Internal
Links

Top
Review Notes on  CO:  Explaining Organizational Structures
External
Links
Link
 Factors affecting Org Structure  
  a.  The FOUR Contextual Factor of Size in Determining Org Structure  
Link
        i.  Organizational Size  
Link
             Group Size  
Link
        ii.  Technology  
Link
            Perrow on Org Structure & Technology  
Link
     iii.  Environmental Factors effect on Org Structure  
Link
           Perrow on Organizational Control of their Environment / Society  
Link
     iv.  The National Cultural Conditions  
Link
 b.  Org Design includes the choices made by the org about how the org is structured  
Link
         Peters & Waterman: In Search of Excellence  
Link
     i.  Strategic Choice Models of Structure  
Link
          The Dominant Coalition  
Link
          The Marxian Perspective on Organizational Structure  
Link
       ii.  Institutional Models of Structure  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Factors Affecting Orgl Structure
External
Links
  ORG STRUCTURE IS THE RESULT OF MANY FACTORS, SOME OF WHICH ARE PLANNED & SOME OF WHICH ARE EMERGENT   
  The components & qualities of org structure do not arise randomly in that they are affected by many factors such as: 
 
  - size 
 
  - technology 
 
  - the environment 
 
  ORG STRUCTURE SERVE THREE BASIC FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING PRODUCING OUTPUT, REGULATING VARIATION, & REGULATING POWER 
 
  a.  Org structures produce org outputs & achieve org goals 
 
  b.  Org structures minimize or regulate the influence of individual variations on the org 
 
  c.  Org structures are settings in which regulate power:  power is exercised by determining which positions have power, the flow of information, & the arena for org actions 
 
  Perrow, 1979, & Hage, 1980 show that bureaucracies are designed for efficiency & reliability 
 
  Hall has shown that orgs vary widely from Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy for many reasons 
 
  ORG STRUCTURE MAY BE UNDERSTOOD AS MECHANICAL, I.E. MORE FORMALIZED & CENTRALIZED, OR ORGANIC, I.E. LESS FORMALIZED & CENTRALIZED   
  Burns & Stalker, 1961, developed a model of multiple orgl forms, including: 
 
  a.  mechanical orgs, which are similar to Weber's bureaucracy 
 
  b.  organic orgs, which have: 
 
      i.  a network structure of control instead of a hierarchy 
 
      ii.  a continual adjustment & redefinition of task instead of task specialization 
 
      iii.  a communication context involving information & advice 
 
  Burns & Stalker see the orgl form as being determined by the env 
 
  Burns & Stalker agree w/ Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967, in that in the env, the tech employed by the org, & by competitors, is the most important factor in determining orgl form 
 
  Hage, 1965, examines centralization, formalization, complexity, & stratification & links these structural characteristics w/ outcome variables such as productivity, innovation, efficiency, & morale, but offers little in terms of why orgs developed a particular level of centralization, etc. 
 
  For many orgl theorists, some factors that determine orgl structure operate synergistically 
 
  CONTEXT IS THE INTERNAL ORG ENV, ORG NETWORK ENV, & THE WIDER SOCIAL ENV
DESIGN IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ORG IS PLANNED VS. TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT EMERGES AUTONOMOUSLY 		  
  The TWO major categories of factors affecting structure are context & design  
  An org usually has more control over design than context, though the org can also influence context   
  These explanations of org structure must be considered as a series of explanations that have varying influence based on the multiple factors which are operating on an org   
  Thus the explanations of org structure must be considered in combination   
  Fligstein believes the org analyst should use a healthy, informed eclecticism   
  Fligstein, 1985, examined multi divisional large corps org structure was affected by strategic choice, member control & institutional isomorphism   
  Tolbert, 1985, has combined the env & institutional perspectives in his work on university administration   
  While we must look at the many factors that affect org structure, we must also be aware that org structure itself has a significant impact on these same factors   
  a.  Context is the situation in which the org is operating   
       Context can be impacted by the org, but never totally controlled   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Contextual Factor of Size in Determining Orgl Structure
External
Links
  ORGL SIZE IS USUALLY REFLECTED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN AN ORG BUT MAY ALSO BE A FUNCTION OF POWER OR SOME OTHER FACTOR 
 
  It may be difficult to determine who is in the org & who is not 
 
  In terms of numbers of orgs, most orgs are small   
  In small orgs, org design have a strong influence on the org   
  The heads of small orgs who were professional managers are more likely to adopt bureaucratic practices than were heads of small orgs who were owner managers   
  Small orgs are vulnerable to competition, environmental changes & are thus less likely to survive than large orgs   
 
 FOUR COMPONENTS OF SIZE IS CAPACITY, PERSONNEL, INPUT / OUTPUTS, RESOURCES   
blank
 Kimberly, 1976, holds that orgl size has FOUR components including: 
a.  physical capacity 
b.  personnel availability 
c.  inputs & outputs 
d.  discretionary resources 
 
Link
 a.  Physical capacity is some measure of the capability for output processed by the org 
 
blank
 b.  Personnel availability measures the simple number of people in the org 
 
blank
 The number of people measure is used in 80 % of studies, but a weakness overlooked by this measure is that the number of people is ambiguous in such orgs as religious orgs, colleges & even businesses (include customers or not, etc.) 
 
Link
 c.  Orgl inputs & outputs include anything, physical or abstract, used to produce anything, physical or abstract 
 
blank
 d.  Discretionary resources, or capital, include wealth or net assets 
 
 
 SIZE USUALLY CORRELATES W/ DIFFERENTIATION, COMPLEXITY, CENTRALIZATION, & FORMALIZATION 
 
blank
 Blau, et al, have revealed anomalies in using size as a org determinant 
 
blank
 In general, increased size results in increased differentiation along the dimensions of vertical &, or horizontal complexity 
 
blank
 Large orgs can gain economies of scale w/ regard to both production & administration in that large orgs have proportionally less administration than small orgs 
 
blank
 The Aston Group in England found that increased size is related to increased structural complexity & size, & decreased concentration of authority 
 
blank
 Mahoney found that managerial practices are related to size: e.g. flexibility in assignments, delegation, emphasis on results or procedures are all affected by size 
 
blank
 However, we must remember that the relationship btwn size & structure is inconsistent because many other factors intervene 
 
blank
 Argyris believes that size & differentiation are not causally linked 
 
  For Argyris, size & differentiation are both controlled by a third variable, & because he does not specify any specific variable, he must assume there are many, depending on context   
blank
 Aldrich believes that size is caused by differentiation:  the more structured the firm, w/ a high level of differentiation, needs to employ a large work force 
 
blank
 Aldrich believes technology is the major determinate of structure 
 
blank
 Orgs are growing ever bigger:  multinational corporations & trading blocks   

 
Top
  
Examples of Physical Capacity
The number of cars a company produce
The number of people a restaurant can feed
the number of computers a company can make
The number of cows a dairy can milk

 
Top
  
Examples of Inputs & Outputs
Inputs:  labor, physical resources, knowledge, etc.
Outputs:  goods & services
Amount of steel, energy, electronics, labor, etc. compared to the number of cars, computers, air conditioners, etc. produced
Amount of labor as input to serve a number of clients as output
Amount of depreciation of cost of the physical prison, & labor of the guards as inputs, & the number of prisoners incarcerated

 
Internal
Links

Top
  Outline on     Group Size
External
Links
Link
 1.  A DYAD IS TWO PEOPLE   
  A dyad is the smallest possible group  
  A dyad is Georg Simmel's term for a social group w/ two members  
  Social interaction in a dyad is typically intense & dyads are typically less stable than larger groups  
  For most people, the dyad is the basis of the strongest human bond  
  The dyad is the organizational form which has the most relationships that are delineated / protected by law  
  Examples of a dyad:  marriage, parent & child, friends, doctor & patient, etc.  
  2.  A TRIAD IS THREE PEOPLE   
  A triad is a social group w/ three members  
  Triads are more stable than dyads & any two members can form a majority coalition  
  One person can w/draw & you still have a group  
  In a triad, coalitions can be formed which can be balanced or unbalanced  
  If all the relationships in a triad are positive, the triad is said to be balanced  
  If one of the relationships in a triad turns negative, the triad is said to be unbalanced  
Link
 3.  A SMALL GROUP IS MADE UP OF 3 TO 12 PEOPLE AS AN EFFECTIVE, SMALL, INFORMAL GROUP 
 
  Important changes occur in small groups such as coalitions forming  
  In a small group:  
  - it is common to have two or more coalitions  
  - unbalancing becomes more possible  
  - there is the need for the formal recognition of speakers  
  - people speak differently when talking to the group  
  - a leader often emerges  
  - opposition groups often emerge  
Link
 4.  A MEDIUM GROUP IS MADE UP OF 12 TO 500 PEOPLE & IS INEFFECTIVE WHEN OPERATING AS A SMALL GROUP   
  Because a medium group is ineffective when operating as a small group, it therefore must formalize its operation  
  While a medium group must formalize its operation, it is still possible to know everyone, i.e. remain on personal level  
  In our society, most medium size groups are impersonal & thus have the characteristics of a large organizations  
  Without a formal org structure, medium groups are generally ineffective unless they are extremely cohesive  
  Most business & govt orgs in our society fall into the medium sized category  
Link
 5.  A LARGE GROUP IS MADE UP OF OVER 500 PEOPLE & IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE TO KNOW EACH OTHER  
  Because it is very difficult for all the people to know each other in a large group, this size group is characterized by impersonality  
  It is very difficult to personalize a large group  
  Studies have shown that the optimal maximum size for the most effective org is 500 people because w/ more than 500 people it is very difficult for all people to know each other & function cohesively  
  In our society, in most medium & even some small groups, we do not know each other  
  It is very difficult to be on a personal level, know, with more than 500 people in an org because
- there is not enough time to meet everyone
- people come & go & thus a high  % of the 500 people is always new		  
  SOCIAL DIVERSITY:  RACE, CLASS, & GENDER, ETC. ALL CAN IMPACT GROUP DYNAMICS  
  There are many ways in which social diversity influences group contact  
  Large groups turn inward thereby limiting participation by outsiders  
  The larger a group, the more likely members  will maintain relationships only w/ other group members  
  Heterogeneous groups, i.e. those groups w/ diversity in their membership, are more likely to turn outward  
  The more internally heterogeneous a group, the more likely that its members will interact w/ outsiders  
  Physical boundaries foster social boundaries  
  Physical space affects the chances of contacts among groups  
  REFERENCE GROUPS INCLUDE THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE TO WHICH WE COMPARE OURSELVES   
  Stouffer's research on reference group dynamics showed that we do not make judgments about ourselves in isolation, nor do we compare ourselves with just anyone  
  IN GROUPS & OUT GROUPS ARE GROUPS TO WHICH WE BELONG, OR DO NOT BELONG, RESPECTIVELY   
  An in group is a social group commanding a member's esteem & loyalty  
  An out group, in contrast, is a social group toward which one feels competition or opposition  

 
Top  
1. Dyads 
Smallest possible group
What are some examples of a dyad?
Mother      child                            Partners
Parent       child                            Doctor     patient 
Husband   wife                             Lawyer    client
Best friends                                  Teacher   student

 
Top  
3. Small group
size of btwn 7 & 12: 
Examples?       Families       Friends       Businesses

 
Top  
4. Medium groups
Examples?      Recreation groups       Businesses       Churches     Schools

 
Top  
5.  Large groups

Nations,   Major Corporations,   Governments,   Governmental Agencies 


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the
Contextual Factor of Technology in Determining Orgl Structure
External
Links
  - Project:  Technology & Orgl Structure
Link
  Most of the studies on size & tech & org structure were done in the 60s & 70s  
  TECH IS OFTEN ORGANIZED AROUND A SMALL BATCH, LARGE BATCH, OR CONTINUOUS PRODUCTION STRUCTURE   
  Woodward used a model similar to Blauner's analysis of orgl technology & alienation which examined THREE types of technology, including
 
  a.  small batch or unit production such as ship building or aircraft production
 
  b.  large batch or mass production
 
  c.  continuous production
 
  TECH AFFECTS THE LEVELS OF MGT, SPAN OF CONTROL, & RATIO OF MGRS, SUPERVISORS, & WKRS   
  Woodward found that the type of tech affected THREE aspects of  management structure, including:
 
  a.  the number of levels of mgt  
  b.  the span of control  
  c.  the ratio of mgrs & supervisors & wkrs  
  Woodward found that in relation to the types of tech & coincident mgt structure, success was determined by the fit btwn tech & structure
 
  TECH RELATED ORG STRUCTURES INCLUDE LONG LINKED, MEDIATING, & INTENSIVE   
  Thompson develops a tech typology that encompasses all orgs w/ THREE types of tech, including:
 
  a.  long linked tech that involves a serial interdependence of steps
 
  Examples of long linked tech include assembly lines, & home construction  
  b.  mediating tech which links clients or customers who are interdependent
 
  Examples of mediating tech include phone companies, banks, employment agencies, & post offices  
  c.  intensive tech uses techniques to achieve change which is determined by feedback from an object or person
 
  Examples of intensive tech include most work w/ humans such as is done at hospitals, universities, construction work, & research institutes   
  ORGS IMPLEMENT STRUCTURES / TECH TO ATTAIN GOALS, MINIMIZE COORDINATION COSTS, BE AUTONOMOUS, & STANDARDIZE OPS  
  Thompson does not examine the org structure of each type of tech, but points out that orgs strive to attain FOUR strategic functions, including:
 
  a.  maximizing goal attainment under norms of rationality, (as discussed by Parsons)  
  b.  organizing groups to minimize coordination costs  
  c.  making units conditionally autonomous, first reciprocally, then sequentially  
  d.  homogenizing to facilitate standardization, in a hierarchical arrangement  
  Tech is more important in some orgs than in others
 
  TYPES OF TECH INCLUDE OPERATIONS, MATERIALS, & KNOWLEDGE TECH   
  Hickson, Pugh & Pheysey, 1969, see orgs with THREE types of technology including: 
 
  a.  operations tech which encompasses the techniques used in the work flow activities
 
  b.  materials tech which encompasses a highly sophisticated technique which is applied to a simple material
 
  c.  knowledge tech which encompasses the varying complexity of the knowledge system used in the work flow
 
  Op tech will be a greater determinant of org structure than size in work orgs  
  Management will be unaffected by a sophisticated op tech  
  AUTOMATION CREATES HIERARCHY, A WIDENED SPAN OF CONTROL, LESS WKRS, MORE COMMO   
  Meters found that automated procedures in management of state & local govt created FOUR orgl changes, including:  
  a.  more hierarchy  
  b.  a wider span of control for supervisors  
  c.  fewer employee under higher supervisors  
  d.  more communication responsibilities for lower level employees  
 
 VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF ORGS HAVE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES & TECH; 
THE DIV OF LABOR DETERMINES ROUTINIZATION; 
TASK UNCERTAINTY CREATES PERSONAL CONTROL; 
DIFFERENTIATION & FORMALIZATION ARE MORE A FUNCTION OF SIZE THAN TECH		  
  Hall, 1962 found that in many orgs, some segments have a different structure from those of other segments  
  Hall found that some orgl segments are highly formalized & complex while other may be informalized & complex, etc.  
  Argyris, 1972, criticized tech studies because most assumed that tech must change before structure, but someone from w/in the org must decide to implement a new tech   
  Glisson, 1978, found that in human service orgs, the structure of the division of labor & procedures determined the degree of routinization, & thus the nature of the service delivery   
  For Glisson, routinization as determined by the div of lab & procedures reverses the argument that tech determines structure & instead we see structure affecting tech   
  Van de Ven, et al, 1976, found that as task uncertainty increased, mutual work adjustments through horizontal communications & group meetings were used instead of hierarchical & impersonal forms of control   
  Increasing size resulted in an increase of impersonal coordination, e.g. policies, work plans , etc.   
  Size is important for some structural qualities, while tech is important for other aspect of structure   
  Blau & McKinley, 1979 found that when tasks were uniform, sized affected structure complexity & task diversity   
  Non uniform tasks create a structure that is more professionalized   
  Marsh & Mannari, 1981, found that structural differentiation & formalization were more a function of size than tech   
  Labor inputs, cybernetic complexity, costs & wages, differentiation of mgt from ownership, span of control of the CEO & union recognition were more related to tech than size   
  Dewar & Hage, 1978 found that size & tech were both associated w/ complexity   
  Size was related to admin specialization   
  Tech is related to specialization of wkrs   
  Beyer & Trice, 1979, found that in non routine orgs, personnel specialization generates horizontal differentiation   
  The suggest that a search for a single or primary cause of complexity is doomed to failure   
  There should be a focus on the strategic choices that decision makers select   
  Daft & Bradshaw, 1980, found that in universities growth of admin was related to size, while growth in Dept's was related to tech   
  Env factors, such as pressure from the community or govt contribute to differentiation   
  Decision making also has an impact   
  Decisions may be considered on two levels  
  The formal decision to add a Dept or Program   
  The informal decision of the idea champion   
  Pfeffer recognized that decisions in orgs are highly political & that many ideas never see the light of day   
  Another internal environment factor is the financial resources of the org which affect decisions about  structural change   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Perrow on Organizations & Technology
External
Links
 
 THE TYPE OF ORG IS SHAPED BY THE "RAW MATERIAL" W/ WHICH THE ORG WORKS 
 
  The type of org is shaped by the "raw material" with which the org works
 
  There are traditional raw materials such as coal, steel, etc.  
  People are raw materials in people changing or people processing orgs
 
  Symbols are raw materials in banks, advertising firms & some research orgs
 
  The interactions of people are the raw materials of administrators
 
  While the structure of an org is affected by the type of raw material it deals w/, the critical factor is the number of exceptional cases encountered in the work & the nature of the search process utilized to deal w/ exceptional cases
 
 
 THE MATERIALS OF ORGS INCLUDE OBJECTS, PEOPLE, SYMBOLS, & RELATIONSHIPS   
  Perrow found that when the raw materials in an org....
 
  -  are objects, there is the least amount of organizational exceptions in working w/ them  
  -  are people or symbols there are many exceptions in working w/ them  
  -  are relationships, there are the most exceptions in working w/ them  
  Orgs may use different search process ranging from those that are logical & analytical to those that rely on intuition, inspiration, chance, guesswork, etc., e.g. an advertising firm
 
  The two variables of raw materials & search strategies interact, i.e. if an org has a lot of knowledge about one raw material, it may search for more info on another raw material
 
 
 ORGS ARE STRUCTURED BY THE TYPE OF MATERIAL THEY DEAL IN & HOW THEY SOLVE PROBLEMS / MAKE DECISIONS 
 
Link
 Table on Perrow's Comparative Analysis of Orgs
 
  The Table Perrow's Comparative Analysis of Orgs shows that an org's structure, varying from simple to complex, is determined by the interaction of the type of raw materials, varying from physical objects to people to symbols, the interactions, & by the nature of the search process, varying from rational to non rational  
  Hage & Aiken, 1969, found that the routines of work affected org structure
 
  Lawrence & Lorsch found that industries such as:
 
  - the plastic, food & container industries operated in Sector 1, in an env w/ simple raw materials, using a rational search model   
  - hospital administrators operated in Sector 2, w/ in an env a complex raw materials, & using a rational search model
 
  - researchers operated in Sector 3, in an env w/ simple raw materials, & using a non rational search model
 
  - advertising administrators operated in Sector 4, in an env w/ complex raw materials, & using a non rational search model
 
  See Also Perrow on Normal Accidents  

 
Top
  
Table on Perrow's Comparative Analysis of Orgs
Rational Search Process
Sector 1
Simple RM & Rat Search
Sector 2
 Complex RM  & Rat Search
Physical Objects                  People                     Raw
 Materials            Symbols          Interactions Among People

Simple RM & Non Rational Search 
Sector 3		  

Complex RM & Non Rational Search
Sector 4
Non rational Search Process
The Table Perrow's Comparative Analysis of Orgs shows that an org's structure, varying from simple to complex, is determined by the interaction of the type of raw materials, varying from physical objects to people to symbols, the interactions, & by the nature of the search process, varying from rational to non rational

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Organizational Environment & Organizational Structure
External
Links
  - Project:  The Orgl Env & Orgl Structure 
Link
  AN ORGL ENV IS ALL THE PHENOMENA THAT ARE EXTERNAL TO & POTENTIALLY OR ACTUALLY INFLUENCE THE ORG 
 
  Analysts recognize NINE factors in the env that impact org structure   
    1.  Physical environments may affect orgl struc  
    2.  Social  environments may affect orgl struc
 
    3.  The env is often seen as a constraint on an org, affecting size, tech, & structure
 
    4.  The socioeconomic infrastructure is an especially important influence on orgl structure
 
    5.  Demographic factors, including, race, ethnicity, population, age often influence orgl structure
 
    6.  Institutional values surrounding the org are important & may affect orgl struc
 
    7.  Social values are usually brought into the org from the outside & may affect orgl struc
 
    8.  Affability ( friendliness ) of the env may affect orgl struc   
    9.  Competition may affect orgl struc  
  KEY ASPECTS OF THE ENV ARE THE PHYS ENV, SOC ENV, COMPETITORS, REGULATORS, OPPORTUNITIES, & THREATS  
  Perrow notes that the env includes physical env & social env & is distinguished from the org itself by (social) boundaries   
 
 Perrow holds that there are SIX key aspects of the env that orgs must attend to: 
a.  Physical env provides inputs 
b.  Social env provides input & places for outputs 
c.  Competitors 		 d.  Regulators 
e.  Opportunities 
f.  Threats 
 
  Decision makers must make the structure congruent w/ demands placed on it from the env
 
  Meyer found that admin complexity is caused by env complexity:  e.g. if schools receive federal funds, admin becomes more complex because of the many reporting requirements
 
  LARGER ENVL FORCES IN THE FORM OF OTHER ORGS' IMPACTS INCLUDE: 
         1.  AFFABILITY 
         2.  HOSTILITY / COMPETITION
         3.  ANTI RATIONAL / COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES 
         4.  GOVT POLICY
         5.  GLOBALIZATION		  
  1.  THE AFFABILITY OF THE ENV MAY HAVE AS MUCH TO TO W/ ORGL SUCCESS AS THEIR COMPETITIVE STRATEGY   
  Khandwalla, 1972 found that friendly env is supportive, providing funds & value support
 
  A hostile env is where the underpinning of the org are threatened, e.g. nuke industry in the wake of Three Mile Island
 
  Colleges & universities had a friendly env in the 60s & early 70s & money poured in because of the general belief that ed was the key to social & international problems
 
  This env for higher ed has moved to one of neutrality, or even hostility, because of the failure to achieve the lofty goals of ed creating social cohesion  
  Thus arose the crisis in ed in the 80s that is still rippling through the lower ed to the university level
 
  2.  ENVL HOSTILITY / COMPETITION MAY OVERWHELM THE BEST ORG / ALL ORGS   
  Khandwalla suggest that orgs structure differently based on whether they are in a friendly or hostile env 
 
  The environmental monitoring is carried out by differentiated personnel who are then integrated via committees, ad hoc coordinating groups 
 
  If the env turns hostile, the org will "tighten up" by centralizing & standardizing it operations 
 
  Pfeffer & Leblebici, 1973, found that competition increased control & coordination in the org structure 
 
  W/ less competition, there are more changes in the production, & number of products 
 
  Less competition provides slack: so that orgs can do more than their routine activities   
  Dublick, 1978, found that newspapers' orgl structure in a competitive env more closely reflected the complexity of the community than newspapers in less competitive situations 
 
  Dublick found that hospitals increase services in competitive situations, i.e. reacted to their env   
  3.  ANTI RATIONAL / COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES MAY SUCCEED IN ENVS WHERE PRICE IS NOT A FACTOR, OR WHERE THE GOVT REGULATED THE MKT  
  Hall believes that hosp's increase of services as a response to competition runs counter to economic rationality, raising the costs of medical services   
  But increasing services, esp hi end services will increase a wealthy clientele, thereby helping the hospital compete   
  Meyer & Brown, 1977, found that the env in which a govt org originates, & subsequent envl shifts impacted degree of formalization, i.e. hierarchy & delegation of decisions   
  Brown & Schneck, 1979, found that foreign ownership caused less innovation, confirming the Aston groups findings in 73 & 74   
  4.  GOVT POLICY CAN BE MORE INFLUENTIAL ON ORGL SUCCESS THAN COMPETITIVE FACTORS   
  Brown & Schneck, 1979, found that govt policy is an important environmental factors for orgs   
  National policy in health care, banking, stock market regulation, etc. have a direct impact on org structure   
  Freeman, 1979, found the structure of schools were strongly influence by govt policy   
  Fed supported programs were maintained even as the rest of local districts shifted due to other envl factors   
  Enrollment declines could lead to a reduction in the number of teachers, bu not of fed funded or mandated program personnel, e.g. special ed, assessment coordinators, etc.   
  5.  GLOBALIZATION HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT ORGL ENVS VARY WIDELY AROUND THE WORLD   
Link
 See the Table on the Comparison of Am & Japanese Firms   
  The Table on the Comparison of Am & Japanese Firms shows that there are significant structural differences btwn their firms which have roots in the mgt - employee relations embedded in the two cultures   
  They called 1950's American, militaristic (authoritarian, hierarchical, etc.) style management, Theory X   
  They called 1970's American, Human Resources style management, Theory Y   
  They called 1970's Japanese, employee participation style management, Theory Y   
 
 Ouchi found that Japanese firms w/ operations in the US resembled the Japanese model more than the American model, suggesting the importance of the country of origin, but still were influenced by the new country 
 
  ENVL SCANNING IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH ORGS PERCEIVE THEIR ENV & CHOOSE WHICH FACTORS TO RESPOND TO & WHICH TO IGNORE   
  The nature of the env  is perceived by org decision makers & boundary spanners in a function which is often called envl scanning   
  The perception of the env is then acted upon in the org through decision making   
  Leifer & Huber, 1977, found that an org's structure had a greater impact on the behavior of boundary spanners than did the env   
  The activity of boundary spanners influence the org's perception of the env & affects its structure   
  The env is not "out there"  but rather is interpreted by people in the org who are influence by their position in the org which then affects the org   
  Schollhamer, 1971 believes that multinational firms are affected by the env of their country of origin   

 
Top
  
Table on the Comparison of American & Japanese firms:  Ouchi & Jaeger; Ouchi & Johnson, 1978 
American  Japanese 
Short term employment  Lifetime employment 
individual decision making  Consensual decision making 
Individual responsibility  Collective responsibility 
Rapid evaluation & promotion  Slow evaluation & promotion 
Explicit, formalized control  Implicit, informal control 
Specialized career path  Nonspecialized career path 
Segmented concern  Holistic concern 
The Table on the Comparison of Am & Japanese Firms shows that there are significant structural differences btwn their firms which have roots in the mgt - employee relations embedded in the two cultures 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on Perrow: Organizational Control of their Environment / Society
External
Links
  An organizational environment is all the phenomena that are external to & potentially or actually influence the org 
 
  KEY ASPECTS OF THE ENV ARE THE PHYS ENV, SOC ENV, COMPETITORS, REGULATORS, OPPORTUNITIES, & THREATS   
  Perrow notes that the env includes physical env & social env & is distinguished from the org itself by (social) boundaries   
  Perrow holds that there are SIX key aspects of the Env that orgs must attend to including the: 
a.  physical env, which provides inputs 
b.  social env, which provides input & places for outputs 
c.  competitors 		 d.  regulators 
e.  opportunities
f.  threats 
 
  PERROW / THE INSTITL SCHOOL HOLDS THAT ORGS: 
         1.  DEFINE, SHAPE, CONTROL & CREATE THEIR ENV 
         2.  CHANGE / DISPLACE GOALS TO FIT ENV 
         3.  STIFLE SELF REALIZATION 
         4.  ARE TOOLS OF THE ELITE / UPPER CLASS 		  
  In most cases we look primarily at how the env affects the org, but Perrow also note that orgs also influence their env 
 
  For Perrow, the relationship btwn an org & its env is dialectic, or mutually interdependent   
  In an analysis of orgs effects on society, we often fail to see that society adapts to orgs 
 
  The view that orgs shape society directs us to study of powerful orgs & to public data gathered by govt   
  The institutional school & most org theory (esp mgt / bus theory) does not link societal level factors & organizations 
 
  The institutional school sees orgs. as adapting to env & their  internal power brokers, but does not see society as adapting to orgs   
  1.  ORGS DEFINE, SHAPE, CONTROL, & CREATE THEIR ENV   
  For Perrow, to see orgs as adaptive to a turbulent, dynamic env is to indulge in fantasy 
 
  The env of most powerful orgs is well controlled by them, quite stable, & made of other orgs with similar interests   
  Perrow speculates that the logic of the relationship btwn orgs & their env is turned around because of the the heritage of the functionalist perspective which focuses on functions & not dysfunctions, & stability & not change 
 
  Peaceful tribes who fought off a warring tribe then the peaceful tribe had warriors who needed to make war to win honor 
 
  Schumpeter found that those with power make sure that their skills are important for the community by shaping the community to accept/need those skills 
 
  Morris Janowitz’s view of the military fits this the org shaping the env model 
 
  Researchers have found that large corps like GM shape their env   
  The examples of orgs controlling their envs provide reasons to question a goal displacement process that is often posited as a fundamental orgl characteristic   
  2.  ORGS CHANGE OR DISPLACE THEIR GOALS TO MATCH THEIR ENV   
  The trend toward goal displacement is a hazard that orgs must strive to avoid   
  Some orgs like GM & the AMA understand the hazard of goal displacement & avoid it, but many theorist note that  the military does not   
  Contenders for top leadership positions in our large voluntary & econ orgs are those who share dominant perspectives of our elites 
 
  It is from muckrakers, sociologists, etc. that we learn about the ways in which orgs shape our env, not from the org specialists   
  3.  ORG'S STIFLE SELF REALIZATION, THEY EXHIBIT GOAL DISPLACEMENT, & THEY CONTROL THEIR ENV   
  Perrow argues that we have THREE things to fear from orgs 
 
  a.  Earlier Perrow argued we have more to fear from orgs than their negative effects upon spontaneity & self realization   
  b.  And we have more to fear than goal displacement   
  c.  What we have to fear is organizations controlling their environments   
  4.  ORGS ARE A TOOL OF THE POWERFUL, I.E. THE UPPER CLASS OR ELITES  
  The view that orgs are a tool of the powerful is a combination of the neo Weberian view of structure accompanied by the insights of the institutional school 
 
  The expose tradition has been instrumental in documenting the dangers arising from search for stability & growth & the resistance to character restructuring by orgs   
  The org school's view of orgl env contributions of the institutional school in FOUR ways 
 
  First:  There is a variety of orgs that the technical school has not recognized 
 
  Second:  The neo Weberians must realize that orgs do develop their own inner logic that is not the result of those who control them & that those who control them come to accept that logic 
 
  Third:  The acceptance of the env as a shaper of orgs & as shaped by orgs 
 
  Lastly:  orgs. are tools in the hands of their masters & the masters have an agenda, are shaped by the environment and the org 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the National Cultural Effects on Organizational Structure
External
Links
  NATIONAL CULTURAL FACTORS ARE NOW SEEN AS IMPORTANT FACTORS IN EXPLAINING ORGL STRUCTURE   
  National cultural factors impact an org's culture   
  National cultural factors are looked at w/ the realization that other factors such as size, tech, env conditions, etc. all interact to impact org structure   
  Ouchi, et al, 1978, compared American & Japanese management styles   
  Lincoln, Olson, & Hanada, 1978, found that the degree of presence of Japanese nationals or Japanese Americans was related to the degree of specialization but was not related to centralization, formalization, & vertical differentiation 
 
  Lincoln, Olson, & Hanada's work supported the previous research that the host country's characteristics are more important than are those of the country of origin 
 
  Lincoln, et al, support Meyer & Rowan, 1977, that org structure operates as a myth which acts as a cultural center & therefore firms should adopt a structure which conforms to this myth, ideology, & norms 
 
  Lincoln, et al also recognize the impact of a tech imperative 
 
  Birnbaum & Wong, 1985 studied multinational banks in Hong Kong & found support for a "culture free" determination of structure 
 
 
 CENTRALIZATION, VERT & HORZ DIFFERENTIATION, & FORMALIZATION WERE NOT RELATED TO THE HOST CULTURES 
 
  Marsh & Mannari, 1980 found that structures in the West have the same form in Japan, rather than varying w/ culture 
 
  Maurice, Sorge, & Warner, 1980 studied manufacturing in W. Europe & found that ed, training, recruitment, & promotion processes are strongly influenced by the host national culture 
 
  Hall found that in China, orgs have western structures w/ an overlay of the Communist Party structure 
 
  Birnbaum & Wong, 1985, suggest that cultural impacts on orgl structure vary based on host acceptability / compatibility w/ the foreign structure 
 
 
 ORGS ARE AFFECTED BY THE CULTURE & ENV IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, JUST AS THEY ARE AFFECTED BY SIZE & TECH FACTORS 
 
  Cultural & envl factors interact w/ no single factor dominating 
 
  Van Houten, 1987, found that orgs cannot be understood out of their historical context   
  Lincoln, et al, 1986, believe that national cultural effects are additive in that they are added to the structural variations introduced by tech, size, & market  constraints, but culture may override these factors in some situations 
 
  Hamilton & Biggart, 1988, demonstrate the importance of national culture for org structure   
  Hamilton & Biggart, 1988, hold that cultural factors & market factors explain org growth, but than authority structures & legitimation strategies best explain org structure 
 
  Hall & Xu disagree w/ Hamilton & Biggart, finding that family & Confucian values contribute to crucial differences in org structure 
 
  Schreyogg, 1980; Schneider, 1989, found that Org Design overtly affects org structure, but is itself affected by national culture 
 
  American, British, Japanese, Chinese, etc. orgs all have their own techniques of formulating their strategies 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on Org Design as a Factor Affecting Org Structure
External
Links
  -  Project:  Org Design & Org Structure 
Link
  ORG DESIGN ENCOMPASSES THE CHOICES MADE BY AN ORG THAT IMPACT HOW IT IS STRUCTURED & FUNCTIONS 
 
Link
 Not all actors w/in an org will have the same judgments on the design of the org structure, therefore nearly all questions of design, structure, etc. are political questions, & are therefore very power laden
 
  Schreyogg, 1980; Schneider, 1989, found that org design overtly affects org structure, but is itself affected by national culture
 
  American, British, Japanese, Chinese, etc. orgs all have their own techniques of formulating their strategies
 
  The manifest concept of org design is that we design orgs to attain identified organizational goals; i.e. orgs are rational tools
 
  Rationality in orgs is hard to accomplish, but neither are orgs merely a conglomeration of random events
 
x
 The intent of structure is to provide some degree of certainty of action
 
  IN THEIR RESEARCH, THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES HAVE MORE CONTROL OF THE RESEARCH ENV THAN THE ORGL / SOCIAL SCIENCES   
  Starbuck & Nystrom, 1981, hold that org studies cannot follow the physical sciences
 
  The physical sciences assume a simple, stable microcosm w/ uniform laws
 
  The assumption of a simple, stable microcosm w/ uniform laws allows the luxury that that understanding facilitates design 
 
  The social sciences inhabit a rapidly changing, heterogeneous universe where distinct microcosms follow different, evolving laws
 
  ORG DESIGN IS OFTEN A FUNCTION OF PROBLEM SOLVING:  DESIGNING THE ORG TO ADDRESS A PERCEIVED ORGL PROBLEM   
  People & orgs solve problems by processes that operate quite separately from the processes by which they perceive problems
 
  The fact that people & orgs solve problems by separate processes from the perceptions of problems is good because people usually misperceive problems
 
  Productive solutions combine multiple, simultaneous attacks on the components of problems 
 
  In considering org design, solutions produce both intended & unintended consequences 
 
  Because of unintended consequences, some of the solutions to any problem often become part of the problem 
 
  Problems are solved through iterative sequences of solution attempts 
 
  Usually the environment also changes, changing the nature of the problem(s), & the solution(s)   
  Org designers, then, must assume that org problems are misperceived, & they must be aware of the org's characterization of the problem   
  Designs should mix simultaneous solution attempts   
  Designers should pay attention to intended & unintended consequences   
  Designers should monitor actual effects & generate further solution attempts   
  All of this from Starbuck & Nystrom suggests that org design is problematic & uncertain   
  Peters & Waterman's, 1982, In Search of Excellence offers simplistic prescriptions   
  Thus org design does affect structure, but not is a simple, overly rational manner   
  Strategic Choice Models of Structure   
     The Marxian Twist   
  Institutional Models of Structure   

 
Top
  
Examples of org design as a politicized process:

UVaW changing the general ed requirements, shifting top admin & position design, adding the night program, reduction of course load for profs

US govt:  combining BLM & USFS

Development of the Homeland Security Dept in Summer of 2002


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  In Search of Excellence by Peters & Waterman, 1982
External
Links
  IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE EXAMINED THE BEST CORPS OF THE 80S & FOUND THAT THE BEST QUALS WERE:
1.  A BIAS FOR ACTION
2.  STAY CLOSE TO THE CUSTOMER
3.  BE A LEAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
4.  ADVOCATE PEOPLE OVER TECH		 5.  THE ORGL VALUE OF EXCELLENCE
6.  FOCUS
7.  BE LEAN
8.  BE ADVENTUROUS & ORDERLY 
 
  Peters & Waterman's, 1982, In Search of Excellence offers simplistic prescriptions for orgl structure & operation
 
  Despite the fact that In Search of Excellence offers simple prescriptions, the book became an icon in management circles of the 1980s
 
  Van de Ven, 1983, summarize In Search of Excellence in EIGHT points
 
  1.  Managers should have a bias for action:  do it, try it, don't analyze the problem to death
 
  2.  Stay close to the customer & understand the service or product needs
 
  3.  Engage in entrepreneurship & promote autonomy w/in the org
 
  4.  Productivity is through people & not technology
 
  5.  Have high values & demand excellence
 
  6.  Stick to the knitting by doing what you do best
 
  7.  Keep the staff lean & simple
 
  8.  Have simultaneous looseness & tightness by allowing people to be autonomous but disciplined
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on   Orgl Structure & Strategic Decisions
External
Links
  ORGL STRUCTURE SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO FIT THE ORG'S STRATEGY   
  In 1962, Chandler wrote a classic on strategy & design 
 
  Chandler found that for optimal org functioning, orgl structure should match orgl strategy   
  Chandler studied American powerhouse firms such as Sears & Roebuck & GM 
 
  GM established the multi divisional form w/ Chevrolet, Pontiac, etc. as a result of strategic choices 
 
  ORG POLITICS IMPACT ORG STRUCTURE   
  Child, 1972, following Chandler, noted that org politics determine: 
a.  structural form, 
b.  manipulation of the env, 
c.  & choice of relevant performance standards that are selected by orgs 
 
  The internal politics are dependent upon existing power arrangements in an org 
 
  Thus for Child, as for Chandler, strategy begets structure 
 
  ORGL STRAT & STRUCTURE ARE THE RESULT OF DECISIONS BASED ON A FORM OF LIMITED / BOUNDED RATIONALITY   
  In Simon's classic work, 1957, strategic choices are made on the basis of "bounded rationality" 
 
  Bounded rationality denotes that decisions are not necessarily the optimal decisions, rather they are those that appear to be optimal as a consequence of decisions made through the political process w/in an org 
 
  Katz & Kahn, 1966, develop the concept of "equifinality" which is the presence of several means available to reach a given end 
 
  Orgs are faced w/ both equifinality of means to ends & the presence of multiple ends 
 
  Thus an org is faced w/ multiple env pressures & must choose one path among many options to one of many objectives 
 
  Miles, Snow & Pfeffer, 1974, noted that size & tech approaches to understanding structure are wanting 
 
  Orgs are faced w/ env's differing in rates of change & degree of uncertainty 
 
  Orgs are affected by specific env elements 
 
  POWER IS OFTEN IN THE HANDS OF THOSE PERFORMING NON ROUTINE TASKS, & THOSE W/IN THE POWER STRUCTURE THE ORG   
  Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, emphasize that the political context of the decision making process & its relationship to structure are the result of persons carrying out non routine tasks who are likely to have power because of their expertise 
 
  Those doing routine work do not have this power source 
 
  The person w/ expertise can claim & receive more discretion, or decentralization on a broader basis as something won from a position of power,
rather than something delegated from above 
 
  Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood, 1980, note that the power holders in orgs decide what are issues & what are not issues 
 
  Thus strategic decisions are based on power arrangements 
 
  Strategic choices take place w/in contexts of the org env   
  US FIRMS USE THE MULTI DIVISIONAL, CORP FORM OFTEN RULED BY THE DOMINANT COALITION   
  Palmer, 1987, found that most American firms use the multi divisional, corporate form   
  Industrial diversity & geographical dispersion make the use of the multi divisional form more likely   
  Orgs dominated by banks or families were less diverse & had less of a multi divisional form   
  Technology use is usually a strategic decision made by the dominant coalition   
  See Also: Thompson's, 1967, term dominant coalition which is composed of those who make the strategic decisions   
  See Also:  The Marxist Perspective on Org Structure   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Dominant Coalition
External
Links
  THE DOMINANT COALITION IS THE GROUP THAT HOLDS THE POWER & MAKES THE STRATEGIC DECISIONS   
  Thompson's, 1967, coined the term: the dominant coalition
 
  The dominant coalition is composed of those who make the strategic decisions   
  Pennings & Goodman, 1977, note that the dominant coalition comprises a direct & indirect representation of horizontal constituencies, subunits, & vertical constituencies w/ different & competing expectations
 
  The concept of the dominant coalition emphasizes that orgs are not representative democracies
 
  The dominant coalition is the outcome of power held by the various parties in the coalition  
  Some members are more powerful among the horizontal or vertical constituencies & some are more powerful than the various other constituencies
 
  The dominant coalition is the power center in the org which makes strategic choices w/ regard to org structure, processes, personnel, goals, etc.
 
  The dominant coalition:
 
  -  in small orgs, is the owner or CEO  
  -  does not exist in some orgs; no one has significant power (very rare)  
  -  in most large orgs is composed of the major stock holders, the top management, & maybe, powerful Board of Directors members  
  Decision makers in the dominant coalition select those areas of the env w/ which they will be concerned
 
  The selection of areas of concern is done w/in a political framework in which members shift allegiances & power allocations changes  
  W/ selective perception of the env, strategies are selected for dealing w/ the env
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Marxist Perspective on Orgl Structure
External
Links
 
 THE MARXISTS ARGUE THAT THE DOMINANT COALITION MUST DIRECTLY FACE THE WORKER CONTROL ISSUE IN ITS ORG DESIGN 
 
 
 Thus there are industry wide effects on the forms of worker control & internal labor market strategies   ( Baran, et al, 1988; Bills, 1987 ) 
 
  Dahrendorf demonstrates that the major conflicts in society today occur w/in orgs as org struggle, & less as wars, revolutions, etc.   
  Studies of interinstitutional relationships & the interpenetration of econ & politics provide an alternative view of orgs / management / business   
  The analysis of interinstitutional relationships demonstrates that Western state capitalism has not developed into a benign entity seeking the betterment of humanity   
  Exploitation & concentration of wealth have developed contemporary methodologies that are less obtrusive & more difficult to oppose than the methodologies of the pure capitalist / Robber Barons era of the Industrial Revolution   
  FOR CONTEMPORARY MARXISTS THE CONFLICT BTWN CAPITALISTS & WKRS IS OVER CONTROL OF THE WORKPLACE   
  Goldman & Van Houton, 1977, review several landmark Marxist analyses of org structure 
 
  The research of Goldman & Van Houton shows that managerial thinking, & thus org structure, is attuned to the larger social, political, economic setting, internal administration, & that that thinking is overlaid w/ the struggle btwn workers & owners / managers   
  Marglin, 1973, demonstrated how hierarchy w/in orgs developed during the Industrial Revolution 
 
  MGT STRATEGIES TO CONTROL THE WORKPLACE INCLUDE JOB LADDERS; DESKILLING; PERSONAL, MACHINE, BUREAUCRATIC / RULE BASED CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC MGT; TECHL CONTROL, ETC.   
  Stone, 1973, discussed the development of job ladders in the late 19th C steel industry   
  Job ladders are the result of the desire for org control as from the development of technology 
 
  Braverman, 1974, demonstrates that the primary task in orgs today is to deskill the worker, & this imperative is the result of the capitalist imperative of profits & exploitation   
  Machinery & bureaucratic regulations in industry derive from management desire to exert control over labor market characteristics & the attitudes of workers   
  Edwards, 1975, demonstrates that org conflict is shaped by class conflict & that control w/in orgs is designed to control of class conflict   
  Machinery & bureaucratic regs in industry derive from mgt desire to exert control over labor mkt characteristics & the attitudes of workers   
  Clawson, 1980, traced the spread of Taylor's, 1911, principles of "scientific management" & found that the result of more control by capital & less control by labor   
  Clawson examined how craft work was deskilled as factory work & became more & more subdivided into small, routine tasks 
 
  Clawson argues that deskilling has continued to date, w/ less control for workers 
 
  Though one must note that in some orgs, & industries, professionalization,  i.e. skilling of workers is the norm 
 
  Perrow, 1983 & Sable, 1982, examine how the intro of technology & new forms of org are at least in part attempts to control workers   
  FOR CRITICS, THE MARXISTS' EVIDENCE IS WEAK & MGT CANNOT CONTROL WKRS AS MUCH AS THE MARXISTS IMPLY   
  Hall critiques the Marxist economic framework on TWO counts 
 
  a.  Hall believes the evidence of the Marxist org theorists is weak 
 
  Form, 1980, Spenner, 1979, 1980, & Attewell, 1987, show that a great deal of work has not been deskilled 
 
  Response:  But it is not the position of either the Marxists, nor the critique of the Marxists that all workers are being skilled or professionalized 
 
  Both sides would recognize that both of these processes exist   
  The question is, which process improves society, which process is more common ( & where & why ), & what are the factors that impact deskilling / professionalization?   
  b.  Hall believes that the Marxists fear total control by management:  rationality, i.e. capitalist rationality is bounded & problematic.  It is unlikely that management will control work perfectly.  Edwards himself notes that workers will always struggle against this control 
 
  Response:  While this is true, the question remains that in particular historical eras, under particular societal & org structures workers vs. management / owners succeed or fail in their competition w/ each other.  The point of the Marxist analysis is that the historic struggle btwn workers & management /owners is a foundational aspect of contemporary society & org analysis which is summarily ignored in much org literature 
 
  Hall recognizes that worker control must be considered as a component of org design & that mgt does have interests that are different from those of workers   
  Hall agrees w/ Baron, et al, 1988, that monocausal arguments are misleading & inadequate   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Institutionalization of Organizational Structure:  Institutional Isomorphism
External
Links
  - Project:  Institl Isomorphism 
Link
  INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM IS THE TENDENCIES FOR ORGS TO COPY OR 'BOILER PLATE' EACH OTHER W/ REGARDS TO STRUCTURE, PROCESS, & MORE   
  DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, developed the concept of institutional isomorphism
 
  Recall that institutions are groups of orgs  
Link
 Institutional isomorphism is the process whereby organizations acquire sameness (homogeneity) in such qualities as org structure, strategy, personnel, operational tactics, & even appearance, etc. 
 
  DiMaggio & Powell argue that institutional isomorphism is now the dominant reason why orgs assume the forms that they have
 
  There is a tension btwn institutional isomorphism & rationalization, as conceived by Weber  
  Weber demonstrated how rationalization was an 'iron cage' pushing orgs toward bureaucratization  
  Rationalization & bureaucratization in the 19th C occurred in a contextof a capitalist, mkt econ in which every org had to become as efficient as possible in order to survive & there were few large, dominating institutions
 
  DiMaggio & Powell believe that major goal changes altered society so that an alt explanation to bur is needed  
  Thus orgs such as fast food restaurants are all the same both because of::  
  - rationalization, which holds that one particular model does work better than others  
  - institutional isomorphism, which holds that fast food restaurants are alike because customers expect it, suppliers are set up to delivery frozen meat in large quantities, etc.  
  ORGS EXIST IN FIELDS, I.E. IN ENVIRONMENTS & GROUPS OF SIMILAR ORGS; ORGS ARE 'HERD ANIMALS'   
  Org design is not totally a rational process based on org goals, but is also one of both external & internal pressure which lead orgs in a field to resemble each other  
  Org design, strategic choices, etc. are seen as coming from the institutional order in which an org is embedded  
  But the social env has changed in that orgs now exist in "fields" or w/in other, similar orgs
 
 
 An orgl field is an aggregate constituted by an area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource & product consumers, regulatory agencies, orgs that produce similar outputs
 
  An orgl field includes those orgs that in the aggregate constitute a recognized area of institl life  
  An orgl field includes competing firms, grps, networks, network sets, interorganizational relations (IORs), i.e. to the totality of relevant actors  
  THE FORCES WHICH CREATE ORGL FIELDS ARE SOCIAL COERCION, MIMICRY, NORMATIVE PRESSURE   
  There are THREE aspects of how an orgl field combines analyses of competing firms & orgl networks
 
Link
 a.  Coercive forces w/in the org env such as govt regs, cultural expectations, institutional rules, etc. demonstrates the existence of the orgl field
 
  Meyer & Rowan, 1977, suggest that orgs take forms that are institutionalized & legitimized by the state  
Link
 b.  Organizational mimicry occurs when an org faces uncertainty, & they look to how other orgs face this uncertainty & may copy its solution, demonstrating the existence of the orgl field
 
  Orgs establish intelligence departments to spy on competitors, suppliers, i.e. the entire org field & env
 
  Prokesh, 1985, says "understanding your competitor's positions & how they might evolve is the essence of the strategic game"   
  Mimicry can be seen in the strategy which embraces the idea that understanding your competitors positions & how they might evolve is critical for success  
Link
 c.  Normative pressures occur when the workforce, especially mgt, puts pressure on the org, from the inside, to conform to structure, processes, strategy, etc. because that is the way that the workforce has learned to structure, perform, even think, etc., demonstrating the existence of the orgl field
 
  The Table: Tech & Instit Env w/ Illustrative Orgs shows that orgs w/in a particular institutional field will have similar responses to a particular technological field   

 
Top
Examples of Institutional Isomorphism
Public universities
Department stores:  Walmart, K Mart, Target, etc.
Football teams
Motor vehicle bureaus
Fast Food Restaurants
Car dealers
Hospitals

 
Top
Examples of Coercive forces
Almost any Govt Regs make orgs look & act the same:  health regs, safety regs, etc.
New Education bill of 2002 will mandate particular types of testing in all states,
    but the Fed Govt is under constant attack because states want room to be independent
Thus the Fed govt is criticized for trampling states rights, being to controlling, etc. & also for not doing enough, taking the lead, etc.

Orgs also have rules that are the result of self governance:  SAE:  Standards of Am Engineering
SACS:   Southern Assoc. of Colleges
GAAP:  Generally Accepted Accounting Practices
For orgs in these fields, these are frequently more powerful than any govt regs


 
Top
Examples of Orgl Mimicry
Rowan, 1982, demonstrates that public schools add & subtract positions to come into isomorphism w/ prevailing norms, values, & tech lore in their env
DiMaggio & Powell show that orgs use a small number of consulting firms which "like Johnny Appleseed, spread a few orgl models throughout the land"
Japan consciously modeled its civil society after Americas
Am firms have adopted the Japanese innovation of Quality Circles


 
Top
Examples of Normative Pressures on Orgs
Any common education, training, etc. that workers receive will homogenize the workers, who will then try to homogenize the orgs in which they work
Professional schools are especially homogenous: 
few power line schools
few airline schools:  most pilots in the major airlines come from the military
Nursing schools, Doctors schools, police academies, etc.
Workers follow particular career ladders that give them similar experience, training, culture, etc.

 
Top
The Table: Tech & Instit Env w/ Illustrative Orgs shows that orgs w/in a particular institutional field will have similar responses to a particular technological field 
 
 

The End
 
Top
Link