Professional Documents
Culture Documents
28 An Introduction to Organizations
otochange; participants appear asmotivated bytheir owninteresrs andseek to
~mpos~ these on theorganzation. It isrecognized that theorganization itself
IS amajor asset, avaluable resource tobecaptured. Rather than being only a
m~ans, an instrurnent topursuing other ends, themaintenance andstrength-
enmg of theorganization becomes an endinitself Informal andinterperson-
al structures areseen tobeof greater importance than areformal structures,
whichoften serveonlyasadecorative facadeconcealing the "real" agenda and
structure. A ndpower isrecognized asstemming frommany sources other than
occupancy of aformal position.
Hence, asecond definition of organizations, useful for viewingthem as
natural systems, issuggested: Organizations are collectivities whose participants are
pursuing multiple interests, both disparate and common, but who recognize the value of
perpetuating the organization as an important resource. The informal structure of rela-
tions that develops among participants is more influential in guiding the behavior of par-
ticipants than is theformal structure.
The natural systemviewemphasizes the common attributes that organi-
zations share with al! social collectivities, A ndbecause organizations are not
set apart fromother social systems, theyareviewedassubject toforcesaffect-
ing all such systems.In particular, wefindreplicated in this perspective, the
twocontrasting versions of the bases of social order in the sociological litera-
ture at large: one emphasizing social consensus, the other, social conflicto
The first, social consensus, version emphasizes aviewof collectivities as
coomprisedof individuals sharing primarily common objectives. The assump-
non underlying thisconception isthat social order (of any type) isareflection
of underlying consensus among the participants; that organizational stability
andcontinuity reflect theexistence of cooperative behavior andsharednorms
andvalues.This widelyheIdand influential viewof the basisof social order is
generated inthewritingsofDurkheim (1961trans.) andParsons (1951), among
others, and reflected in the organizational theories of Barnard (1938) and
Mayo(1945), among others,
The contrasting, social conflict, versionviewssocial order asresulting from
thesuppression of someinterests byothers. Order results not fromconsensus,
but fromcoercion, thedominance ofweaker bymore powerful groupsoA ndan-
alyticattention isdevoted not tothe appearance of consensus, but tothe real-
ityof underlying conflicts, which provide abasisfor understanding instability
and change. The sociological progenitors of this viewinclude Marx (1954
trans.) and Coser (1956)0A pplications toorganizations are provided bysuch
theorists asGouldner (1954), Bendix (1956), and Collins (1975) o
In Chapter 3wereviewthe development of the basic assumptions of the
natural systemperspective andexamine thecompeting consensus andconflict
models,
An Open System Definition
The previous definitions tendtoviewtheorganization asaclosedsystem,
separate fromitsenvironment andencompassing asetof stableandeasilyiden-
tifiedparticipants. However, organizations are not closed systems, sealedoff
fromtheir environments, but are open toanddependen~ on flowsof person-
nel, resources, and information fromoutside. Froman open systemperspec-
The Subject Is Organizations 29
tive, environments shape, suppart, and infiltrate organization:: Conne,~tions
with"external" elements canbemore critical than thoseamong ll1tern~1com-
ponents; indeed, for manyfunctions thedis~inctionbetween orgamzatlon and
environment isrevealed tobeshifting, ambiguous, and arbitrar y, o o
A lI three perspectives agree that i~an orgaonizoationistosurv,lve,oit mus:
induce avarietyof participants tocontnbut~ th:lortime and ener~ toit, H~w
ever open systemtheorists emphasize that individuals have mltiple loyaltles
andidentities. Theyjoin andleaveor engage in ong~ing exchanges with the
organization depending on the bargai~s they can sotnke-:-therelative advan~
tagetobehadfrommaintaining or endmg therelanonoViewedfromthis per
spective, participants cannot be assumoed~ohold common goals or e,vent~
routinely seek the survival of the orgazauon. Thus, much of theworkoof or
ganizing entails hard bargaining and "horse training"-as well ascreatmg af-
fectivetiesandcommon interpretive systems-as participants attempt toform
andre-forrn transitory coalitionso o o o o o al
A nopen systemperspective islessconcerned Wlt? dlstmgUlshmg for~
frominformal structures; instead, organizations are~Iewedasasystemof J l1-
terdependent activities, Some of these activities areotightly connected; others
are loosely coupled. A lI must ~e contin,uousl)' monvated-produced ~nd~e~
produced-if theorganization IStopersist.The arnval 00fthis perspective tng
gered the elaboration and elevation of levelso~analysis. No longer was the
single organization the privileged unit of analysis.Rather, analysts re~ogmze
that many organizational phenomena arebetter underst?od andexplamed ~y
viewingindividual organizations asrepresenotanvesof aglven typeof ~tructUle,
or byviewingorganizations asc?mponents mlarger systems of reloatlOns
o
Thae
open systemperspective isassociatedwiththedevelopment of stuodlesaimed t
understanding organizational sets, populations, and fields-toplCS wepursue
inChapters 6, 7, and80 o.
A lso, theopen systemperspective stres~es~heImport~nce of cultura!-co
g
-
nitiveelements intheconstruction of orgamzauonsoNothmg ISm<:>repOirable
than ideas-conceptions, models, schemas, andscripts.OrgamzatLons ~wlmIn
this cultural soup and continuously adopt andadapt these templates, mtend-
edlyand inadvertently. o o o o. .~ 'o"'"
Wearrive, then, at athird!i.~fuY~n~ useful for vlewmgorgamzatlO!1Sas \..j4; ~
open systems: Organizations ar(congenes ? : f mterdependent jlows and actunties [m/- ~')
ing shifting coalitions of paTticipanrs-7fioedded munder material-resource and mstzttt- / -
tianal environmentso. ,;.v')'\,.t!-"\ ~jof'; .._.o f
The open systemperspective isex~}catedmChapter 40
The foregoing three definitions varyin~ermsof theoretical perspective,
differing inwaystobeexamined in thefollowng three chapt~rsoThey al~odif-
fer in their underlying ontological assumptious. A reorgamzatJ Ons tobe~lewed
asentities, or as processes? The former istermoedby Emlrb~)'er (l99/! sub-
stantialist definitions; thelatter, relational conceptlOnsoSubstantialist d~fimnons
stressorganization; relational definitions, organizingoA sweW111 see, ratLona~and
natural systemtheorists are more likelyotoemploy substantialist definitions:
open systemtheorists, relational conceptlOns
o
o o
It isnodoubt unsettling tobeconfronted soearlywiththree suchdiverse
viewsof organizationso But better toknow theworst at the outset! The defini-
30 An Introduction to Organizations
,
tions arequite?~f~erentin that theynot onlyencompass somewhat divergent
trPes of col!e~t1Vltle~but alsoemphasize different facets of agiven organiza-
non. But thisISprecisely why theyareusefuI.Definitions areneither true nor:
falsebut areonlymore or lesshe1pfuI in callingattention tocertain aspectsof'
thephenomenon under study.Withtheassistanceofthese definitions andthe
more general perspectives w~th~hich theyare associated, wecan exp~ct tosee
an? learn ~ore ab.outorgaruzanons than wouldbepossiblewerewetoemploy
asl.nglepom~of~ew. A sweproceed, wewilI call attention tothe remarkably
varl
7
dportraits painted bytheorists embracing each of theconceptions, Each
has itso~ charms aswel!asitsownblemishes; andeach carries itsown truth
aswelI asItSownbiases.
SUM M ARY
Organizati?ns are imp?rtant objects.of study andconcern for many reasons.
They areVItalmechanisms for pursumg collectivegoals in modern societies.
They are~ot neutral to~lsbecausetheyaffectwhat theyproduce; theyfunction
as~ol!ectlveactors that independently possesscertain rights andpowers.Both
asmstruments andasactors, organizations areallegedtobethesourceof some
of co~tem~orary society's most serious problems. Organizations encompass
genenc social processes but carry them out bymeans of distinctivestructural
arrangements.
A l~ou~h anint:res~in.orga~izational formsandprocessesmaybetraced
far b~ckmhistory,.a? mstl~tlonahzed fieldof scholarlyinquiryfocusingon the
cre.atlon .andempirical tesung of generalized knowledge concerning organi-
zations d~dnot emerge until after 1950.This developrnent waslinkedwithand
greatly stl~ulate~ bythetranslation intoEnglishofMax Weber's historical and
comparauve studl.esof administrative organizations, conducted during thefirst
twodecades of thiscentury. Thefieldof organizational studieshas become in-
creasingly interdisciplinary.
. Organizations are st~died for many purposes andfrommany points of
Vle~.Imp?rtant basc::sof.dl~e~genceinclude variation among typesof organi-
zations, <:lifferencesIn disciplinary background of the investigators, whether
research ~saddressedt~more immediate andappliedproblerns or seekslonger-
t~rmb.aslc~nderstafo1dmg,andleve!of analysisse1ected.Three levelsof analy-
SIS areidentified: soc!al psych?~ogical,organizational structural, andecological.
. Three contrastmg definitions of organizations havearisen, eachassociated
withoneof three pers~c::ctive~onorgani.zati.ons:therational, natural, andopen
system: The first definition vrewsorgaruzauons ashighlyformalized collectivi-
tres.on~nted tothe pursuit of specific goals.The second definition viewsor-
gamzatlon~associal.syste~s, forgedbyconsensus or conflict, seekingtosurvive.
A nd.~e third.defim~on ~ewsorganizations asactivitiesinvolvingcoalitions of
partl~l~ants withvarymgmterests embedded inwider environments. The three
d~fim.tlonsframe analyticallyuseful, if partial, viewsof organizations basedon
differing ontological conceptions.
PARTTWO
hree Perspectives
n Organizations
In thiscentury, three more or lessdistinct perspectives haveb:en emplo~ed in
the study of organizational structure.' The term perspectwe IS used advisedly
sincewearedealing ineach casenot withasingle, unified model of orgamza-
tional structure but rather with anumber of varying approaches that bear a
strong familyresemblance. Thus, our concern.will bewith th:ee type.sof ap-
proaches or three schools of thought, the notion of per~pectlVeservmg as a
conceptual umbrella under whichwegather therelated views.T~addfurther
tothe complexity, the three perspectives partially conflict, parually overlap,
andpartially complement one another.
A nunderstanding of these perspectives isvaluable for several reasons. 1t
isverydifficult tocomprehend or tofruitfully utilizethelargeliterature on or-
ganizations without knowledge of the differing pe~spe.ctivesunderlymg this
work.:VVhy dosomeinvestigators assume that orgamzauonal goals arecentral
andobviouswhereas others presume that goalsaredispensable andcannot be
taken at facevalue? Whydoes one analyst assert that organizations havegre~t
difficulty in changing their structures while another assumes that change IS
easyandcontinuous? These arethekinds of issuesthat cannot beunderstood
without knowledgeof theunderIying perspectives that framethework.A !so,we
shouldexpect toreceivehelp not onlyin making senseout of past studies but
alsoinexamining contemporary effortsof organizational analysts.For although
these perspectives emerged at different times, later perspectlve~havenot suc-
ceededinsupplanting earIier ones.Whiletheyhave~een comb.med1Il. various
ways,asdiscussedin Chapter 5, theperspectives continue togUldeandinforrn
work in thefield,
The perspectives should beunderstood in twosenses.00theone hand,
theyarehistorical products-systems of ideasandpractice that developed and
heldswayinspecifictimesandcircumstances.Toco~pletely dl~orcethemfrorn
their context wouldbeamistake, sincemuch of their meamng IS historicallysit-
'Others have also classified organizational theories into broader categories. A mong ihe
more nteresung schemas are those proposed byBurrell and Morgan (1979), Pfeffer (1982), A st-
leyandVandeVen (1983), and Guilln (1994).
31