CHAPTER 30 WHAT MAKES ORGANIZATION? ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AS A ‘PRACTICAL SCIENCE’ PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELS@ INTRODUCTION ‘Tuar sociology and social theory continue to provide inspiration for scholars in the field of organization studies is beyond doubt, asthe present volume makes abundantly clear. Indeed, as one recent survey indicates, substantively, conceptually, and meth- odologically, sociology and social theory (broadly defined) provide some of the most significant inputs to the clusters of concern animating contemporary studies of organi- zation and organizing (Meyer & Boxenbaum, 2010). What we wish to explore in this chapter ate some of the effects of this ongoing importation for the role and purpose of organization studies, not least in relationship to its earlier ‘classical vocation’ as a practical science of organizing (O'Connor, 2012). Does the continued importation of sociological theorizing take organization studies closer to or further away from its core ‘object—organization? Does it add to or subtract from organization studies’ classical vocation? Indeed, does it matter either way? Although this is not the main manner in which concerns about the contemporary role, purposes, and standing of organization studies are predominantly framed, it nonetheless has clear ccnnections to a number of current debates within the field concerning, for instance, what scholars see as organiza~ tion studies’ increasing lack of practical relevance to and impact upon the conduct of management and organization (the issue of so-called ‘engaged scholarship’), and what, others see as its deficit of critical and ethical purchase (claims associated most obvi- ously with ‘critical management studies’ scholars). Certainly, so-called ‘grand societal challenges’ such as the financial and sovereign debt crises have given rise to an intensesrvaq ous puosiod, pare[posse ue paapul pure ‘soues, 40 uaunZodep ‘pmizne uP of Ay “Tourtad s19j9u au0yoiaip Aoatp woneztueBs0 2ssep wre) 31 Jo 9sn AMO ;PueH we woHHEN “sot, 91 way on ase 2424 Uys aM 530 PENI BOM otf, O} VORDAUUOD IOP #}0wOg dover so} ssousansaye reuoteaueB10 Uo snao} yeanesd Fea ou ‘pue ‘reymsod {aq uoryeun|dxo yo wonenyeaap pure worioejtessipv (2s sad saouatos 930 1891409 A OF sear eosusioe Azones0ge] 2tf 01 a{gionpad Jou tons se pur sBpamoury jo ynsind paustd sip at Jo 998 we1zoqay4 219 Ut Axbue jo sts} gua 30) uoHeaIApE we But “oeay eavapusosuen 10 8x of mame oqaypAUe we ‘2ouss9dko oe aed ig sn so pozyraseseyp ue, snonwnuoDsip Ayesicstg pus ‘parouuoosyp Ale "gonna pasrodstp AeanydesS038 v 12210 ess ytrads uy Auoayn wonesueio jeatsep, win pantaoas sip Koydap aq yeonnesd pu Aerayatul t304 se4PMs WOR soraedo Aaeroduiaquos Jo Yseas pue 2oueAd]ax at aaueyua o 24328 190 Ku {309K UoreriueBio >yssep, Jo s2ounosay ayp Jo uoneLdarddess pus vim waweSeSue 21 Pert “Tonnxaquoo Aygenns © yeuy pu iuasaid ayy uoRDe axey propa Ae EHD ,S99142P Jnqeaseuoretuedso, jaja pu we.yuis aus0s 0552008 joau dsp aut Butaadapso pur 23/qo 3109 saipnis uonezueBs0 Suseaddestp 20 usjossp Jo 199 aH 34eM HHH TRyuaunturuio> [eoisdydeyau Z0 2] ueW0s jo 728 B uo pase Aytzeuid s} wondumsse St) seu uasard ogy uy angp uostes 10 uopdeN Ox Or aI pH sez a0} AUEUTHO pid se payeany Nou az sjoo} 259i ‘Suose2y sno} 10} sey fuoHWztUEO—1oafqo 2409 ‘emo st 0} uoRe[ss wr syesi padeys AB sey 31 (430s 0s PE Yeonyte Tearutpay ‘Tent vGeou0s) sfooa Jo 1aquuntr esodsip su sey Suz140.0 fo auay2s pouzoad vse Pawsaia ‘sarpms uonenueB.o weg) suonysodord Buumoos ayy 2 wausnre ano jo WP2M HD ry “seep asaup onus uonuaasaqut padoyenapuapun Aygensaut pue uus ¥ Buuayo se {uses 9 plno> yap auouunre Jo aut agissod U0 ano Y>rayS [HM 26 ‘SO|!O] EUS AT gaye ausoddo ays Ap23m1p ano 248tu 2 Sorpmas worezrue8s0 jo saums0} Xp UH TealAds w Yon 05 [enUetod ap sevaxsut suieysut 05 x09tp [e}90s pure ABojo}20s wos sida2uo> pue se1109Hf JO SOS tue99 jo uorenzodury ponuiguo> at fs ‘tjes2ue8 azou aumnjon sty ‘PaepuL Pu deyp sy go sua2u09 ayy 01 wort ul Xqyeaytoeds az0y4"Ceroe “HHP 298 SOUPHS qian, jo aopsead axp 0} Bueuxoxdde ues Aaeurdzep jo worewe}09s 8 20} 924 Su is am squauunse jo sos at 0} payoauuooun You ‘sy[9 u9eq axe 2194) 224) ‘aootp yto0s pu ABojor20s Azesoduseiuo> Jo saszoatun renadaouon pur s21e4—P 248 295 sje snq ‘swore. jo uaurofeuet pu yuouafuesze ajqsuodses pur us!oy oA spay ip uodn pasnoo}auydisip waned wse spas wowen e810 [esas #40} 1Ue4 var Ajo you sdeysod axe stonsanb yong jAxfe>n9, pep pue‘souesaay [eaH201d “ypeas Axor xo sy 2449403 Snipe 37EyDsNs24 0 2409 94 UPD TEKH Pu asw 3A aren ius dys og —wopemueBs0—alqo a0 sy Buncoye sass940rn40> [eoRHod pur oyignd ainae 03 anquziuo> 01 2p] ey sey serpms wonezte8s01 pay a4) 20} SHOR onb jiey1odt awsos sasod sixp yeqp 2ai8e ypog dau ‘peepU “ParoU axe Soypms wa “Beueu [eanus puv dlysroups paBe¥ue jo sayeooape p04 se “(600% ‘sdjatid ‘6008 vray puonny 600% shuouorg)wso>u09 jo ssayets pares Pur stip uo stegP 2nd jo uot ayy uso aasqe Aigeaoiou u29q sey soypmas uoqEATUERLO Jo 2of04 ay ang Fut v jue8i0 pe BuiSeueus jo saoncid pue sutsou Arezodurquoo ata jo wonesapssuones (EL aONGIDS TOLLOVUG, ¥ SV KUORHL TYNOLLVZINVOEO738 PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO it. This allows us to cover a wider range of work than more restricted usage would allow, Alongside such figures as F. W. Taylor, Henri Fayol, Mary Parker Follett, and Chester Barnard (very much the usual ‘classical’ suspects), we will also include, for example, the work of Erie Trist, Bric Miller, and Wilfred Brown, nother words, inthis chapter our core task isto attempt to re-engage contemporary organization studies with classic organization theory, and not simply those ofits feeder? disciplines, or indeed with the latter’ ‘contemporary currents. Rather, we suggest that there may be potentially more to be gained for organization studies in reconceiving itself 8s a practical science of organizing in the manner of its classical antecedents and the stance associated with them, and thus in cultivating a renewed interest in its own ‘canon’ of concepts and tools, than there is in continuing to look to sociology, social theory, anda veritable host of other disciplines and interdisciplinary fields either for theoretical Aighs, critical capacity building, or that contemporary holy grail, ‘relevance and impact! In making our case, we connect with some ofthe arguments for rereading the classics articulated by Paul Adler (2009) in the companion volume to the present Handbook, but inflect them ina rather different direction. Adler (2009: 7) argued that organization studies ignored its classical sociological foundations a its peril, not least, he suggested, because the latter ‘provide us not only with paradigms for rigorous engagement with big issues, but also with powerful concepts for making sense of these kinds of issues, ‘The pertinence ofthe classical sociological heritage to the explanatory power, reach, and rel- évance of contemporary organization studies, he argued, was clear and present. We sug- gest that a reconnection with classical organization theory hasa not dissimilar potential for the feld of organization studies. Indeed, these twin moves can, o some extent, pro= ceed hand in hand. However, there are points at which they clearly part company. While certain forms of classical sociology, not least that of the Max Weber ‘reconstructed’ by Wilhelm Hennis (1988, 2000, 2009),* have considerable affinity with the programme for ‘erganization studies as a practical science that we wish to sketch here, others operate in an entirely different register, and, as such, are not easily recuperable to such a pro- ‘gramme,’ Much as practising the sociology of science and doing natural science are fot the same project (they involve quite different tasks, and their respective facts ‘dis- covery’ procedures, mechanisms of justification, and so on are therefore non-reduci- be, even if the boundaries between them can and do shift over time) (Collins, 1992), or doing contextual empirical history and doing philosophical history are different moves in different games (Fish, 1994; Hunter, 2009; Pocock, 2004), 50, oo, conceiving of organization studies as a practical science of organizing necessitates exercising a degree of care when it comes to the appropriation of theories and concepts from sociology and social theory, To put it bluntly, while organization studies will undoubtedly continue to borrow and translate theories and concepts from other fields, if sto approximate to a Practical science in the manner we suggest, not any old (or new) theory or concept will do. This is an important point, because the sorts of concepts appropriate to or requisite for the conduct of organizational analysis asa practical science differ considerably from many of those that have permeated sociology and social theory (and many other disci- plines and fields in the social sciences and humanities) in recent years, as a result of theaug ‘suorez|ueB10 uy pur 01 paride aq o1 saydiouad retsodeuewt yessaajun, 10 2188qJ0 antouiadav azjeuiaysks pur aye{nutioy 01 Supjaas se payuasazdas axe (12€ :S00t ‘U24pA) (p39 uosiad jerpos, atp pue a9 1uawaBeueur 3ynustos atp, uaamiag soBury, 2188e]9 $e) ppueuzeg s2ys040 pur ra|joy sm[eg Aseyy ospe nq PIA TePUAT pue [oder HUH “aoueysty 10) Buypnyou; seandy jo duos ayesedsyp © ‘uorypest e148 UI “(1007 "RO 3B ~auyeys) Azoays uotreztueSi0 21sse]>, 20 (6L6t ‘Moueg) Avoatp ywauraBleueUE 285e)>, ‘paulioy st 7eym sKemye ysouspe s| ano} [e>qLOIsIY at UF I[P2 Jo Wod say aya “ay}0 ay tuo Surpjoy-201yo anessneaing jo soyja ayy pue ‘puey 2uo a\p UO ‘snoge| Jo aU ous aqnz0y9 atf uy sisozayu aarpaadsan Tou) pur J9qaM XE PUR 0}Ae] MOIST ypuapaig Jo 310m quapuadapur Ajjenynur ay) tio ou ueyE ayo axour ‘Bunsedaq “(Adoo jenuasse, 243 4x2qU09 soqpoUe Ur “poutial (9g6t) uosKag rey) sourEUAP Jeuonequefio pur suotyeziueBi0 Jo uo|suayasduso> pareanisiydos AjBurseas5ut Ue JO Surpjojun ayy Bupsey> aanexzeu (es!Boor]a1 wousle sooueysuy wos uy) zeynBuys & ‘out suorinqysiuco asizayp pue Aue ayy 108 01 Azeorsno st 9 “(uoues, Aseuryd:2sip -raquy 30 Axeuyjdiosip v ‘paaput pue “soysty © yons 21212 07 sidwane sdempe ysourye are yptyss) saypnas woneztue8i0 Jo Auoisty ay, Jo siuno22e jexauaé Jo zaquinu © Uy XUOAHL NOILVZINVOYO OISSVID, STUVMOL SAIGALS NOLLVZINVOUO 40 FONVIS LNATVAIGNY FHL, s39a(qo 9109 umo atau “woxy Aeave JaUzaTy aAoW asfALJ9XH0 10 ‘puansuren oy wey so4res "02 80) 198 01 Bupj228 spay 494RO 1 (626t‘ssneyy) LOEWE snoiGinsasd, jo aoinos v jo Sutypatuos ‘paaput pue ‘sorpn's Uoneztue810 Aresodwia40> anaas 01 Aem fapiny Ayjeuajod esrayo ospe t Buyzroaypfeuorez|ueBs0 ArexoduaIUo> ‘ypnur 0} ysesit09 uy LZoayp woReatUEBL0 oissep> Jo 1oMpUCD axp INOge AATIOUSIP sf YM ‘oy se sanpp awios sapiaaid ‘aansneyx Aijeatzoasty wei s¥9] 2q “atssa0au Jo “EM YIU uosiad sty) Jo wun0228 ja14q &YeIN PUR “Usad~IO> jeoxIDeAd se LORZIUEAIO UO sn0} e Aq paureysns ‘euossod uteys99 2 Jo 2pstiarzesey> st a2treys 20 apmanre styp 1eKp ansre ose {1s ag “pure re worenais ayy 0} 2ouaz9jau 3neuBexd pue seap ¥ aney EUs sIda>u0> [e> sunduua, asisaid dojaaap 03 ‘spiom soto wu *(z9 :9P6t uous) suoHENYS“91qeAI9sq0 Ajjeotaidura 03 puodsass0s, eip sidaot03 jo 128 e dojanap 0} sf a2uap9s eanzead v se sot -pmis wojjeztue840 jo wia9u09 jean e yeiplanBse am Ax0—4p3 [e}20s pu ABO}O1>08 UIYALA Burzuoayy Su1oSuo pue yuaza1 YoU os Jo AsHaIZese4> 2ouNs Je2isyde aut SII OF seayto9 uy Puy ze UoHEMES axp OF Jesop UA JayTeS OY Aeate JoMPATY sn SuPer PE ‘uonecture810, 29{qo 2109 51 Sutzeaddestp jo ‘Soxpms wowreziui80 30 Prey oy EAs Lay “ange pempayetuy ue se daa ayp pey sey ‘wore ua}20 ut yeotsdydeyour ApoB s138988ns an yoru juatOLY, sip Jo aNstaI>eTeY qta uy YauUEU ay LOH} 2s 02 pouunsse st AINUAPI, ‘aoueysut 10} yBnowp Jo sauy stjermInays-asod UT ‘(PIEY TeAH UILATA Axoarp Jo wawOL, ‘ayy Jo uoneautiad ayp Jo aisas v se asea] you ‘savoA yua221 Ut ‘SaIpmys woreZTUEBLIO UT ‘poopur‘pue) A1oaya Jo yuatout ap, ur a8xt] 0s pany sey yetp Aanuapr, Jo wonsanb ayy ase siya Uy ‘ojdurexo ue of Ayaq usm am gt apmanae sti jo dses8 sazea]> © 398 we> ay ‘uoneznewajqord aures siqi {Jo yinsar e se jeuoneyuasaidas 10 s}aiziduta asjanisod paussap sauyidiostp Jo Aesze tue jo Suppomar pue ucneziewo|qoad yeorydosonyd ay seajoauy ‘parsaBns axcy aM se ‘2oueys ® Yong “(saa1Bap 1uazayEp 01 1 UqIYXo Aayp ‘2sIN03 Jo “yBNoysye) UAL “yiodap jenj2ajjaiuy 30 ‘apne ‘oounys sejmortied v Aq sayyes anq ‘aBenBupy [e>11a10 “au ajBuys e 104 42afgo uourwo> v Aq saxpiau payrum aze siuaurdojanap vssoayp asayy ‘paisaB8ns ancy am sy ‘susmy aouse1d, pus eLiareW, ayy ‘Sz0yn20|s27U) [POND FEHN uu ‘paopur ‘pur ‘suany ermyjno, pue fantsanostp, ;2HsINBuyT, up ut ¢(wstanonsrsuor, jyuue juoredde sane] ayy pue) ‘wisluopaNsysuOD [e1905, pue ws|ULepoURsod, se ‘uonjanaysuoaap pure us|[esmioniys-sod ‘wistfemm42n28 Jo Sw} snoLseA UI ‘SHOR eysaylueur aanounsip Jo saqunu ® ut paoeysns aq we> 3] “(auIoa sip “62 saideyD ssastds 298) Az0aip Jo WaWOW ayp, se pazliaIoesey am 2oUeyS 40 apne THN JO tpmoid ays uaaq sey $0961 aye] ay) aous soouat>s [e190 pure saxyuEwNY aqp UL SWLAUE -doyeaap jemioajjovuy jenuanyu sour atp Jo atio ‘ay[zea paye>!puy am sy “stead Wu9901 uy sarpms uonezlueBz0 pur ‘Azoayp [8190s KBojo1208 Jo aaejrayut ays we paBsoura asey oy uvsyrudis sow ayy Aypressa0au sou ‘Kuo ayy stueaw OW Aq axe WoeZIUEBLO ay yo Suisn2ojap Butkuedwioore stay pue suotveziiewa(qozd aayaunstp O98) 2524s, +((tt0e) Aapreg ‘sou sur 10j 298 ‘oataay 07 a5 ose am yeYN aOUENS SSE, 24 JO S19UON -poesd aip Jo attos 0 :0m axp uo swexp Yoryas “aoayp feuoRMNsU UEKI AouspUAT yons isuteBe ste 0} [29 10, “1661 ‘orBBePyICL 1g JPMOd SHOET MaUOIMONS ¥ UD1I0) untuesBordsteuot naieul at apnppul pinom ‘souaxznozau, pue spay, S240), se suoN -euBisop Burypues9ao yans spremoy wuauraBeuew aansaya pue ajqisuodsas soup pue san fue aja.osip se suortezre810 jo sBupjom saul ayy toss Aeate sazpms worez|UEHLO Ut asoxaqut Aqrejoyos Bunzaup Jo i2ayo ayp pey axey uoneue|dxe Buyyfeyo3 0} uorsuarard Sujsvasour asoyn nq ‘[ey>0d3-uoU AYpapHap aze yTyM Burzwoaxp parry Ajre>:8o] 01008 Jo sajdurexo jenuenyur say1o aBuey> Ajsnonunt09 04 Auge 2yp pur ‘spaymowry qqqpeay ‘toeaouu 30} Azedeo e Bunejnums ye pawure BuyzieBr0 Jo sassaa0ud Bur -o8uo 0} panoe Suiaq Ayz012d v 0% ‘vio s2nut ‘Spea| SIUL, 129(Go ay2s2sIp & Se U9AD 10 ;Aqun e se uopeztueBi0 arp Surzaoap Jo 19ayo ath sey or MIsUOD asoyM‘suOHeUBIs=p ‘umoU-tjom ys0u axp Jo autos ysn{ Inq aureL 0} (6007 ‘|]238eD) AOS a20MIRH, E10 pure (c66t j20g) Aza208 ysts yeqof8 (9461 ‘oq AraI208 [eLsNpU-asod e pasarua Key 2a et “vio s97u “patute UD9q SEY] axayM “UoHIDUULOfsUDAs [039!205 fo seLLoayp joyI0dE {Jo a8tues e ‘soueysty 20, ‘9pnypuy 1yBru am ‘ouasajax jo yUIod ajqeis e se uoNEZIUEAIO {yj Jo suonezteurai god pauuesy Aqpe2\Bojo1s0° Jo 291396 eeappu AiBuqussa8 a4 BuaUTy SNOILVZILVWATAOUd FO saluag Y Th SONAIOS TYOLLOVYA, ¥ SV AUOSHL TYNOLLYZINVOWO:742 PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO by disavowing and repressing its ‘other’ Itis this repression/occlusion that gi ‘other’ the capacity to break through its disavowal and throw fragile identity into the flux of becoming. As Hunter (2006: 81) puts it, {T]he notion that identity is the tempo- rary fixing of consciousness by the occlusion of the transcendental phenomenon—the phenomenon whose ruptural appearance calls forth a higher and more fluid form of self—is endemic in poststructuralist thought. We see this, for instance, in the practice of Derridean deconstructive hermeneutics, where the affirmative meaning of a text is taken to be the product ofits repression or marginalization of contradictory or subver- sive meanings; while the recovery of these through deconstructive reading is taken to be the undoing of positive meaning. Here, the figure of ‘the other, together with the whole architecture of occlusion and transcendence (breakthrough), is part and parcel ofa prac- tice of self-problematization and self-transformation—a spiritual exercise, in Hadot’s (1994) words—through which an individual learns to inhabit a post-structuralist per- sona. And this persona is not without its attractions. It appears to offer its practitioners a Aistinct muscle of the spirit or mind whose exercise allows it to float free of the bounda- ries and lines of demarcation that shape consciousness—those boundaries and demar- cations that disavow the other—and thus to remain forever unsettled * ‘The ‘moment of theory; then, emerges from a work of philosophical problematiza- tion and transformation performed on a variety of positive knowledges. As Foucault (4970) indicated in The Order of Things, linguistics, sociology, and the ‘psy’ disciplines can be seen to emerge from @ certain kind of interrogative work performed on the positive knowledges of classificatory language studies, political economy, and biology. According to Foucault, the space in which this interrogation took place, and in which the human sciences emerged, isa field formed by three poles: mathematical formaliza- tion, the positive knowledges themselves, and a specific use of Kantian critical philoso- phy. The latter in particular performs a special role in enabling theory to approach the positive knowledges not in terms of their objects, but in terms of the a-positive struc- tures or relations that make knowledge possible fora subject. ‘This then raises the question: what drives this philosophical problemtization of posi- tive knowledges? As we have already seen, Ian Hunter's (2006) answer concerns the forms of self problematization that informs the activity of theory. He points in particular to the influence of Kantian and Fusserlian techniques ofself problematization—meansofacting on oneself with a view to suspending one’s commitments to one’ thoughts, perceptions, desires, etc —through which the theorist learns to problematize an objectby interrogating hisor her commitment to the positive knowledgein which the object resides: ‘This applies to all the founding moments of theory; for example, when itis said that meaning is never present and is only accessible in a deferred way through 8 chain of signifiers; or when itis said that historical time is only an appearance generated by a-temporal concepts unfolding themselves in the human sensorium; ‘or when it is said that speech is the manifestation of deep structure, or a genera- tive grammar. Each of these moments of doubt is contingent on an act of suspen- sion of commitment performed on oneself with a view to becoming another kind ‘of person, (Hunter, 2006: 5)seep 0} sapuasgjay‘a0te3su 105 Buyzruei0 jo 598522034 Jo sarpms paures;Aljeorydos anyd pue Myeanosoayp fepos ‘AyeorBojoros yu pareposse ABuyseasour aw029q 1x aeypmis wopeaiuvdso ey “sinser> rapun ind uaaq Afenpex® axey ‘Yons se (sens {p uy) uowrezrue8,0 Jo eapt aya “paapul pue ‘Lzootp worezyueBio atsse]> Burz9}>ere4> Suess aya yrog “{sapIsaq s12430 pu) aaoge pauiyino suonez}eura|qoud atp jo nso PSY LoaldQ TVOLLOVAd V SY NOILLVZINVDUO AHL ONIGTUOSA -soSpaqsouny (K2eu01sn/990 29uay pur) aanisod, se seou2}95 eau! euoppes spieaor Ansoy pue Jo essiusip But1an292 v 0 pal sey SIU HoNeZUEHIO, po an 300fgo wip 823 10U's139(Go axNDUNSIP Uo 3} wo>OM 01 Ind WAG aaEy (SHIRE to, 4) ssAou Furpung) si 34u0 aymansuo> wip souy|dosip potato 2tp Jo sBupyz0ma1 otydosoqiydgosauosayy‘soxpnas uoneztuez0 urn Bers 221420 paxou sey As03t JO trawowu,ayp sy ‘sognsor sorpmis yuoUoBeuEU! [2919 jo Ayseindod Buywos8 puv a2ue8 sata at se ‘paaiaou09 Aypeoug ‘saypmus Uortez|ueau0 Jo pray aqp url SupyioN kueU! i aaneme parord Ayureuseo sey yelp aznye we sta “pareWsazapun 29 10U PINOYS 3522 ‘ond ut sfenye, Bulag jo aanyfe ayy pur euosrad smotsaud v ayo a “u99s axey Om Se “Kuo jap ouny annsod jo sure aq ut sn suey s94arey o Buyastn snonunue> su puokag Burrpaue yo adoy 2tp ano ploy—ioutiodep 10 2oueys e se—aBpaynouny-Hue yo aopzead axp soop inet “Spnyp30 1F YoTyAL wey) JO anoAe) ur aBpeywowy Jo [esos bua 38paqmounc- rae Jo auo st aySisu sup Aq paptrep 1uaunsodap ayy ‘is08Bns (F651) tgsta sy aap, sm seutnboe a} exp a¥payow>e OUTED I suo|sN}>xe ayn Jo amas Aq quo st paapu; pu sjeanos 1 wey axow Buypniax2 aq shee in szeadde wuz 2049 “get ul 2908 pes 02 Pamo|fe aq Prnoys 1ey) SuryroULOs YoU S| ABpapHOU BpapOUr 4jo suayuo> Azessooou ays 29U8J008131 Py “uouy “si Woy seo} 1 a8 ABOU yo aaryminsuo9 aq 01 pauaap sry st *(uavouy aq saajestuatp TOWED yeIp SuOHEPUO?) 28pa “moun Jo suommpuoa Surjqeua axp Jo Buma8.0j ay 22ues0U8“(papnyo2o awornq) 24 0 tuaas Aaty wey; aloumasye zeadde Ajyennse spunoi8 asoup os auop 531 Sut f J9N9u—y pue saypqissod sito spunos8 ayy aureU 20 ‘dses8 youue> 3! 8poyowy sy 3/88! J0 LOIS “sossod ut 2g j0utie> afpaynouny Aue yey s‘253n0> jo ‘ureu HK TEU S9}geUa A OHS “ypoads aun--sodoso oye suretos—spaooxa saeae pue pay!oads 2q oud 3, 10290 cioneayezads wpiyas urge punos8 payejnonseun ai st (22ubuAfip 20 snorsuo>un 24R) tuaysds ye1g 20315 "1 urns paeNys axe ams asre39q ‘sanasino a>UEIIp YoULIED ‘S210 ho suoyeads soon uptqowoxy oneynaqre jo weiss w Aq poonpoud axe sBurueaw weep usvo| am ‘2sinB aarionarsuoaap 30 anAfeuvoypAsd weyue2e' si uy sulio} Aueus Sy patonzsuoo Ages ave ng yexmeu pu Suypuesssoyj ou axe sBueous wep ssoKp Ut ‘pourysuy 204 1anpuoo eni2oj[aiu| J0UUL Jo apoul ese saBpa]aouy asoyp oF UoHeye [et “aoystxo east otp ut ys ©1399 0 PUR 2ouapIA2-9 29Kp JO WYP qos 1 paLBIs9P ‘aspid 6 safpay our, aanisod Jo woneaeurarqord re2jshyderaut 20 jeorydosonud 34, EhL _aDNEIOS TOTLOVMA, V SV AUOSHL TVNOLLVZINVOXO ano presi) Supedouan ‘suondanra: Sup2ejosn aq on zen sua st -ysod jo uot -onans aunt ayy ypeosds sosojiyd Te: -eyyeutoy OTM UP ABojoIg po ‘ayy uo pav sauyydiesip ymeanoy $ -PaeWaIe -rewiap pu -eptinog at esiauonn: red ysqeat S)0ptH UI ~peid BOK arom ay aqoruayes ~faaqns 20 14x91 @j0 aonoesd ot Jo wicy pr ay)—vous -oduuray ay amp ow Aa amy saa744 PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO organization theory now often serve simply as exemplars of anachronistic and ‘ideologi- cally’ loaded thinking against which contemporary theoretical conceptions can parade their novelty and sophistication. Interestingly, though, there is also another side to this particular coin, one coming from the so-called ‘classic writers'to those who would posi- tion themselves as somehow more sophisticated ‘analysts’ of organizational life. As Barnard himself putit: Always, itseemed to me, the social scientists—from whatever side they approached— just reached the edge of organization as I experienced it, and retreated, Rarely did they seem to me to sense the processes of codrdination and decision that underlie @ large partat least of the phenomena they described. (Barnard, 1968 [1938]: xxix) Viewed from this angle, drowning the organizational baby in the bathwater of social’ explanation, or subjecting it to philosophical reworking in order to problematize its self-evidence and ‘positivity,’ is precisely to evacuate ‘organization’ of any ofits determi- nate content, and to deprive practicing managers of empirical conceptual tools that can help to specify their tasks, authority, accountabilities, and responsibilities, and which might prove useful for ordering their daily work. The rigorous definition of concepts and operating procedures attempted, in their different ways by Urwick, Parker Follett, Barnard, and Brown, for instance, was an exercise that substantially increased the intel- lectual and practical resources through which managers in an organization could seek to take effective action, This does not mean that all such resources were used, but @ tool-making job was undertaken that had not been done before, and the tools had to be ‘made available before people could avail themselves of them. ‘As we have already indicated, the concepts or ‘tools’ that each developed were crucial for the development of organization theory as a practical science of organizing, as well as giving impetus to the development of a distinctive discipline. In effect, they helped formulate @ vocabulary for representing and intervening in ‘organization’ and ‘man- agement’ in both intellectual and practical terms, and opened up scholarly debate over their respective content, wider implications, and mutual relationships. As organization theory became an increasingly recognized academic field, with it came a sense that its early founders, although worthy pioneers, were largely working at somewhat rudimen- tary formulations, and in a rather conjectural or ‘proverbial’ manner (Simon, 1946). However, one key question is whether later scholarly innovations and theoretical con- tributions, including some of those listed above, really have added a significantly more precise, sophisticated, or useful appreciation of organization? For Perrow (1979: 38-9), the answer is quite clear: though the clasical theory was derided for presenting ‘principles’ that were really only proverbs all the resources of organizational research and theory today have not ‘managed to substitute better principles (or proverbs) for those ridiculed [...] These principles have worked and are still working, for they addressed themselves to very teal problems of management, problems more pressing than those advanced by social science. In the ‘classics ‘organiza indicate addresse might st responst Manyo zation | Both differer cupyin tte sho (with t forth, : mative ‘hierar (or or} alities, 'ssom if ‘req? partic cept c share incon Barne Exece For is,an hispr A 81 saysrununp qeup yptes & “Ino paruze> aq ued asodand ayp yeUp Jotfaq ap saxINba ssauduyia smuy “wasds aanerodoo> ay) 0) $9010} aynqryUO> 03 sfeNpIAIpUT Jo ssouBuriia 242 ut sox] suoprezyue8.0 Jo Aneyta au, *[°""] asodind wourwo> © ‘ystyduros22 0} (€) wonse aingzsyto> 03 Sunn axe OY (2) s94 Y>eD YAIM 918 -junusuz03 0) 2]ge suosiod axe axoyp (1) ways Bujaq om ssuIED uoREAUEBIO UY asodand, s| Bojouruiay paxzayaad sy [Bronze ‘ean20{qo 20 je08 eynspized e puoe 1042980 pan ajdoad jo uorreBar8Be wes] ey —uais(s annezodooo e sv aanieu sis] uoneziueBio ue Jo aouassa amp ‘preuseg 10g “annex iy fo suoroung ayy, sty ut Ajsnourey you pautfyno suone|MUtsos UEYI99 pue ‘preUEG aiso49 quis wiBaq sn 197 JauHs04 ay) Jo 20m BurZ2au0Id ayy mou a]qeAraou03NT grea astas upersa9 e ur Buraq reste] aq as ‘Saou quasar Ajrurey yo xaquinu e axeys sey Azeustd axp, Jo rdaou0> saory pue s9]|4 pue asodind yeuoneziueBio, o 1409 tuo gpzeuzeg ‘pautpino soos yenidasuo> om atp ‘paapuy“puey ye uoneNns reinsped (1 01 uone|a! wt poorsrapun AjpuadunuoD are gjqisuodsas, pu ‘aan>aye, ‘aisinb2s, 3 'asa spajquuosse, ‘wlorpt Arexoduraquo> ayy ut ‘10 saypa8or nd aq ues wey BuyypaUI0s 81 toneziueBio aiqistodsas, pue aanaya, 10 ‘ajsinbay, eq) wapt au Buyeys yA ‘sarae uouttios annaunstp Buracy se uaas AyferidAs rou (saotaap Aayjeas jouolrezsueBI0 10) sdaou02 om azojdxa am ‘ones sity UT ‘souRIsu 10} {AdesoMeasNG, pue ‘AyDresaIY, soy, ‘pueuiuo>, pure ‘uonezioMpne, pue Aaproune, se Yons sidaou0> {(suisay anew! Jou ‘paquosepzapun Aijenbo pue ‘pasoddo Ajeotaiaureyp ui paysnos ysnoyye “yas05 's pu uonenounr, ‘afuey>, auauriamoduis, Yum sto|ssasqo jennuu same] acy YEA) eoniaa pu sendod ‘sishjeue jeuoneztueBu0 Jo suis0) Aureus ut spaom Arp Jo u0YS app 2H] aw009q axey sidaau0. Is8e)>, autOg ‘aoUeys 218Se1> aN Jo SIauOAADeAd arp SuLkdn9 aid asouy 01 zeadde siy 18 pyniom 31 05 40 ‘suiaouo> pue sydaouon Jo syi0s waLayIp g patdnasoa:d are ‘s1wapere pure 1uey|nsti0D ‘saojo feorD pue weansuTeUr og 2g1{ (euomez|veBL0 Jo Uo|ssnostp Aserodurayu09 uy aBre] asnSy 198uoj ou Az09\p ONEZ ueBio ur aoueis 2188e]9 ayp so ssauoAsesd Aq padojaaap sjoor jemadaouo> ayp jo AUEYY NOILVZINVOUQ Od STOOL, 1ASVL AAVWIAd, INV Asodund, ‘suoneqiuedz0 jo wuawiaBeueus ajqsuodsax vue ‘aanoaga quarsya ayy moge sareqap Arezoduraquos 01 jryasn aaoad jjus aySluE oot pure aauess sane] ayn Aya pure ‘souers, zenoned eo aaneoIpUl se wiayy passasppe qf Yotyo ur soutteus ayn ‘passaxppe asam Aaqp Y>Iys 01 SUa}gord ayy {frog ayeo:pUL "1.05 op am “stauonNDeAd sit Aq parerogelP 51001, 40 Sa>taap Aayjea1 [euorreztUEBLO, 9 Jo om to seInaqiaed uy Bunenuaouos ‘Lioayp uorrez|ueBs0 IyNIM asus orssep>, 1p Jo suonnnginu0. ay) Jo at0s Uo AyaLIG st20) 0} yas am ‘uoNDas BuLMoIO} aI UT ¥L ZONAIOS TYOLLOVYd, V S¥ AUOTHL TYNOMLVZINVOUO 4a p» Aan 01 94 [ ou axe Aqjeai 2 “(C95 1606 aiour Apue -u39 peona “(964 “uot -uoumpnay suze as uonezue8, Jato areqay -ueu, pus padjay kay pa se Buy [pn ar98 2q01 pey sy © ang ‘pasn 24925 pjno> | =]8W atp pe ‘naqog 192 sidaouo> jo wry pue + ‘ueDIeYN S100 UU2I2P 51 ‘3 azreuray 4181205, 30 (xe vamp Pip Aare poypec Sv 1 Teu0 -ts0d pjnoas: siy3 01 apis. apemd ue>s -#Bo}09p1, pu une ane icc748 PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO the vanishing point as it appears that itis not in fact in process of being attained (Barnard, 1968 [1938]: 82) Individuals have their own purposes (in fact Barnard saw ‘purpose’ as a defining feature of the personal too), yet what binds together people in organizations, or ‘cooperative systems, isthe addition of a common purpose; something which can only be achieved through an organized effort. Without a common purpose, an organization withers away and leaves people with only their personal purposes; a truth which is simultaneously self-evident and elusive: ‘The necessity ofhaving a purpose is axiomatic, implicit in the worés‘system: ‘coordi nation; ‘cooperation: Itis something thet is clearly evident in many observed systems of cooperation, although it is often not formulated in words, and sometimes cannot beso formulated, In such cases what is observed is the direction oreffect of activities, from which purpose may be inferred. (Barnard, 1968 [1938]: 86)* ‘At the same time, the cooperative purpose has a dual nature seen from each organiza- tional member's point of view, comprising both a ‘cooperative’ and a ‘subjective aspect, i.e the general purpose and the particular significance which the cooperative purpose has for each cooperating person. Those two aspects may overtime some to drift apart to 4 point where the individual understandings of the cooperative purpose are no longer overlapping: [A] purpose can serve as an element of a cooperative system only so long as the par- ticipants do not recognize that there are serious divergences oftheir understanding of that purpose as the object of cooperation. If in fact there is important difference between the aspects of the purpose as objectively and cooperatively viewed, the divergences become quickly evident when the purpose is concrete, tangible, physi- cal; but when then the purpose is general, intangible and of a sentimental character, the divergences can be very wide yet not recognized, (Barnard, 1968 [2938]: 87) Accordingly, Barnard sees the purpose of an organization as something that must con- tinually be framed and communicated in order to establish the very premise of the cooperative system with its few or many individual participants: ‘The inculcation of belief in the real existence of a common purpose is an essential executive function. It explains much educational and so-called morale work in polit- ical, industrial, and religious organizations thats s0 often otherwise inexplicable. (Barnard, 1968 [1938]: 87) Yet, itis an inculcation that requires both a moral stance ofthe executive, since personal motives and organizational purpose can easily be mistaken for ecch other, and a con: stant analysis ofthe organization asa whole and its possibilities and limitations:? {]t should be noted that, once established, organizations change their unifying pur- pose. They tend to perpetuate themselves; and in the effort to survive may change theastoaud ‘pajetap ® paptsoud 1 :s1>0dso1 ov ur fensmun sea a ‘ou aup Jo 2942198 [e190 ‘01 voninqunUoD e sy “AS6r “yLOpUIEG 2g ISU) SuMIeD-TeOD Jo poUTAYY [LeMBUOT a4 {Jo sanuanbasuog peo8ojoupAsg PuE RID0g altos, papLIUa suoHDeY umluNFY UI ap>TTe ‘ue poysygnd suonejay ueumEL Jo aymMpsU] YPOSLACL, a JO srOqUIAL OM “S64 UT “yas yse1 ayy jo ‘uon -eouoads asioaud 40 uaurayers [ny & yp snouAwouAs Aqjeo}seq aure>aq aali2a{qo-yse1 jo quauroyeys Aue “vorupen siyp Wr s291Lum 203 Moy MOUS 01 Yo9s AyeIIG ITI 2M PUL IPI Teioard zou wana ue pasinboe yse1 Aseustsd, o uonow ay SoH ayn UI “(96t} 986t ‘ypsi07] 3p a0uauae] £1961 toyeag 3g SUNG) ys! D15Eq Sy WUALEBTe aoqe at YRIM aU] uy Ajatajduros ‘pur Bojouysay ato> sy ‘20ueySUt 40) $1098) JPUOHEMUS, Jo saqumnu e uo Surpuadap pafeuew pue paSuesse Ayjeanionais aq isnt uoneziueBi0 Aue 3eya Inq ‘asuudiaqua ue Suyziue8s0 jo £em 359g au0, ou sem azoup vet WoIXe axo> ¥jo BunyaUIs omuy wim pjnow 11 Ysay ax UT “Ja4RIO ayp UO ‘jooyDs suIarsKs ea!UyIBI-O1D05, a4 UE ‘puey auo ap uo ‘yooyss Asan AauaBunIuo02, ay ‘sjoouyss snoouesodwiayu0> 194 sua -rayrp sayyes omy Ag shem aariounisip ur paarxas aq 03 Seat yf ‘enotised uy “soueUOses ajqesapisuos pey ‘ySnowp ‘tondaoues spreuieg “WIY WoL} pamosiog aAey 1340 se ysn{ (na|jog sayzeg Asepy Xjqeiow ‘Burpnjsur) s1ayto wosy pamaizog ay ‘anbiun JOU sem suONEZIUEBLO Jo DASUAIDeIeYD a109 e se asodind, uodn sno} spaeureg ‘sTenprarput Jo woR8/]09 eIUaprDUT ssa} 20 a10uH ‘ang Buyiou sy asudsaqua we yy noyA pure *xwssa.9u J1 OM atTaAraIU pte SOY -luow ‘ssauppe Ayjeonewarshs ysnus axninoaxd ays Y>tyen YBa UMo su Ur AsnUa ;URSP ‘ese Anqeas anniesadoos, 0 yeuoneztuefuo, at paystiqeise preuieg ‘esodind wourti02 © punore Buysize ajoqe vj0 sted se pooysrapun 2q 0} 19m astidiaqua we Jo siuouje pure sonqanoe Aueur ayy yeyp aouarsisur ayy yBNosyy,;asodand, Suryosei9A0 ue owt soKpe—OY ‘wratp Buys ‘saaodura pur sysei yom jenpilpur ayy Suipearad pure Suypunozans At -[wa1 v— sks aatyezadoon, e se yy pausayaud prewsreg se Yo Aueas jouonvziue80 ue sp asuidioqua ue Jo Anjear ay amnansuo> oy Ajfeondead pue A\jemidasu0> padjay 1nq ‘aururesfoud s0y4ey, 01 uinpuappe ue Ajdumis ou sea asodind, o uortou ay, uawade ‘ue 2yInueI9s Jo Sare2oape Aq poorssapun waa sdeysad 10 passso> jou sus22U02 rtd -aBeuew Jo yayeam & pasod yoryn ‘waisAs aanexadooo 2987] © paynanistio> ‘attest 405 ‘sseBeueus pure ‘uauraros ‘sia410M ‘sanaoe uaamiaq drysuonejax ayp yp Inq ‘ayZ0M ayy Jo yuauraeuews ayy 40j Yomaurey ye>rurouoD9 pur jeoisAyd ay Buxpisoid Ayduns tou sem astidsatua aun rey uoleciteas Teotse2d puv emidaouo> & parenueasur os[e 31 ‘pury saIp0 ayy UO Jom sty Jo waUyst|dwor>e ayy SuIpIns wy ywawaBeuELt jo ar ‘ayy pur asyidiaqua we ur uayeLeptn aq 0} om jeonsead aun Jo Buipuerssepun zeapo © dojanap o1 Aressaoau 511} yey) tuauroxour juawaBeureur aynUalas ayn pure 10LAe, Mf A. poonpanur Aijryssa2ons epuaée ayp Jo uonenuLuOD e ‘puey auo ay) Uo ‘sea siya JO LOH oyu ay], anus younsTp ese uoReZTUDBI0 ayy Jo asturosd BuLUyap e ‘asuas s9peosg e ‘uy ‘ospe.nq uorouny annnnoaxa ax Jo uraouo> [efans> © pareuBisap asodind, preuseg o1, (68:|g6r} 9961 ‘pseuseq) sannsox9 jorsadse yueriodusy we sy sty) uy oy s9ze9> yeu 9 US | 2UDISD 40} suOsCaL NBIOS TYOLLOVYA, V SV AMOTHL TYNOLLYZINVDEO, mi 09 at x piuo cure asodn pads -ezjue ‘2 ou sur eB Ajsnoat, Aemess paaaiye aaneiac aungeay pau748 _ PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO description of she technical characteristics and operation ofthe partially mechanized coal mining situations with which it was concerned, a level and type of specification which was considerably in advance of much that had gone before (or has snes) insect By and organization studies; and it stressed the interrelation between technology and Social relations, for instance, in a way that challenged many ofthe then Prevailingconcep. [uallzations ofthe place ofthe “human factor’ at work. As one of the authors reported sy later work, the article basically argued that 'socio-paychological factors rein bultchec Acker tics of work systems rather than additional—and possibly optional_—featuresto do with “harman elation’ (Tis et al, 196s: xi), The focus, then, was on the organiniion a8 ‘socio-technical system’—rather than on one side or another ofa set of « Prior dis- tinctions, between Yormal and informal; instrumental rationality and affective sociality, Production’ andthe ‘human factor for instance—and while this designation did ney Feature in the original article itcame to explicitly frame. series of studies that ollonea in its wake. Forthenext two decades, members of the Tavistock Institute followed the lead offered by Trst and Bamforths paper to develop the notion of socio-technical system asthe éppropriate framework for analysing and intervening in organizational lfe, whether at the level ofthe enterprise conceived of as ‘whole’ divisions and departments therein, or indeed the primary work group. The mos significant empirical studies were thote iy coal mining (Trist etal, 963) and inthe textile industry in India (Rice, 1958), ‘The most notable applications ofthe socio-technical systems concept or tool were in the empirical examination of work groups, but it was also applied to analyses of the Seo tor and management functions which coordinate the work of such groups, and oforganizations as ‘wholes with particulr reference to their structure’ or ‘design’ Akey See aet in such analyses was the ‘heuristic’ of primary task’ For the Tavistock writers ication of the primary task of an organization, or some part of it, has been the starting point for investigating, evaluating, and seeking to reform an organiza- tion’ structure or design, and hence improve its effectivenes, in light of ts ‘purpose! in Barnard’ terms, the various task properties of the work it performs in relation to thie Purpose, and the context(s) in which itoperates, ‘The notion of a socio-technical system was initially conceived of as one that exists, and only can exist, by exchanging materials with its environment, It jinports materials converts them, and exports some ofthe results. Ils outputs enable {tte acquire more intakes, and the import-conversion-export process isthe work the enterprise has todo lve. (Rice, 195823) ‘Taking inspiration from the British psychoanalyst and one of the directors of the ‘Tavistock Institute, Wilfred R. Bion, the socio-technical systems writers suggested that these activites are all connected toa fundamental basic task: a primary task. This pii- mary task is not tobe understood as a once and forall designation thet the organiza. tion is ‘created’ to fulfil and from which it must not depart, since the primary task may change over time asa result of internal modifications, and/or external dynamics (Miller & Rice, 967; Ree, 1963). Furthermore, there might be organizations which have mareae Sugouos jou aan sidaou09 wasoud Apreipourwu aup puryag xnaz, r2doap v Burtpeat ‘uy siauonnseud si sts 0} 10 j]si Jo PUP Ut Loy wsTE 0} BuryroLOS Tou SANTA OWE, ‘tp pie preuzeg Jo) seas Asoaqp, Kepor seypnis uonezTue8z0 urs szefoy>s ABU) ase) ttoo up uoyeztuedso so Sumpuciiapun aus wl Lzo2qp Jo ajar at sts92u09 STU “(ABOIOIDOS poapul pur) sisiyeue euorezue8i0 Aresodurquo> ypru oy yses1U09 uy spe Hp Kos © tn 247280) aiuo> Joouos surasAs e2quyPaI-oPOs axp Pe PyPUseA JO 30M aR UPI Ut qujod soqpoue st azotp 94a Asewd, 10 asodand, uodn sno pazeys 2tf 04 UONEPPE tL -Sutpueyssopun jeanesd | 94 Surztrooqp ym sy asa YI UI 9UO.24H FOOL ‘pjnom saqin pue aon pur pieuzeg so soXo 2yp ut UorTerns Azesoduseyuo9 atp JOUayM arejnnads pino> aug '(96t :¢961aary) sueou aygestndsrp, © se ueyy soy (Aanue Buy “099g, 8 suoitez|ue8s0 0} soyseoudde je2qBojoquo ssa20xd, urypim prEpURIs st Se 20 _ubysKs onatodoine, we se ancy sosfqeue pastdsuy-uueuyry se) jst UL Pua Ue se patvan 10 (520103 [190s oy Buneat 30 Aq papenind x09 Y>eIq ese 30 HLOHsOU, 20 SUI “sds ssaulsng, ‘spley [euoL nasty, ul si079e Zay0 BuoWe Jo1>e, we se 7 BureaH sIeIOy>S paurouAeoiBoyotzos Aq $a) paquosepuspun uayo st rojeziued, tse) ay ‘Sarpmas tuoneziueBio uryyy ‘epor paztuBosas S59] ane st yey) aBessaus e st 3 enw [HA aM ‘g3e} uy “paar sa] pur ary pur preuzeg tog IeIp HuryreU0s—sayserodusawo> stop Aq Aqjenseo soured parean sen aBessour syaup ‘uojsiasd reuontuyep pur a2uayiadx> qponzesd jo ug “suossnypuo> sayp yo sontreUns a aundsap 195 dem Burdgsiu uoHe sauuyauos pu fenuedury © ut a1doy axp 18911 04 st S98 yrog dou) ‘ssauaTEAE 25eq suyg ynoqpus uoreznei0, mmoge azi0=qh pub jo ants2u0> oy, se) Azewsad, w 40 asod “and, vse paseayd soxgoyn—aay2a(qo 20 ule eseAo ue yp oneULLOD Uy Uaas aq eM Ayqetreaut otreztue8s0, yey sur say>eaadde ypog s{xeInqe20a pu so4deyaus Uy sau “aagrp aidsoq “uone7que8i0 joqwauiajeBuuyap vse asodand, uo siseydusa spreused OF aouvyquiasas Aare) seapp v aq Axoayy sures fesruyoar-otpos ay) ut jsey Azewtad, {yo sn aqp exp pareoypuy aaey 0} adoy am ‘uorreyuasasd stip Jo Aayaoxg aun udsact “(01-607 :£96t'2204) jyser Axe untad sto wwiopsod oyssomonos (*] ort 4.2849, deat eu OUR UBeMI09 de “one ayy aetrew 0} sapu0 ut yuouiLosIau2 feusepx9 ayy pure astdaoiue ays u9aHtt2q ‘Azepunog aun uo pare2o} aq ssn diyszapeay jo uonsuny atp, “qereuiin “22ue|eg ae “udoadde ue a1noas 0} s] uotjeztueB0 ue Jo S1apea] aAr3n29x9 ay Jo 20% at 2A2MOHL ‘suonounysip Jo soquinu v yussaad 07 wi8aq ‘yulod saree ye eur awh uy yuyod au0 18 antsinbau s1yeyp uoneztueBL0 me Ay st ypIyss‘suuH 3940 dojaaap susaishs feID08 PU [E> “ruysoy pue uauruostaua syse"]e40j pul aouo pauruaz—p 2q roULED paUTEgo Ue IY ayqyssod 1soq e oy Af3exg SC Sif 01 uoLezIuN0 942 2y, 01 PUR ‘StOHE|a [POs PuE trouypar aq) ‘siuauuoniaus jeusarxe pue [ous su pue yse) Azewrd guomeZ|UeRs0 bij usamiag drystotiefaz ays oyu} aurnbut 7 siskreue jeuoryeziued0 se oe se ssoReUeL 40} wxaouo> Aay © 51] KfSuupzos>y aypo ay wo wed ato Jo siuresisuoD ay sezyuuUTLL eup Aew v ur Aifeapt ‘poBuene aq isnt wraysks [euoREzIEBi0 2up Jo stzed ,eI>0s, Pu “peorupay 940 Te4p (6)48e) AseUTLd purse st 3 ‘SaqoUDAAN, IHEP|A S| SPUEUIEP a]aE “yeduroout soumauios uaaaiag 138 Bulsuepeq & axaye pur “(6Bt *€96t ‘2ory) wueZoduut “Ajenbo jye are wonenigeyes pur quaurouyuo> quaurysiund, jo sysey Aseursd aan plus ui 390295 uostad eso ypudsoy Suryoea e dyszanqun 8-9 ses Lzeustad au0 wet 6p, BONDS TVOLLOVUG, ¥ SV AOTHLL TYNOLLVZINVSYO750 PAUL DUGAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO tobe applied; bu: approximations, incomplete and simple, toa whole which must be encir- led and grasped through empirical specification of its ‘total arrangement’ and its effects and imbalances. Completeness, inthis sense, was a condition of accurate descripti determination of what was to be done—to the' purpose or ‘primary task at hand: Ithas repeatedly been made evident to me by inquiring students that this subject. is the most difficult so far as the approach to concrete situations is concerned, although intellectually itis grasped easily. Probably the reason is that a sense of a situation as a whole can usually only be acquired by intimate and hebitual association with it and involves many elements which either have not been or are not practically susceptible quickly to verbal expression by those who under- stand them[..] All of our thinking about organized efforts tends to be fallacious by reason of what A.N. Whitehead calls ‘misplaced concreteness: Analysis and abstraction we must and do make in everyday conduct of our affairs; but when we mistake the elements for the concrete we destroy the usefulness of the analysis. (Barnard, 968 [1938]: 239), ‘The basic conceptual apparatus, the theoretical doctrine and the subset of propositions, are not treated as is often standard in scientific disciplines, asthe ultimate and pure grasping of a phenomenon. Rather, they should be understood as heuristic concepts that exactly because oftheir ‘empirical character, ie. their immediate recognizability by the participants ofthe field which they seek to describe, have the potential to instigate an investigation of or conversation about ‘the situation as a whole (One point that needs to be made is that such effectiveness as Rice had as a change agent did not come from applying a general theoretical framework of organization to specific situations. His concept ofthe primary task and of the enterprise as an open system emerged in the course of working with clients to help clarify their problems. (Miller, 1976:10) In the analysis of organization, the primary task often has to be inferred from the behavior ofthe various systems of activity, and from the criteria by which their performance is regulated. One may then be able to make such statements as: “Th enterprise is behaving asifits primary task were...’ or: “This part of the enterprise is bbehavingas ifthe primary task of the whole were...” (Miller & Rice, 1967:27)!* THE PROTREPTICS OF ORGANIZATION: CASUISTRY AND ‘THE LAW OF THE SITUATION ‘As we noted earlier, one of the main criticisms made of the classic stance in organi zational theorizing concerns the presumed ‘universalistic’ nature of the principles of nut such completeness was not to be achieved by exhaustiveness per se, but by relevance to the [rome earner ae EE ORTayy ur suonersapiuew Jeuoreziuefio, sy pe “tstjenuanbasuo> pue ABojojuoap 3s! “fossaatun uaamaeq uonysoddo jealydosoyryd azejduountio> mou ayy a2ueIs 21882]> ‘ap Jo aansadsiad ay) way ua9s ‘paapuy wap Apuepunge woneredo Suy>ueyeq anst “nse up jo Ayyfeniuao ayy ayeu eouewtsoysad yeyp Jo wowadpn{ jeyeBeurur ayy pu ‘souvuriojsad yse) jo syadse Aseuonasostp, pure ,paqis2s02d, ta2miaq UOHTe|21 a4 JO uonerojdea (+261 S961) sumoug pasy]i 4 pue ‘woroury aaranvaxe axp Jo 29n,7eAd a4 UL drysuonejat siayp pur ssouaanaaya, pur {Aoualoya, :Ausouo2e, Ua2mi9q SuoHIUNSTP aioe (g96t) spzeusvg ‘s19ps0 Jo Butai8 aun pue Aoyane jo ast>sax9 aqp Jo sisdyeur (c961) syajjog sayseg “soueuo}1ad yse1 04 woHeI2d uy Aanp jo suzayed Burr>1yu0 Uuaamjoq payeoiptl am se qysme9 axe ajdoad uayer ‘ueoyiUsis sow Honpuo> pue Sujuoseas jeuoteziue8.0 jo uotstuawip ‘[e}2n3> paapu ‘Lsessa0au v saynitisuo> 4 Pur ‘sanyj2ead jo asjousadas joy amp smopeys Ansinse> ‘Asoo4p Jpo14p9 Ur se Ksoatp PUOR vaquedse 2pssey> U! YuOMs UT “(S96 MMoIg) UIOPSIA JO [NOS 942 sewlOD—g aaUDLIadxs eonsead ‘pasinbas st yuowssasse se yng ueyodun paspul are sajna pur ajdi>uis “yuaura8pn{ oy}>ads-uojjemts Jo apdiouyzd ego Ausse22u ay) Uo Jo aouaystsu 2usinseo sassasdxa agueys 21sse]o au) 9qey “uorENns Jo pury stu Aq pasod souUNa|Ip a4 ‘1 uonnyos pajdioutsd, 0 Jeapt, ou sy sayy, astadxs jo aseasouy jeuySseW aus0s Ie jonpoid yey) 40 sitp jo aoueuoysad ayp aseasour Aotp pinoys {Ayes wl uoHaNpat ‘puos jo 2914d a4p 3k YeyA 40 UauOdUIOD sttp Jo 1yBreM aya aanpex Adm pImoys ZAM! “yond uy 9seai9ut yuesytusis awos aaarype oy s98uoq apy e ayes ‘a|duwexa 10) Kaya pinoys wonesedo Buisuejeq, © 03 Supeuxoidde Suryrowos se woys Supuoytad ‘yun pa8ieyp asouy ywosjuo> aouay pur ‘Tuarx 19989] 40 JaIvas3 aWiOS 1 sayR0 Y>eD {yuu po1guod ut seaaye axe sei aypaads e Jo stzadse iuazaytp 203 128 (s2]d}outzd, 10) spaepueis oun “y>e2 J0g “uoneziueBL0 ue Jo 30m at SuNMSUOD 9484), sNOLEA a4 {yo aouewwoyrad jeanzesd ayy y>eoudde Aavp hem ay s9pisu02 Ayaisg am jt'sItp 995 01 ‘uiBaq ue> aq ‘Buvoseas paseq-aseo, Jo 2oueayruBis ayy pue {Aaysinseo, yyIM W990 se [am se—aouaipne aytoads e 103 j>aya aanieutios, e 2onposd x0 ‘wi93sues) ‘opens rad oy fijenbs ng ‘wi0sul, 01 Ajdusts Buyjaas you ase Aatp ‘sps0m saqpo U}—(e108 ssouuogg) 40m 31342 U} sondanoad, yala wi9s%02 yenITUL ¥ UedTs 03 a]qussod st 1 sauyeytuasqe Apaiaydusoo ysourre are ABojomto pue soiskydeyoyy jj9si Ur pus Ue Se aoytpe emadosuos e Suidojaaap w paysasayu qe ve you aze Kaya “wiaysXs pur W104 Jo suoneut qyim patdnoooaud Aqsvao are ‘sou ysl 40} ‘uaorg PaAsTLM PUP RATIOS 19>}1ed sprowieg 2j1y 4 ‘S19pI0 30 BuIAlD ayy, saded say wy (cg6t) Halfog seg Azeyy IsIO18 -sepp, zaynoue Aq ‘sdeyiad ‘pouizons pue ‘Ajsnourey isou apews aujod e—Aaoyne rou Agqenb 1yBius yeys suonyennis wy Buydidde papoou ns Aaya ‘uoneztueBso sadoud {Jo sajdioud atp jo aBpaymouy 1>9prad yim paystumny sea ‘ranjz0M B4p JO ‘2ANINDIXD ‘ayy Jo souatssuoo ayp Jt Uaag oNpuod aurwarapiapun sajdioutzd ys UoRTUBOD—1 [eiusurepuny © sem asayp oeZiuPBr0 0} salto 11 UayM ‘siEYNsUOD YDOIsIAR], 243 440} $v “preuseg 104 “(110 opeEs) apt] Jo hem, 10 “(6C6r ‘ssneyy) smAIqeY, ‘(F66t “696t ‘yaqoM) eont20n, e se uaweBeuEW pue YoHEZIUEBI0 YatM WIs2uOD Te>HIeId eA -danoad, » Sunersunua pin pausasuos Ajjeiuaurepuny sf 450B3ns am ‘22ueIs 21888] ‘ayy Buyrrue8i0 Jo “paoput 40 ‘wonezttEBIO Jo Aoayp, seUIaISKs © BuLsaYO 10 Buy “yeooape Aydunis ueqp soyzes YasaMoH] “siuauodxa siz Aq parerquinpe torezsueB10 1S£ AONAIOS TYOILOVEA, V SV ANH TYNOILYZINVDUOSa e RET See RRR 752 PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO seemingly mutually exclusive doctrines or principles of the right (honestas, or the “human factor’), and the useful (utilitas, or ‘the production side’), make litle to no | sense. We can see the ‘casuistical’ dissolution of such principled distinctions in the work of ‘the British Barnard, the chief executive and organizational theorist Wilfred Brown (1965), when he considers the matter of what we have now come to term ‘per. formance management. For Brown, all work, and thus all work roles, no matter how ostensibly routine or circumscribed, requires ‘decision making’ by those performing it. He defines work as ‘the totality of discretion which a member is expected to exercise, and the proscribed acts he must discharge, in carrying out the responsibilities of the role he occupies’ (1965: 308). By discretion, Brown refers to an act or course of action adopted by an organizational member in a specific role, where the policy set for that role leaves alter- native courses of action from among which that member has to choose. By proscribed acts, Brown means an act or course of action performed by a member in undertak- ing their work role, where the policy set allows that member no choice. In framing employment work in this manner, Brown is keen to highlight that the main basis oa ‘which the assessment of the performance of such work is to be undertaken is how an organizational member uses experience, knowledge, and judgement in making deck sions, rather than on the apparent results of their use of such experience, knowledge, and judgement. Ashe puts it: ‘Wetoo readily agre that chief executives should be assessed on the basis of theprofit andloss account, thatthe factory manager should be solely assessed onthe volume of, output, or the civil servant on the speed with which they can introduce arrangements that put into practice a change in Government policy. But these achievements— profit, volume of output, speed—are the end results of processes that involve not only the quality ofthe decisions made ...but also a host of other variables outside their control. It would be very convenient ifthese were objective parameters ofthe perfor- ‘mance of people, but they are not. Many find this so distressing that they sometimes fail to face up toit and go on trying to assess the work done by subordinates or others fon a quite unreal bass, The reason for their distress is that instead of the relatively, «easy task of looking, for example, atthe output volume achieved by the factory man- ‘ager and accepting the figures as an index oftheir performance they must, instead, take their whole experience of their performance over a period of time into account and use their own judgment in coming toa decision as to whether their performance {is good, bad, or indifferent. Judging the performance of subordinates is, ina very eal sense, hard work. (Brown, 1974: 110-11) ‘This ‘hard work is the balancing operation outlined above, and its basis is a form of casuistical reasoning where practical judgement is crucial. The quality of assessment depends on judgements concerning the significance of situational factors. In the case of the chief executive, for instance, the profit and loss account is itself affected by variables outside the control of any one member of the organization, such asthe state of the market, the changing costs of raw materials, changes in government policy, the decisions of the board about such things as capital investment, and so on and*yuauuipn( yo ssoxso yeurBrew 10 sr0119 0 soydurexo 0 Suyutod Aq dquo way doy we nog :foiag opasnue nod pre Aa01>9) ax SuruUNsOyyprosdde nod ynoge Guo SIP “puios 9 auojrotn ast azaty ua) Sey yndino anog dos 02 nyo day ou sew, joy wea soBeue w yexa Ava sry) UF YooMt spreUIprOgNS & BuLsapisto> (q A[UO SF snuouraipn(2yjoads jo 9jdioutadv hq pareapaw aq Aayssa09u jo qsnut aoureutiopred spreurpioqns e jo yuaurssasse ajqeuinba pure 2an320y9 UE UMONG JO (ru6r-umosg) ejnutsojAsva ou 5x94, wauspn{pue uoRIIUIJO39 sno Uo pu ‘ur sano aououodxe uo paseg are ys08 fay 0 stan sno eH azTEON TRIN UMD “quotpnf orn 2sn Kop des ayy wo sareumprogns a8pnyo3 axey ao. eu are31 3 [7] spaploce aq ues sere} yp wax ye 01 urowp pasapio Apoqou yey seAHER tu Us!M ‘BsaLO} AU OW TEM LOM ‘aug yoru uy wauruomate aup uy seBueyp yoreUs 01 Moy ‘sqof s1>Kp op 0 ajdoad ure (0) Moy ‘SalIMoyp Jouuosiod Ls [eap 1 MOY “aIMPAYDS Uo sup da9q 01 MOY ‘PALEY anet| spoujaut feULIOU ays synsox Burure\go Jo spouret AU astaap 0} Moy ‘SaIEUIP “iogns uno siatp uoure 30M aynquzsip 01 189g MOY BuIpi29p ‘22uEysLt 204 “UI —IUIL -afipn{ jeuotrenais jeonzeud sro Suidoydap pue Buppeanjn> djasfoaud hq wrayy ox paroyte sofse) 249 28zey5ip 01 sayeurpsoqns sjaxp aBeunosu s1aBeuEUL j! SInUTLOD ay YAAIMOH, soquedwo> yo asrany ayp aBeurep wey suojssep anoge Sq ose we 3nq sjenpraypurt o} 2nsn{uy Uy sys AyuD OU sse2DNS {Jo bLIaED a]os se asn apna> soy, Aqwea8TayO pasn aq asnex day nq uROAU A198 ‘ae syisou femoey i2,90s uy peaadsapyn are pu saryresoqy Tuauhoyduso uy spaA2q qe isn yom sfenpratpur we ssasse 0} oy MOge stp aT suOTdaazed sno!ee[ A] seu) sane (€1~z11 #461) unorg sive Buyuaasoyuy asoyp uy sayoad yo surz01 ut passasse 9q uP> syoyasaannooxa Jatt ‘aq eu pies 2q uays a} weD aioyy “anuanas Aue aonposyr 2 324 soy YA Ue|d BJO S1S02 at [re apnpput te 1unoo2e sso] pue ayosd ayy sseak Buruaasoyur 949 UT yynsaL auUMJOA Uy Seles 2u0}0q steak aitios aq Aeut 3 ‘2\dtuexa 20} ‘aut 1onposd mau e dojasap ov PAPI>—PS!EIT'24 61 Aj st uonai2sip saarinoaxe Jory> atp jo ueds-2un ayy 4a8uo] ayy uoReZlUERZO yp 9810] ayy, saye]szeak jezanas jqun seadde ou Kew syjnsoa 9, s8=4 a0 Wt SUOSTDaD BEA ‘dow aganoaxe jalyp au, ‘payannstios s1 Junosse sso] pur yyoId 2 Y>IY 4 pu ‘apeUt 21am suorstap tins Yr ut ead ayy Sutznp dn moys Janet Ajpenusta sioays ayy ‘ANNIE splip auy Jo suois1oap au Aq paroaye aze siyosd aeup 1UaqX9 249 o,;papunoduroo st A>e}Te5 ‘up uourye our 2 s2onposjut auo sf], sontmuoD (ct :PZ6t) UMoug Se 9KOBIOWY “(ert sp264‘uNoIg) g>ueU -roysad saBeueur eo uonouny v axe Kaul 18} Moy ssasse 0} pu “WAI PaIDaBE avey uy Sa|qersea 9430 aly sapIsuoD 0} LyU9ss9 1 1, ‘aauEULZO}sad Jo UOUUSSASSE Ue JO siseq aly se wtp Suisn uy yng weyodutt 419A aze ‘uo os pur ‘s9pes je auIjoA andino ‘qyoud se ypns somiput aarreynuend ;2uo[e synsed [eloueUy Jo suusa) uy souEMO}ed saatinoaxa joryp e Jo yuatussasse ayerapun 011 st je2H2eAd Jo [Ryasn MOY ANIDBXD St ayy uonsanb ays os “yBnoua snorago st S9jqelseA asay) Jo 92U—ISIK9 >t] "yLO} OS ese 198 TVDLLOVUA, V SY AOSHL TYNOLLVZINVWOae 754 PAUL DU GAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO | and to do that you must have a pretty extensive knowledge of the types of decisions that is work involves. (Brown, 1974: 114) ‘As with Weber (1994), with whom, alongside Barnard, he is often compared (see Kelly, 1968: chapter 10), Brown roots almost everything to ‘Fraglichkeit der situation’ (‘the uncertainty of the situation’; see also Power, Chapter 16, this volume). As Weber’s work can be seen to reside within both a classical tradition of political judgement and an ‘eth- ics of office, so too can Brown's work be located within a ‘classic’ tradition of organi- zational theory as a practical science, where practical action and situational (political) | judgement are ata premium, CONCLUSION Many of the concepts and concerns animating practitioners of what we have described asthe ‘lassi stance’ in organizational theory are now seen as having little explanatory ‘traction’ in the present, possibly because a different terminology is deemed more sup- ple, subtle, and possessing greater reach (the classic focus on ‘task’ has been superseded ‘by the contemporary turn to ‘practice’ —especially communities thereof—and ‘process, for instance), or because some of its key artefacts seem so much part and parcel of the flotsam andjetsam of organizational life they no longer appear worthy of sustained dis- cussion, even ifthe precision with which they are understood and used often leaves a lot to be desired (‘manager; ‘role, performance’). While many of the reality devices’ devel- oped by practitioners of the classic stance are now deemed anachronistic, out of step with the demands of the present, itis interesting to note how they frequently appear, even if‘in mufti in the present, not least in the context of contemporary corporate scan- dals and ‘crises: Barnard’s concern with executive ‘personal responsibilty’ and ‘purpose’ finding resonance in the context ofthe debacles at Enron and Lehman Brothers, or, most recently, in the HBOS scandal in the UK: ‘The corporate governance of HBOS at board level serves as a model forthe future, but not in the way in which Lord Stevenson and other former Board members appear to see it. Itrepresents a model of slf-delusion, ofthe triumph of process over purpose: Brown's concern with the ‘judging of performance’ resonating with debates about the conducts associated with ‘shareholder value, and its organizational effects, and with the tension, anxiety, and stress experienced by organizational members generated by con- temporary performance management regimes; or Weber’ concern with ‘Office’ based forms of ethical agency, and thetr casuistical mediation, likewise appearing in a diluted form in official reports into the quality of political decision making on both sides of the Atlantic inthe lead up to the invasion of Iraq, Ifthe concepts and tools the clasicistsBuysojsau0y se spredor 1 yor stusqewaoy Lotld e sprenos ose nq “(dem wen S59, 430 o10u ® ut) aouiatsada jeoitdura sprenoy fe>ndoos s aauRys suy, s92:89p Bu}2gIp OF yyoqre 9215, 0 1suns0dop jenisooiey pasty # Aq aires nq aBenBie feoneso=%n oda paou8e 20 ajfuys © Aq sot 20/qo wourwuo> e dq soqreU pagum axe (useamonis-1s0d, pure stfermaonin, yo sura0} snotago sot Sap yrs) Asoauh Jo atOU, ap se Ot panzojr siuatudoyaaop fem.oqpaur snotzea at ae 1sa88ns 9m (r8:900r) so1UNHYBuIMOTIOS “b ‘asun9q10.9q treo paapU PUE UPaq BAeY P|NOD steyeJO.TEIS tan exp wrepp 01 son9q ay) Afar feuonezrue8.0 yo uonsnansuo> jeDs0s axp Bunyan, -yBiy 01 ponyuruto> aotes ejo annaadszad arp wy (suonepes wey ‘sisaypnue uaredde su paapur 20 ‘iuotaBeuews 2ynuai3s jo sanbnts [e2f8ojo!20s snow jo yur —R2180q -oapt, gsieiuwunaisty, jesoure,) Aunoaes werp ssa sreadde uayo—paraayur aq Kew sty tuonsanp rey ioneus ou ‘uonse asnsaye a20u ur SuiBeBu9 ty suoHeeyue810 19185 01881 -rapumn a gol Supyeut-foor ay1—Croaxp woneztre8x0 asse[> ypnun Jo uoneIuaHo yeonsesd 24, jwonetejdxa [e205 30 suaos ure}99 0} panTUNLHOD asoIR ON} Aos|201d auOD aney, ‘ajdurexo 203 dz0a%p wonezrue8L0 a1ssep, re parPAd| suIsToNLD ysaMod wsouratpjo AUEYY ‘2226 jo1124g vv sotHog payuiUa st Shess9 Jo UoN>9T]0> 19994 (60OE) §sTUUAH|PIApU.“z sane [e9 aida we st sign 4yareumzn “wa}gosd reuon ezrueBr0 Bursse2d ¥ 0} uornjos ayeudoxdde tae aeoua 0121 puy or poou 1yBru nok a1oye 20 wodn ateap or paau 1yBtU MOA YeyER souvape Ut MoU 1,U29 Nod OS “Teavarkin eos © Jaye painqinstp 9q pinoys Arsadord ‘mou ord e mou 48> nod (rg6t) domag 01 Burp1o278 se snl UI9OU0> feuoNzTTEBIO Aze1oduioiuoo jo sionet Bunssoad ssaappe 01 jenuatod ou ypim swistuory>eue axe ayy 1eqp ueaur you Soop stp ‘aADMOHpassasppeasa% faup Y>IYs 0} $U99U0> Jo A918N]D 3419 ads ay pue ‘paresogere axon day ypry uy srxaquOD ay} Jo udu ayp 389q A}qEHATU qm (zardeyo sry ur sa9e] oy 3990 [TM am “suo UeWINGL Jo aimmsUy Y>oIsIARL ay Jo 310m a4) ut podoppaap se sei Areunad, eyo onstanag auf “yoryo Jo a{dusexo 21858/9 ‘3u0) sa0raap Aaear feuonrezitre8so, asaxp AYseafc “parrewi0} pue pawesss} uoneztueB10 senanaed #30 Anqeox aun ystye enosep Spoor pure sxda>u0> ayy oy s9pas 9m ws9) SI A “t SaL0N vypueasex aznany 40} zayew vt SI, MOU pure ‘2494 ‘Sn 40} Uon2eu 2]aissod auios sey (cE 35961 “umorg) oreuNB10 pool dn sajout YM, Jo aBpay moun pare|nutio} AjyBry sToKp agdepy ouuNsse IYBIUL aM se oHSTUONYIEUE (68 auinb rou st ypfjoos jemidasuo9 sayy aqew puy -2>ueys >yssepp axp Jo siauoANaeId ayy Bunewrure asouy woxy panoutas sey 0 Jou axe wHaDuOD [euOHeZIUEBI0 Jo sraMeUE Arexodurayuo> sdeyiog “pore|dsius uaad 40 “umoIqsaA0 YeYMOWOS s1 IN}}O0) 21aI PUE ‘suseouon tay puoog porous, Bulaey iuasaid axp Jo uondumnsse aup sdeyzag “y>ydxa aout aBeus9y 218se)9 ay Uo souapuadap, paBpamownpreun rem Supfeu wroxy pauyed 2q 01 Suruioutos aq ysis azatn rem wsa8Hins o1 sn speay st “BuPFOO} SI aU OU ay ‘ep ayp a, aaeyd aye 01 sey inq ‘papaymouy>e Aqyonidxo aq youue> aouapuadap, SIME ano “wiaip nowt op djannu—3 "9 yuaseud at BEA surOds Osye IF IUasIAd ay YALA 3—4| Df 40 1N0 29 01 Play Layo are “way SueumTUE suraouOD amp pue ~paojdap pur padojsaap S6L_MONEIDS IVDILOVUd, ¥ SV KOSH TVNOLLVZINVOYO —756 _ PAUL DUGAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO “breakthrougl’ phenomena of various sorts 5 Similar criticisms were also directed at the work of members of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Child, 1969; Fox, 171; Silverman, 1970), In his review of Miller and Rice’ (1967) Systems of Organization in Sociological Review, Duncan (1968) writes ofthe authors ‘isolation from academic sociology and the restrictive vision imposed by previ. us consultancy assignments; and concludes tha I]tis important to distinguish between Sociological problems and the problems with which managers are preoccupied, Excessive involvement vith the latter inhibits clarification of the former’ 6. Ifone were toreplace the word ‘identity’ with the word ‘organization the sorts of decen- trings that such a stance undertakes on this as on so many other objects (robots, death, ‘money, fish) becomes very evident. Today, this tendency has perhaps become even more pronounced judging from the wey in which ‘network, institutions ‘practice; and ‘process have become standardin tropes in rganitation studies, each offering rather abstract depictions and analyses of organization 8. ‘The family resemblances between Barnard!s description of ‘purpose here, and Rice and Miller's discussion of ‘primary task which we will tur to shortly, are quite striking 9. ‘{Wle have to clearly distinguish between organization purpose and individual motive. It 4s frequently assumed in reasoning about organizations that common purpose and indi. ‘vidual motive are and should be identical. With the exception noted below, this is never the case; and under modern conditions it rarely even appears to be the case’ (Barnard, 1968: 85). 10. As wenoted eaier (see note 8), Miler and Rice definition of ‘primary tas’ here is very similar to Barnard’s description of purpose! 14. chitp://www.parliament. uk/business/committees/committees-a-2/joint-select/ professional-standards-in-the-banking industry/news/an-accident- waiting. to happen-the-fulure-of hbos!> (accessed May 3014). 8 ‘higher’ level (transcendental) experience—and hence seeks to cultivate openness to “ | | REFERENCES | Adler, P. (2009). Introduction: A Social Science which Forgets its Founders is Lost. InP. Adler | (Ed), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations | (pp. 3-19). Oxford: Oxford University Press Barley, S. (201). Signifying Institutions. Management Communications Quarterly, 25, | 200-6, Barnard, 1-(1968) 1938) The Functions ofthe Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity London: Sage Publications. Bell, D. (1976). The Coming of Post-Industral Society. New York: Besic Books. Brown, W.(:965). Exploration in Management. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Brown, W. (1974). Organization. Harmondsworth: Penguin, Bryson, N. (1986). Vision and Painting: The Logic ofthe Gaze. London: Yale University Press. Burns, & Stalker, G, M. (1961). The Managentent of Innovation. London; Tavistock. Castells, M. (2005) The Rise ofthe Network Society: information Age. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell Child, J. (2969). British Management Thought. London: Allen & Unwin,syoog auss20ddty 30K MAN SPIN “DR yreDIaWH Aq PAPE “aging saying Cay fo siadg parraq09 ayy :uowausiumupy nok "(E96 WN>HOd ID} "maqANSOMA OD ‘tapInog “(OF-1 dd suopwyeadaonn pu soypuouddy snyog woot sow fosonuoud ray (Spa) Nosty 3>e ppog™TUf {us!TevoRIMNSUT [ABN B JO} SBION 9p Jo AydesBoUOD] a4p Puodag, “(F66)“s "OUOINOYS 3B “Y “U2I0 “ssoug Ansrantin puoyemys °¥> ‘puojrg suoypunay 1807 spretg a Buvradouddy sweaua8ounyy ut aBpasou ay 8130242 "(E10r) '§"Z3OUUO,O ‘suone2yang Ypoxstaey wwopu0T uowvestUnB4o fo suarsiG (L961) 34°¥ 29RL “3 TN “suo 9 danny tyo{ topuoy nojn2zuv840 pro ys, (9£6t) (Pa) a OIL SS-L8L"(ay‘sypmig uop21wv8iQ yoresoy uonezruN10 uy ssou-treadomng Suro|dxg -(oror) “g ‘wnequaxog 3p My UMW me weBayy pur s8popnoy :wopuoy aaismarg 9 Aq parepsien “Bopoyadsg pun A80j0!208 "(6461)" ‘SSE YY “ss0id joots ssamisng preasey:VIN ‘uoWog “HouMouan pu vopvano8ic “[é96t) (986r) ‘ML PROT WY @ ‘SDuaINET ‘aged ® saqed:uopuOT uoH}E2}UV8i9 fo v2, snp fo uoumuuerg poonuD ZaIatsog mowuaSounyy ay2198 5 -(9961) {ATE “TaquiasoN ‘sonuewuny jo Awapesy uerensny at Jo wmisodus fenuay Mob ‘ssaxppe sioukayy wsyountanusisod fo dzoisiey 942 uO ‘atu, Asoayy, (600%) * axIN 2-5 (1)or‘soypmas poojoo4sog Asoayy Jo awn, ayy (Coot) | 32quN4 ‘ext-pL€ dammbuy joantay Az0—ur Jo Azo1sTH ay, (900%) | =TUNIy ‘unUseyy axesSteg oxorsBiised ‘2oU2P98 yoo ID4g V 50 s21H[0q (GOO?) ‘My SILI} ssbig Prowse sAingMan Woy fo auapss saga xoyy (0002) ‘4 ‘RUE ‘MIMD HOTTY *wopUOT oH anaHa2Dy wy sKossg s19gay4 XOWY”(BB6t) 1M ‘STOLE “Sach 89 “sony seausng fo ouanof juonesuadwioy axnnoaxg qua Buoxm §3¢yM4 “(60OR) ‘q* 'SIEH ssa1g Auszoatun piojumns proyunns ‘ssouiddopy ang 51 auo]y suaseig a, “(StOt) 2 1OPEHL 231g PORK ‘nvenog of seimiv0s wosf asisioxg yomnaids arr fo doy v sv kydosoynyg “(r66%) YODEH. vaqeag 19qe4 TwOpuOT suoME}2Y ISNA] pul s2H0g oN s>01IUer pUOkaG (PLE) "KOH ‘uppUIdeYY-sam}OD ‘ayoWBuIseg “assmpuT ul y4oM fo ABoqors0g Y (0L6%)"Y ‘0 ‘BsNOH WOpLEY ALOK MANE suns fo 49p10 ayy (O61) "MEIN sang AnSuOATUQ, IORI ;pIOHKO “oop, Buy pooty v sy pu yooads 294g sv Suny YoMs ON S210 “(P661)*§ "a 000 cworuxdo pure sotsewourtuo>‘sapoie jo sag "wstye1de- Jo a1ming au, (6oOr) sauLy o}oUON 1g saquiaidas 9¢-paBayiarig 2ip jo AB08epaq ayy, "(600r) sHui0K00 CHIgE 9 aH. p2I8eq01205 uonvznr8ig fo sassy "y 200 8 "ETAT Malay Yoog (8961) g"uEUNCL ; 1g-18¢ LE suowv2qurdio : Jo AS01205 ay i ysuvasry Bure UeBIG Jo Ae aq sUQ 01 LIM(oy) [oISKydEaYY wo soi0N ctoneyExg pue uoreso[dxg ‘uonenoydeg “(02) °s “esIAPHA w “a KD Mp ssazq Aussaasun 0892145, t jeayD aonayiodeg paary ayy - suman somacy uyof fo dydosopyg ayy, “(961) | Kamacr 3 ‘saa Aarsiantun oBe2ry5 ‘o8eoH4) anomg oyfauai2g my uonsnpuy pup uowwandey sapig) BusBuvy “(e661) “y ‘suNIOD, © ESL ZONTIDS WOLLOVUd, ¥ SV AHOEHL TVNOLLVZINVOHO758 PAUL DUGAY AND SIGNE VIKKELSO Perrow. C. (1979). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, and edition. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company. Phelps. (2009). Uncertainty Bedevils the Best System, Financial Times, 14 April Pocock, J. G. (2004). Quentin Skinner: The History of Politics and the Politics of History. Conimon Knowledge, 10(3) §32-50. Powell W. W, & DiMaggio, P.J. (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres. Rice, A. K. (1958). Productivity and Social Organization: The Ahmedabad Experiment. London: Tavistock Publications. Rice, A. K. (1963). The Enterprise and Its Environment. London: Tavistock Publications Shafrtz, |. M., & Ott J. S. (2000). Classics of Organization Theory, sth edition. Orlando, FL; Harcourt College Publishers. Silverman, D. (1970), The Theory of Organizations. London: Heinemann, Simon, H. (1946). The Proverbs of Administration, Public Administration Review, 8(1), 53-67 Starbuck, W. H. (2003). The Origins of Organization Theory. In H. Tsoukas, & C. Knudsen (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical Perspectives (pp..43-82). Oxford: Oxford University Pres. Thompson, JD. (1967). Organizations in Action, New York: MeGraw- Hil ‘Trist, EL, & Bamforth, K, W, (i951), Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting. Human Relations, 4,3-38. ‘Trist E., Higgin, G. W, Murray, H., & Pollock, A. B. (1963). Organizational Choice: Capabilities ‘of Groups at the Coal Face Under Changing Technologies. London: Tavistock ‘Weber, M, (1989). Science as. Vocation, London: Unwin Hyman. Weber, M. (1994). Weber: Political Writings. Edited by B. Lassman, & R. Speirs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wickham, G, (2012). The Core Object ‘Society’ and Sociology’s Public Relevance: History versus Theory. Journal ofSociology, 48(4), 427-42. Wren, D. (2005). The History of Management Thought, sth edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.