Rev CO: Orgl Theory

The major paradigms in org theory are the population ecology model, the resource dependency model, the rational contingency model, & the institutional model

Each orgl paradigm sheds light onto the field of orgs & none dominates the discussion

Orgl theories must be used in combination because theoretical integration is necessary for full comprehension of orgl processes

The population ecology model sees orgl actions as externally constrained & controlled by the env which selects orgs for survival based on their success in a particular envl niche

The resource dependency model sees orgl actions as externally constrained & controlled by the search for resources in the env

The rational contingency model sees orgl beh as purposive & rational, w/ an emphasis on goal direction

Some rational contingency models have a Marxist twist

The rational models of orgs are related to the traditional model of orgs & the transaction cost method which dev out of the field of econ

The institutional model of orgl theory sees orgl beh as emerging from the values of the orgl actors

NO SINGLE PARADIGM DOMINATES ORG THEORY, WHICH INCLUDES POP ECO, RESOURCE DEP, RAT CONTINGENCY, INSTITL, BUREAUCRACY, HRM, & MORE, BUT THEY DO BOTH FOLLOW & ENCOURAGE MGT TRENDS, THOUGH ALL THREADS OF THOUGHT CONTINUE TO ADVANCE EVEN WHEN OUT OF FASHION

Researchers in orgl theory today do not test the paradigms & theories against one another, rather they seek to explain the largest amt of variance that they can

No single paradigm or orgl theory dominants today

Even govt agencies such as the GAO combine orgl theories

Orgs acquire resources as they seek to achieve their goals & keep up w/ their competition

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Population Ecology Model

External
Links

The population ecology model sees orgl actions as externally constrained & controlled by the env which selects orgs for survival based on their success in a particular envl niche

The pop eco mod, aka the natural selection model, differs from an analysis of systemic orgl evolution or orgl hist in that no assumption of progress is made; instead the pop eco model assumes only variation, i.e. change

The pop eco mod does not assume that changes are necessarily in the direction of more complex or better orgs, the change is simply toward a better fit w/ the env

The pop eco mod does not deal w/ single orgs, but is concerned w/ forms of pops of orgs

Orgs that have the appropriate fit w/ the env are selected over those that do not fit or fit less appropriately

The pop eco mod embraces many or all of the tenets of the biological model of evolution, applying them to the beh of orgs

The pop eco mod focuses on the 'ultimate orgl test' which is survival, success or failure

The pop eco mod does focus orgl theory more on an hist approach, which most other orgl theory ignores

One weakness of the pop eco mod is that it is less accurate for large contemporary orgs which are almost guaranteed existence, but this only means that orgl evolution, like biological evol, can only be examined over long periods of time

The pop eco mod is useful as an analytical tools which focuses on the imp of the orgl env, a factor which many orgl th largely ignore

There are several levels of analysis in orgl theory which the pop eco mod can examine, including the orgl level, the community level, & the pop level

The orgl level of analysis can be used to examine the life cycle process among orgs

The community eco level analyzes pops of orgs that exist together w/in a community

The com eco level examines the similarities w/in a pop or orgs & the btwn pop differences

The com eco level can analyze such orgl factors as opportunism & choice as exploited by orgs

The pop eco mod operates at the pop level, meaning that it is useful in examining large sets of orgs over a long period of time

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Principles of the Population Ecology Model

External
Links

- Project: Population Ecology Model

Link

Population ecology theories ascribe a high death rate to orgs because of their inability to find a niche in the env (McKelvey, 1982, et al)

In total, there are SEVEN principles of the pop eco model including:
1. adaptation to the env
2. selection by the env
3. variation
4. natural selection
5. retention & diffusion
6. competition
7. niches

1. The 1st premise of ecological theory is that orgs adapt to their env (Hannan & Freeman, 1977b; et al)

2. The 2nd premise is that orgs are selected by the env for survival, w/ a emphasis on "natural selection"

Hall uses McKelvey & Aldrich's FOUR principles of pop eco

A principle of pop eco is that:

3. - variation can be purposeful or blind

Purposeful variations occur as an intentional response to env or internal pressures causing the selection of adaptation

Blind variations occur accidentally or randomly

Analysts are split on the extent to which org change is purposeful or blind

4. - natural selection denotes that useful variations are likely to bring resources into the org & increase its chances or survival

Orgs that survive have beneficial variation

Resources include much more that capital, i.e. personnel, power, political support, legitimation

5. - retention & diffusion involves the passing of competencies (knowledge, skills, etc.) to successive generations (McKelvey, 1982)

Tushman & Anderson, 1986, found that technological break-throughs can enhance or destroy orgl competencies because they make old & new knowledge obsolete or valuable

6. - the struggle or existence involves competing w/ other orgs for scarce resources

There may be periods of rich resources or scarce resources

7. - a niche is the micro env in which an orgs finds resources & produces output

In sum, variation of the nature of the org (structures, procedures, etc.) is manner in which adaptations to the niche are created. It is often a key variation that allows an org to survive & even out compete others in the niche

Hall believes that variation is more purposeful than many ecological theorists believe

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Population Ecology Model & Orgl Development

External
Links

There are 3 stages in the natural selection process embodied in the pop eco model, including variation, selection, & retention

In the first stage in the natural selection process embodied in the pop eco model, variation occurs in orgl forms

Variations can be planned or unplanned

Once variations occurred, the second stage is a possibility, but does not necessarily follow

In the second stage in the natural selection process embodied in the pop eco model, selection occurs where some orgl mutations work & others do not

Orgl forms that fit are selected over those that do not

In the third stage in the natural selection process embodied in the pop eco model, retention occurs where selected orgl forms are preserved, duplicated, or reproduced

Retention is accomplished today through orgs such as business schools that train future orgl mgrs & execs

Orgl training contains lessons learned from orgl forms that have been successful or selected

The stages can advance to another stage at any time given various factors in the env

Once that last stage is reached, variations may begin again

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Population Ecology Model & Environmental Niches

External
Links

Orgl forms fill niches in the env

Niches are distinct combinations of resources & other constraints that are sufficient to support an orgl form

Niches are a location in the env where the function of an org within a community can have or conduct its specialized activity or produce it's product

There are unfilled niches in the orgl env waiting for the right orgl form

Conglomerate corps filled the niche for a large corp in related industries such as Pepsi Co buying KFC, Taco Bell, & other fast food orgs w/ overlapping elements

An empty niche is filled by a new org form that was selected by the orgl env as appropriate

Orgl niches represent opportunities in the orgl env

Undiscovered niches may be filled by small or large orgs, but if the niche has the carrying capacity, even if a small org fills it, other orgs will seek to enter & fill the niche

The concept of the niche implies that only a limited supply of orgl resources exists for all the orgs in the env

Orgs must constantly compete for these necessities, which they find in niches.

Niches can also be a location in the env that is safe from such dangers as being destroyed by competitors that prey on them or by other unfavorable conditions

In any env, some members of a pop of orgs have combinations of traits that help them in the struggle for survival

Orgs succeed when their traits match the opportunities in a niche

If the env changes, different traits or combinations of traits may become favorable to survival, & the overall character of a pop of orgs might change

If the env changes, the character of the niches change

If two populations of orgs live in different envs, they will probably develop differently because they are filling different niches

Narrow niches tend to support orgs that are specialized

Wider niches niches support more generalist orgs

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Critiques of the Population Ecology Model

External
Links

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that the original orgl variations are not specified

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that the mgrl processes w/in orgs are ignored which means that while the env may be impacting the env, so are int factors such as mgrl decisions

The pop eco model responds to the crit that orgl int factors are ignored by noting that while int factors are indeed imp in shaping orgs, even int orgl factors are impacted by the env

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that some orgl forms will survive regardless of env conditions thus negating any process of natural selection in the orgl env

The pop eco model responds to the crit that ineffective orgs survive despite being unfit by noting that this may be true in the short run, but in the long run they will not survive

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that the it has the same error as econ model in that it assumes perfect competition where in fact there are many other types of interaction than comp

The pop eco model responds to the crit that there is no perfect competition by noting that one need not assume perfect comp, but only that comp is the primary organizing factor in the env

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that the concept of 'fit' is employed as an untested hypothesis which assumes that orgl survival is predicated on the ability for orgl structure to fit w/ the needs of the orgl env, reducing the whole hypothesis to the relationship btwn the orgl env & orgl structure

The pop eco model responds to the crit that 'fit' is a tautological concept by noting that fit is simply the process whereby orgs either survive because they do well in the env, or fail because they do not do well, a process which is simple, but obviously true

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that the common orgl term 'effectiveness' is never used but it is heavily implied that orgs effectively fit the env, thus the pop eco model is avoiding trad org theory where it could in fact embrace it

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that while it is well suited for viewing orgs as complex systems w/ limited flexibility but does not work well for other smaller & simpler sets of orgs

The pop eco model responds to the crit that it does not work well for all orgs by noting that the pop eco model explains the beh of pops of orgs, not individual orgs

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that it downplays the role of strategic choices made on behalf of orgs

According the Van de Ven the source of variation in firms is mgrl strategic decisions as much as it is env conditions

The pop eco model responds to the mgrl thesis of decision mking by noting that it is clear that mgrs respond to the env

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that the concept of niche is problematic because niches are actually created by, for example, govt agencies who mandate that orgs act in particular ways

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that orgs fill niches, but the niches are defined by govt agencies & not by the env

The pop eco model responds to the crit that niches are not in the env, but created by other orgs by noting that other orgs are part of the env & therefore niches can be created by individuals, grps, dyads, networks, network sets, etc.

A critique of pop eco model of orgs is that it treats the env as an inert mass, when in fact the env does react to orgs as when people choose a particular org for services or products, or when grps attack or lobby against an org

The pop eco model responds to the crit that it views the env as an inert mass by noting that indeed the focus of the pop eco model so far has been on how pops of orgs respond to the env, the model is now sufficiently dev to begin examination of how the env actively responds to org pops

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Resource Dependency Model

External
Links

- Project: The Resource Dependency Model

Link

Resource dependency model (RDM) builds on the population ecology model (pop eco mod) by bringing orgl decisions & actions back into consideration

RDM has ties to a political economy model of orgs & the dependence exchange approach

In the RDM, decisions are made w/in orgs in an internal political context of the org

Decisions deal w/ the env in that orgs attempt to manipulate the env to their own advantage

Rather than being passive recipients to the env as is sometimes portrayed in the pop eco mod, orgs make strat decisions about adapting to the env

Mgt is a central actor in making strat decisions that attempt to control the env

An interorganizational relations (IOR) approach relies heavily on RDM

For RDM, no org can generate or control all the resources it needs & not every activity can be performed w/in an org

In the early indl age, several of the Robber Barons, aka the Captains of Ind, tried to achieve total control of the env so that they directly controlled all of the resources they needed, & could perform all of the tasks their enterprise required

Because they cannot control all their resources & cannot carry out every activity they need, orgs are dependent on the env

For RDM, most resources come from the orgl env in the form of labor, money, tech, infrastructure, etc. except for farming & extractive ind which acquire significant amts of resources directly from the nat env

Because resources are obtained from other orgs, the RDM can be thought of as an IOR model

For RDM, mgrs manage their env as well as their orgs & mging the env can be as imp, or more imp than mging the org

For RDM, the institutional level is that level at which the org is linked to the social structures of society by its top execs

RDM recognizes a dynamic btwn int power structures in the org, the demands of ext grps, & their influence on choices made by the org, choices about how to deal w/ the env, which niche to fill, a plan of actions, etc.

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Resource Dependency Model & Control of the Environment

External
Links

For the resource dependency model (RDM), orgs are or attempt to be active in controlling their env & this activity contributes to the variation among orgs

The variation among orgs is the result of conscious, planned responses to envl. contingencies

Orgs attempt to absorb interdependency & uncertainty by themselves or through a merger or some other kind of interorganizational relationship (IOR)

Orgs may cooperate, move personnel or use other techniques to deal w/ interdependency & uncertainty

The conglomerate corp is an example of corps manipulating themselves & their env to reduce interdependency & uncertainty, but that model of org has recently fallen out of favor in mgt circles

Instead of viewing envl selection as selecting the optimum form to fill a niche, RDM examines how orgs interact w/ their env to survive & thrive

For RDM, the env is still imp, but it is one factor among others including int orgl factors

Int orgl factors are the methods by which orgs control their env

Orgs have the capability of dealing w/ envl constraints, uncertainties, & contingencies & those subunits which have the best ability to deal w/ these are likely to have the most power in the org

Power dist in the org is critical in determining the nature of the choices the org will make to deal w/ the env

RDM links the env to the choices made in the org through the power process in the org

It is necessary to focus on power since all imp decisions in an org are made in a political context

Both power differentials btwn subunits, e.g. mkting & production, & power differentials among top mgt, e.g. the CEO & VP for finance, should be examined in relation to strat decision mking which affects the orgs relationship w/ the env

Subunit conflict has an imp role in determining who rises in the hierarchy, but once that hierarchy is set, the power of positions at the apex of the org appear to be most central to strat decisions

Regardless of the sources of power, the strat choices made are tied to envl pressures

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Resource Dependency Theory & Strategic Decisions

External
Links

A key element of the resource dependency model (RDM) is strategic choice

Strat dec are those made among a set of alternatives in regard to the strat that the org will use to address the env

The env does not force the org into a single situation in which it has no choices, rather the org is faced w/ a set of possible alts

The criteria by which choices are made & by which structures are determined are both imp & problematic because there is not just one optimal structure or course of action

There are 3 ways in which strat choices are made about the env

1. Decision makers in orgs have alternatives as reflected in the fact that dec mkrs in modern orgs today seek out all reasonable alts & choose the best one given a set of criteria they choose for themselves

In dealing w/ the env, more that one strat may be suitable, more than one structure may be suitable, & orgs can choose to fill or leave niches

2. Strat choices are made in relation to how the org will attempt to control the env

Strat choice about envl control may pertain to interorganizational relationships (IORs), entering the political process to affect govtl regs, reducing dependency on other orgs, etc.

Orgs seek to reduce their dependency on other orgs & increase other orgs' dependency on them

3. Strat choices vary on how the actors perceive a particular env

Orgl actors define reality in terms of their own backgrd & values

Kanter found that org leaders tend to choose other leaders who are like them which builds a homogenous culture

For Kanter, this permits execs to have trust in one another since they experience things the same way & by implication, make the same kind of decisions

The problem w/ a homogenous exec culture is that a single pt of view may be unable to detect errors

W/ the env perceived, interpreted, & evaluated by human actors in the org, the perception becomes the reality & envl conditions are imp only as they are perceived to be imp

The orgl env is acted upon by the orgl decision makers on the basis of their perceptions & though there may be commonality because of homogeneity of background even this will not be perfect

Because there is less internal commonality btwn orgs, different orgs will act differently to the same env

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Resource Dependency Theory & Barriers to Choices

External
Links

For the resource dependency model, there are limitations on the range of choices available to decision makers

Barriers remove some alternative from the range of possibilities for some orgs

Legal barriers can prevent an org from moving into a particular area or endeavor

Econ barriers may make some projects too expensive

Mkts can be dominated by a few firs so that is impossible for new, small firms to enter

Decisions to try to alter or control the env may not be available for many orgs

Small orgs have less power than large orgs & so are not as able to impact their env compared to larger orgs

Perceptions are important in the examination of barriers

Barriers that are not perceived can create a threat to an org

Phenomenon in the env that are perceived as a barrier, but are not, are lost opportunities

Given that different orgs have different internal capabilities, a barrier for one org can be an opportunity for another

If one org has a barrier, it may seek another org to deal w/ or eliminate the barrier & thus barriers can be an impetus for estbing an interorganizational relationship (IOR)

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Resource Dependency Model & Retention

External
Links

For the resource dependency model, retention concerns the set of behaviors which serve to maintain, support or reproduce an orgs strat, structure, & ops

Orgs use several mechanisms to retain successful adaptations

Retention mechanisms are deved by tactical decisions about how the org ops in a given context of strategic decisions which set broad policy for the org

Bureaucratization is an imp & effective retention device

Orgs develop policies, documentation, & filing systems which contain knowledge & examples from the orgs past which are precedents for the orgl present

Policies, documentation, records, standard operating procedures, & other aspects of bureaucratization serve as a framework & content for decision making

Bur provides continuity for the org & ensures that past forms are retained

Role specialization & standardization ensure that policies are followed

Through the advancement based on the merit quality of bureaucratization, retention & continuity are enhanced

When people are advanced through the system, experiences will be common & they will react in ways similar to ways in which people have reacted in the past

The bureaucratic quality of hierarchy assists retention because the power of those at the top of the org is viewed as legitimate & thus when authority is exercised, decisions are not questioned

For Weber, Perrow, & many others, bureaucratization is the most efficient form of admin & all orgs move toward this to attain efficiency

Socialization aids in retention because the culture of the org is transmitted to new members through continual formal & informal socialization mechanism

People are socialized to the culture of the org which embodies folk wisdom & operational 'rules of thumb' that persist over time

Leadership is usually constant over time, & they screen & filter new members in the org to be like them

Leaderships' screening to create a homogenous mgt & workforce aids in retention because people whom are alike will make similar decisions & react similarly to the env

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Critiques of Resource Dependency Theory

External
Links

The resource dependency model (RDM) includes an analysis of the env, the processes by which decisions are made in the org to deal w/ the env, but their is a failure to recognize goals as an int factor which influence decisions & therefore the org's actions in the env

The RDM does not deal w/ the selection process by which envl niches are chosen, which was central to the pop eco mod

The RDM examines interunit power differentials & tends to ignore hierarchical power differentials & the latter should be examined because such differences can override interunit power differences

The RDM embraces bureaucratization & rationalization & therefore has all the problems inherent in these

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Rational Contingency Model

External
Links

The rational contingency model was developed from the contingency theory of Lawrence & Lorsch

Contingency theory is an imp theory because it has a strong empirical research base to validate it's findings

For contingency theory, the best way to organize depends on the nature of the env the organization enters

Orgs may need to organize to deal w/ uncertainty & changing conditions or to deal w/ a stable env

Those orgs that deal w/ uncertain, changing envs are more likely to be highly differentiated

Those orgs that deal w/ certain, stable envs are more likely to be less differentiated

The mgt phil that there is one best way to organize ignores political considerations in the org

Political demands in an org might include the right to collective bargaining, a minimum wage, or the internal politics of several subunits

For the contingency model, Walmart has embodied one model of efficiency which includes low wages, long hours, harder work, & low benefits

For the contingency model, Walmart model is the best for its env & strategy

For the contingency model, a model of high efficiency might include high wages, long hours, harder work, & high benefits for a financial analyst

When the idea of contingency is added to the notion of rationality,

The rational contingency model views orgs as attempting to attain goals & deal w/ their env, w/ the realization that there is not one best way to do so

Via a mgt phil of rational contingency, orgs can pursue a strategy which includes philanthropy because this gives the org a better public image in the consumers' mind

Another org might pursue a bureaucratization strategy because that had worked best for it in the past

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Rational Contingency Model & Goals

External
Links

The resource dependency model & the population ecology model both ignore goals & so run counter to the reality of actual decision making

The rational contingency model (RCM) does not make assumptions about the rationality involved in decision making, nor does it take the simplistic view that orgs are instruments to carry our goals

For the RCM, orgs may be more or less rational & the level of their rationality is contingent on the particular situation they face in the int & ext env, esp goals

For the RCM, goals are part of the culture of an org, part of the mind set of decision makers

Orgs, like the individuals that compose them, are purposive, but the purposiveness can be overcome by ext pressures

Orgs may have to radically change their ops, or even die, in pursuit of their goals

Orgs have multiple & conflicting goals

Priorities among goals are problematic for orgs

Priorities in orgs are estbed by the dominant coalition which is a direct or indirect representation or cross section of the horz actors, such as the subunits, in the org & the vert actors, such as the employees, mgrs, owners, or stkhlders

The decision of the final choice of a goal set is believe to be a function of the relative weights that the actors carry in the negotiated order

Ultimately, the dominant coalition makes the choices as to the trade off btwn conflicting goals such as mkt share vs wkr satisfaction

Through negotiations the preferences & expectations are aggregated, combined, modified, adjusted, shared by the dominant coalition

For RCM there are competing ext pressures or int issues that cannot be rationally resolved because they are contradictory

Goals may be viewed as constraints for orgl decision mking in the same manner that envl constraints op in that both may be overcome by changing the int structure or politics, seeking control of the env, seeking a new niche in the env, or some combination of all of the above

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Institutional School

External
Links

INSTITS ARE GROUPS OR CLUSTERS OF ORGS THAT THINK & ACT IN A SIMILAR MANNER

The institutional school is the most sociological model of orgl beh & it follows the structural functional school

The institl school looks at orgs as natural & organic systems & thus it looks at orgs as a whole w/ less examination of the parts

For Perrow, the contributions of the institl school are that:

1. there are a variety of orgs & orgl processes that the technical school of orgl analysis has not grasped

2. 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

3. the acceptance of the env as a shaper of orgs & as shaped by orgs is necessary for a complete orgl analysis

4. orgs are tools in the hands of their masters & the masters have an agenda & are shaped by the env & the org

THE EXPOSE' TRADITION OF THE INSTITL SCHOOL IS ONE OF CRITICALLY RESEARCHING & DOCUMENTING PRACTICES OF ORGS

The institl school has utilized case studies & often embraces the expose' tradition of orgl analysis

The institl school sees orgs as organic, growing, evolving, w/ a natural history, etc.

For the institl school, the unplanned aspects of orgl structure & beh are the most difficult to deal w/ & they are generally not subject to control

For the institl school, the unplanned aspects of orgl structure & beh may not be noticed until their effects are quite evident

Case studies show that things are often not as they seem

The expose’ tradition found that:

- because of bureaucratization & institutionalization, there are extreme dangers for society arising from the search for stability & growth

- orgs & instits are resistance to character restructuring

The institl school has paid attention largely to important orgs

There are problems of access to powerful important orgs & thus academics often focus on the easier / symptomatic / exciting problems

GOAL DISPLACEMENT IS WHERE ORGS CREATE NEW GOALS THAT ARE OUT OF ALIGNMENT W/ THEIR ORIGINAL GOALS

A major message of the institl school is that orgs often sell out their goals in order to survive or grow

For the institl school, the values that should be institutionalized are undermined by the orgl process

In consonance w/ the institl school, the Iron Law of Oligarchy, as formulated by Robert Michels, posits that a few leaders will inevitably dominate even supposedly democratic political organizations & will put preserving the org & their leadership ahead of the interests of the members or the values of the org

See Also: The Iron Law of Oligarchy

In consonance w/ the institl school, Morris Janowitz found that the military shifted from civilian control by southern whites to control by a broader segment of the population

The complexity of weapons gave control to a military technostructure

W/o deliberate planning or even conscious awareness, broad social forces changed the character of the military

The military built a bridge w/ independent & econ interests, intensified the political role of the military abroad, increased domestic surveillance & domestic intervention

The contributions of the institl school are an examination of orgs as a whole, an examination of the independent action of orgs,

1. A contribution of the institl school is its emphasis on the org as a whole; drawing attention to a variety of orgs w/ similar, basic characteristics

2. A contribution of the institl school is its emphasis on orgs taking on a life of their own, irrespective of the desires of those presumably in control

The focus of the institl school on a holistic view of orgs & the independence of orgs as yet has not lead to a comprehensive schema of orgs

In the expose' tradition of the institl school Gabriel Kolko wrote The Roots of American Foreign Policy, & Seymour Melman wrote Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War, both which demonstrate the effect of the pol & orgl env of & on orgs

Weber saw orgl forms as deeply rooted in the social structure of society

INSTITUTIONS ARE GROUPS OF ORGS THAT EMBODY A SET OF VALUES, STRATEGIES, PRACTICES, SWOTs, ETC.

For Selznick, orgs are rational, means oriented, & efficiency guided while instits are value laden, adaptive, w/ responsive processes

Some orgs are only rational tools while others evolve into institutions & take on a distinctive character & become prized in their own right

This evolution of orgs into instits is “natural” or organic wherein the org adapts to the striving of internal groups & the values of the external society

The administrative leader of an instit becomes a statesman

Both orgs & instits can be inflexible.

Link

See the Table on Selznick on Leadership in Administration

The Table on Selznick on Leadership in Admin demonstrates that both orgs & instits may be tools & experience drift but that instits are larger & have more internal conflicts

There is danger in giving full commitment to an org because the org. can exert too much control

Selznick asks, “Can individual rights in associations be fully protected without some concept of meaningful membership?”

Here Selznick is concerned that limited commitment often means too little recognition of the rights of participants in orgs

Selznick supports orgs because through a significant membership in groups, a person's relation to the larger society is extended & enriched:

Kwane Tare who was the head of the African Nationalist Union believed that blacks need organization & only 2% belong to the NAACP

But for Perrow, most of the advantages of orgs & instits are limited to the few at the top

Thus orgs co opt each of us

Perrow notes how the do gooder doctor in the AMA was co opted

Selznick supports a Barnardian view of values in orgs in that all people should have the org's values & that we each find ourselves through our orgs

But Selznick, contra Bernard sees that orgs. subvert our individual values and that individuals subvert org. values.

THE MORAL AMBIGUITY OF FUNCTIONALISM HAS A VIBRANT ANALYSIS , & BUT IT OFTEN JUSTIFIES THE STATUS QUO

Perrow examines where orgs get their values & what orgs can do to guarantee social responsibility

Orgs can adapt to one value or another of the local community such as segregation or integration.

Orgs may choose to ignore the values of the community & adopt corp values

The is no single community value, but only the conflict of group interests

Selznick sees goal displacement, or choosing the wrong goal as a failure of leadership and strong leadership as choosing the correct goal

Thus Michel’s Iron Law holds that good people end up compromising their noble goals & they do so unwittingly, without conscious malice, & inevitably

Wilensky says compromising or co opting of goals is is all caused by a lack of information; the bureaucracy does not allow it to reach the correct people in time

An example of institutionalization is seen in the fact that the Air Force has expanded its bombing strategy even though bombing was ineffective in Germany, North Korea & Vietnam (though it worked on Iraq).

It was in the institutional interest of the Air Force & the military to bomb, regardless of effectiveness to the stated goal of bringing the enemy to their knees

The capacity to bomb made that part of the military grow, institutionalized the strategy of bombing & also helped the MIC grow & gain power

ORGS DO HAVE SOME CONSTRAINTS THAT LIMIT THEIR GROWTH & DOMINATION, BUT THESE NEED TO BE ENHANCED

But orgs cannot pursue their single minded goals without constraints

A constraint that limits the pursuit of independent goals is that

- labor treated as a resource is more productive than when it is treated as a tool

- tenure for mgt makes them more loyal to the org & more likely to pursue narrow, institl, survival oriented goals rather than those in the best interest of the org

- limits on arbitrary authority makes it difficult for mgt or any orgl actors to pursue narrow goals

- technological constraints limit the pursuit of some goals

- internal goal conflict creates coalitions that often estb a balance of power where the goals of each party is balanced against the goals of the other party

- limits on rationality such as limited searches, lack of innovation, etc. reduce the likelihood of innovative goals & increase the likelihood of institutional goals

More recently a constraint that limits the pursuit of independent goals is that

- the tradition & history of the org, i.e. its orgl culture sets the tone for the org to pursue institl goals or orgl goals

- unplanned adaptations make the org more innovative & less institutionalized

- the failure of leaders to set clear goals often creates a climate of pursing safe, institl goals

- internal group strivings, i.e. office politics, has the same effect as internal goal conflict where actors balance each other's pursuit of goals

	INSTITS, ORGS, MAJOR CORPS, & GOVTS CONTROL THEIR ENV
	We often fail to see that society adapts to orgs, & it is not just that orgs adapt to society
	The view that orgs shape society would direct us to the study of powerful orgs & to the public data gathered by govt
	For Perrow, the gravest problem of the institl school is that it does not link society & orgs
	The institl school sees orgs as adapting to the env & their internal power brokers, but does not see society as adapting to orgs
	For Perrow & some others, orgs define, create & shape their env
	To see orgs only as adaptive to a turbulent, dynamic env is to indulge in fantasy & ignores that the env of the most powerful orgs is well controlled by them, quite stable, & made up of other orgs w/ similar interests
	For Perrow, the logic of the relationship between orgs & their env is turned around because of the heritage of the functionalist perspective in which the institl perspective has its roots
	It is from muckrakers, sociologists, etc. that we learn about the ways in which orgs. shape our environment, not from the org. specialists
	The dynamics of the process of institutionalization can be seen in the story of the peaceful Indian tribe who fought off a warring tribe, & then the peaceful tribe had warriors who needed to made war to win honor
	Schumpeter holds that those w/ power make sure that their skills are important for the community by shaping the community to accept or need those skills
	Morris Janowitz’s view of the military fits Schumpeter's view that people or orgs try to create a need for their resources or skills
	GOAL DISPLACEMENT IS A GENERAL TACTIC BUT IS ALSO USEFUL IN ADAPTING TO & CONTROLLING THE ENV
	There are many reasons to be wary of the goal displacement process that seems to be a fundamental orgl characteristic
	But it seems that some orgs get goal displacement & some do not
	The contenders for top leadership positions in our large voluntary & econ orgs are those who share the dominant perspectives of our elites
	Perrow argues that there is more to fear from orgs than their negative effects upon spontaneity & self realization
	But for Perrow, we have more to fear than goal displacement & that is the actions of orgs that control their env
	Viewing orgs as a tool of the powerful combines the neo Weberian view of structure w/ the insights of the institl school
	The neo Weberian view of orgs is that:
	- they are natural or organic systems that arise out of the social forces of society
	- orgs have their own vocabularies, culture, etc. as compared to other spheres of society
	- the force of custom is powerful in orgs & even more powerful as when it is bureaucratized per written rules, hierarchy, etc.
	- well formed communication lines enhance particular communications while limiting others
	- the conservative nature of orgs means that they resist change

Top

Table on Selznick on Leadership in Administration

Tool
View

Orgs

Institutions

Orgs are rational engineered instrument, with a technician directing it

Instits are a committed polity w/ clear identity & purpose serving the selfish strivings of its participants

Orgs have a nonflexible internal source of values

Instits have a nonflexible internal source of values

Drift
View

Orgs are characterized by opportunism w/o goal directed leadership

Instits are characterized by adaptability, responsiveness, impregnated w/ community values

Orgs have a flexible internal source of values

Instits have a flexible internal source of values

The Table on Selznick on Leadership in Admin demonstrates that both orgs & instits may be tools & experience drift but that instits are larger & have more internal conflicts

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 context of 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

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Institutional Model & Symbols

External
Links

The institl model examines how symbols & symbolic acts affect the strat, struc, & ops of orgs

Institl isomorphism denotes that orgs mimic each other, i.e. copy each others strat, struc, & ops & in doing so they may embrace new features, symbols of features, or simply new symbols

For orgs to op in the same field & to communicate w/ each other, they must share a common language, a common vision of the env, i.e. a common set of symbols

Orgs in the same field dev isomorphism as they exchange professional personnel & face common situations such as govtl regs

In relation to the symbolic institl model, in addition to isomorphism, orgs institutionalize, i.e. copy one another by focusing on practices, patterns, & values & how these are legitimated

The symbolic institl extends the work of Berger & Luckman on the social construction of reality to orgl strat, struc, & ops

Orgl actors' feelings & meanings are imp in structuring how decisions are made & thus the decision mking process is not a narrow, technocratic process

Orgs are shaped by tech, the env, the orgl actors, & symbols in that tech, the env, & actors are all symbolized

When orgl actors are given a greater influence in the process of understanding orgl strat, struc, & ops, symbols become proportionally more imp since people use, create, & relate to symbolism as delineated by Mead & other social psychologists

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Critiques of the Institutional School

External
Links

The critiques of the institl model include that it is tautological, that it overextended its theoretical reach to all orgl processes as institutionalization, that it reifies many institl factors, & that it ignores deinstitutionalization

1. The Tautology of the Institl Model

A tautology is circular reasoning in which variables are defined in terms of each other, thus making causes & effects obscure & difficult to assess

Tautological or circular reasoning is a problem for functional theory & institl theory

Circular reasoning can be seen in the institl model where institutionalization is the result of political orgl factors, & the pol orgl factors are the result of the institl power the orgl actors exercise & that the process of institutionalization creates the actors themselves as well as the power they wield

In defense against the tautological critique, institl theorists respond that there is a mutual interdependency of factors in the institl model which reflect the interdependencies in life

2. The Over Extension of the Institl Model

Institl theory has paid almost no attn to what is institutionalization & what is not

In institl theory there is a tendency to apply institl theory to nearly all situations & orgs though instit theorists recognized that institutionalization is more likely to occur in situations of indeterminate tech & ambiguous goals

While in functional theory Parsons clearly delineated the nature & extent of the institl level of analysis, most institl theorists do not take note of this & apply the model to a wide array of situations

Over extension of institl theory creates a tendency to apply institl theory in an ex post facto manner resulting in ideas & practices coming into existence or disappearing for no other reason than institutionalization

3. Reification in the Institl Model

Structural or institl factors such as grps of people acting in a structural manner, or being impacted by a structure lose their individual qualities & become only structural factors

Both individual & institl factors dev myths, i.e. independent realities about their meanings & behavior

4. The Institl Model Ignores Deinstitutionalization

To date, institutionalization has been carefully examined, but deinstitutionalization has not

While some orgl & societal structures become accepted, widespread, routinized, necessary, etc., & thus experience institutionalization, other orgl & societal structures become unacceptable, rare, ad hoc, optional, etc., & thus experience deinstitutionalization

Many orgl & societal forms have come & gone

The End

Top