grass roots.

of California Press.Erving (1959). The presentation ofselfinlife. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

T ruth and methadrevised edn., translation revised byWeinsheimer and D. MarshalI). New Vork:(originally published as WahrheitMethode.byJ. c B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck,1960).


Berger, Peter, and Luckmann, Thomas (1966). Thesocial construction o reality: A treatise in the sOCalogyafknowledge. Garden City,NY: Doubleday.Weiek, Karl E. (1979 (1969]). The social psychalagy oargan/zing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Geertz, C (1973).lnterpretation o cultures. NewVork: Basic Books.

Clifford,james, and Marcus, George E. (1986)(ed5.). Writing culture: The poetics and polities oethnography. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Postmodern perspectiveSaussure, Ferdinand de (1959). Course in genera Ilingustics (trans. Wade Baskin). New Vork:

McGraw-HilJ.FoucauJt, Michel (1972). The archealogy ofknowledgeand the discourse on language (trans. A. M.

Sheridan Smith). London: Tavistock Publications.- (1973). The orderofthings. NewVork: Vintage

Books.Bell, Daniel (1973). The comingo post-industrialsociety. NewVork: Basic Books.

(1976). The cultural contradictions o capita/ism.NewVork: Basic Books.

]encks. Charles (1977). The languageafpost-modernarchitecture. London: Academy.Derrida,jacques (1978). Writing and difference(trans.

Alan Bass). London: Routledge Kegan Paul.- (1980). Ofgrammatology (trans. Gayatri

Chakravorty Spivak). Bal timore:Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.Lyotard, jean-Franois (1979). The postmoderncondition: A report on knowledge (trans. G.

Bennington and B. Massumi). Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.Rorty, Richard (1980). Philosophy and the mirror onature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981). Thedialogic imagination:four essays (trans. Chorale Emerson and MichaelHolquist). Austin: University ofTexas Press.Lash. Scott, and Urry, John (1987). Theendoorganized capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Baudrillard, jean (1988). Selected writings (ed.M. Poster). Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University

Press.
http:///reader/full/Methode.byhttp:///reader/full/Methode.by

Hatch Cunliff.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Hatch Cunliff.pdf