Organization Theory: Revisiting the Elephant

A General Theory of Bureaucracy by Elliott Jaques; The Management of Organization Design:

Strategies and Implementation, Volume I by Ralph H. Kilman; Louis R. Pondy; Dennis P.
Slevin; The Management of Organization Design: Research and Methodology, Volume II by
Ralph H. Kilman; Louis R. Pondy; Dennis P. Slevin; Structure and Process of Organizations: A
Systems Approach by Arlyn J. Melcher; Humanizing Organizational Behavi ...
Review by: Dwight Waldo
Public Administration Review, Vol. 38, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1978), pp. 589-597
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976043 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 10:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 589

BOOK REVIEWS
MICHAEL J. WHITE and
LOUiS F. WESCHLER, Editors

O RGANIZATION THEORY:
REVISITING THE ELEPHANT
DwightWaldo, SyracuseUniversity

A GeneralTheoryof Bureaucracy,
ElliottJaques.New knowledge wouldbe attained.A referenceto thefableof
York: Halsted Press(Wiley),1976. Pp. 412, $19.50. theblindmenandtheelephant seemedappropriate.
TheManagement of OrganizationDesign:Strategies
and The objecthereis to "revisittheelephant."Whathas
Implementation, VolumeI, and TheManagement ofOr- happenedin theenterprise of organization
theory? Have
ganization Design:ResearchandMethodology, Volume we attaineda betterunderstanding of the"animal" as a
II, Ralph H. Kilman, Louis R. Pondy and Dennis P. wholeor at leastof someof itsparts?Whatare present
Slevin, editors. New York: North-Holland,1976. Pp. trendsin thestudyof organization theory?The books
296 and 312, $19.50 each volume. underscrutinyhererepresent varyingaspectsof theenter-
Structure and Processof Organizations:A Systems Ap- priseoforganizationtheory inthemid-andlate-seventies.
proach, Arlyn J. Melcher. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall,1976. Pp. 461, $11.95.
HumanizingOrganizational
Behavior,H. Meltzerand By Way of Introduction
FredericR. Wickert,editors.Springfield,IL: Chas C.
Thomas, 1976. Pp. 438, $29.75. It is appropriate to beginwitha numberof "scene-
InterorganizationTheory, Anant R. Negandhi, editor. setting" observations.
Kent, OH: Kent State UniversityPress, 1976. Pp. 283, Amongorganization general,if notuniversal
theorists
$12.50 agreement obtainsthatitispropertoviewthedevelopment
Organization Theory:A Structural Anal- of organization
and Behavioral theoryas dividedintothreeperiods.Con-
ysis, WilliamG. Scott and TerrenceR. Mitchell,Third ventionally, this"history"is regardedas beginning early
Edition. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1976. Pp. inthiscentury; andthethreeperiodscustomarily aredesig-
470, $12.95. natedby the termsclassical,neo-classical and modern.
OrganizationalEffectiveness:Theory-Research-Utiliza- ("Contemporary" mightbe better,as "modern"desig-
tion,S. Lee Spray,editor.Kent,OH: KentStateUniver- nates the periodof Westernhistorybeginning several
sityPress, 1976. Pp. 185, $12.50. centuries ago,andsomespeakofthepresent as the"post-
Organizational Behaviorand Management: A Contigency modern"period.ButI shallusethecustomary term.)
Approach,HenryL. Tosi and W. Clay Hamner,editors. The classicalperiodhas its beginning, in theconven-
Revised Edition. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1977. Pp. tionalview,withFrederick W. Taylorand HenriFayol
552, $11.25, paper. (though there arehistories
of "management" and"admin-
Mosaicsof Organization Character: An I-D Approachto istration" thatbeginwith Sumer); itreachesitshighpoint
Explain OrganizationBehavior, Robert Granford in thethirties withtheworkof JamesMooneyand of the
Wright.New York: Dunellen (Kennikat Press), 1975. editorsand authorsof thePapers in theScienceofAdmini-
Pp. 148,$11.50, cloth,$5.95, paper. stration.The neo-classical
waveis seenas beginning with
the Hawthorne experiments of the late twenties.
These
experiments challengethe formality and rationality
of
"OrganizationTheory:An ElephantineProblem" was withthe"discovery"of humanrelations:
classicaltheory
the titleof a review-essayI publishedin this Review in of theemotiveand thesocial-psychological. The human
1961. At thattimeorganizationtheoryhad reacheda new
levelof self-consciousness
and was enteringintoa vigorous
periodof growth.But-I observed-agreementwas absent DwightWaldo is SchweitzerProfessorof Public Administrationat
the Maxwell School of Citizenshipand Public Affairs,Syracuse
on preciselywhat the object of attentionis, what the He is a formereditor-in-chief
University. of PublicAdministration
propermethodof approach mightbe, and what kind of Reviewand theauthorof numerousbooks and articlesin thefield.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
590
relationsvogue crestsabout mid-century, and the modern
period begins-when? March and Simon's Organizations
of 1958 is a good marker.An extendedbibliographical
essaycould now be writtenon short"histories" of organi-
zation theorywhichutilizesucha three-fold schema;there
are dozensof them.
No agreedupon definitionof organization(in the sense
on whichwe focushere)has emerged.Various termshave
been asserted to be the crucial one in designatingthe
"elephant"-including large, complex, formal, admini-
stered, bureaucratic; and each term can be seen to
designate somethingtrue of the beast. But we do not
confrontarbitrariness, chaos; thereis a good deal of repe-
titionand overlappingamong the definitions.Concepts
fromsociology(e.g., goal specificity)and systemstheory
(e.g., systemmaintenance)providea considerablemeasure
of continuityand agreement.
Perhapslack of agreementon definitionis unimportant.
In theirlandmarkwork March and Simon (anticipating
JusticeStewart) begin by statingit is not necessaryto
defineorganization,it sufficesthatwe recognizeit when
we see it.' Perhaps even-it can be argued-closure on
definitionwould be unfortunate:phenomenaso complex
need varyingdefinitionsto comprehendthe complexity.
(Albeit,a review-essay on definitionswould servea useful
function.Also, it can be noted,a numberof articleshave
recently soughtto setforththemostsignificant dimensions
of organizationbehavioras identified in empiricaldata.)
of theModernPeriod
Characteristics
With my last observationsI am already beginningto
addresstherecentpast and present,and so I shall formally
shiftto observationson the "modern" period of the past
two decades. I shall proceed by numbered"points," but
no greatsignificanceattachesto theordering.
1. The amount of materialunder the generalheading
"'organizationtheory''is verylarge; and probablyis still
swellingin volume.The books in myown librarythatI so
classifynumberapproximatelythree hundred,and this
figurecould be doubled or trebledwithoutseriouseffort,
if financespermittedand therewerereason fordoing so.
Study of and writingabout organizationshas been an
academic "growthindustry"for some time,and thereis
no signthatthemarketis weakening.
To whatis thegrowthto be attributed?To thefactthat
organizations have increased in size, in number, in
complexity,in "organizationness."To the fact that they
challengeattentionfromso manydisciplinesand are open
to examination by so many means. For good and
importantreasonsgenerally.But growthin thevolumeof
the literatureis not to be equated withgrowthin knowl-
edge. Thereis muchrecycling, renaming,repackaging;not
just the wheel,but fire,agriculture,and bronzeare redis-
covered. Increase in knowledgeis real, I believe. But the
tremendousswellingin the volume of literatureis less a
functionof growingknowledgeand more a function,for
writers,of childrento be educated,mortgagespaid, and,
for publishers,of marketsto be exploited,competition
met. Plainly at work also is a "chain reaction" effect:a
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
literature"explodes" throughinteractionprocessesas it
growslarger.
2. While thereare perspectives,concepts,schemata,or
theoreticalsystems-howevertheymaybe designated-for
whichtheirproponentsclaim theabilityto unifyand focus
organizationtheory,the modernperiodhas been and still
is characterizedby diversity,heterogeneity, competition,
and changingfashions.Plainly, forcesakin to those that
produce "product differentiation"in clothes, electrical
appliances and automobilesare at work here. Words or
phrasesthatindicateapproachesand fociincludebutbyno
means are limitedto: structural,institutional, behavioral,
comparative, decision-making, contingency, design,
environment, system, bureaucracy, socio-technical,
compliance. Differing classificatory systems and
typologiesabound; claimsare vigorouslyassertedthatthis
or thatis thereal elephant,or at least themostimportant
part of theelephant.
3. Considerable understandingof the diversityand
complexityof thetheoryof themodernperiodis gainedby
takingnote of the disciplinaryand institutionalmatrix.
Researchand writingdo nottakeplace at randomin an un-
structuredintellectualuniverse, but are nurturedand
shaped by researchtraditions,disciplinaryacculturation,
peer pressures,career ladders, and economic constraints
and rewards.
A prominentinstitutional-intellectual source of organi-
zation theorycan be designatedby the termmanagement
science.This is a traditionand focusthattendsto centerin
schools of business or management.It is the principal
legatee of the ScientificManagementmovement.But it
claims also to have a rightfulclaim (perhapsthe rightful
claim) to the philosophiesand methodologiesof modern
sciencegenerally.Its empiricalfocusis centeredupon busi-
ness organizations.It is methodologicallyhighly"self-
conscious." It tends toward the use of statistical-mathe-
maticalconceptsand methodologies.It is frequently com-
parative-withinits chosen empiricaland conceptualuni-
verse.It is seriousabout theoryin a strictscientific
sense-
whatevermightbe said in qualificationor refutationof its
claims. (I glass over here distinctionsthat are important
amongmembersof whatI see as a sectoror "community.")
Anotherprominentsource of researchand writingis
sociology.Major figuresin the developmentof the disci-
pline (Comte, Toennies, Durkheim,Weber, Parsons and
others)providedinspiration,perspectives and concepts;an
organizationalworldbeggingto be exploredprovidedthe
opportunity; and careersto be made suppliedtheincentive.
The resultis a largeand richliterature treatingsuchthemes
as bureaucraticfunctionsand organizationalstructure.
More generally,the sociologistshave addressedthe rela-
tionship between organization and society: reciprocal
influencesand structural-functional interrelations.
As I vieworganizationtheory,managementscienceand
sociology compete for first place in prominenceand
influence.One can arriveat ratherdifferent conclusionsin
this matterdependingon the criteriaadopted and the
evidenceaccepted.
Social psychology,I judge, is thirdin rank as a source
and constituent.With the humanrelationsmovementthe
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978
BOOK REVIEWS 591

gate was opened, and the influxof social psychological existand are importantto theunderstanding of organiza-
conceptshas been large and influential:role sets, group tiontheory.But it is also truethatthearea (one hesitatesto
norms,goal displacement,supervisory styles,and so forth. call it a universe)is much less tidythan may have been
There is the point of view, to be sure-an actingout of a suggested, since it is an area of inter-disciplinary
territorialimperativeby some sociologistsbut based on a borrowing,multi-disciplinary researchand theuse of con-
certain logic-that social psychologydoes not so much cepts and methodsthan cannot be claimed forany single
deal withorganizationtheoryas withsocial psychologyin discipline.
organizationalsettings.But in a broad sense (or in an ecu- 4. Is there,despiteall, a core of consistency,a thematic
menicalspirit)it is reasonableto viewsocial psychologyas linearity,in thelargeand seemingly diversearea of modern
a major contributor to thecorpusof modernorganization organizationtheory?Despite theamorphousand inclusive
theory.2 nature of the term, are there areas of "organization
Economics, I judge (but withless certainty),is nextin theory" that most of those who claim the termdo not
rankas disciplinary contributor.This is ratherparadoxical recognizeas legitimatecomponents?As I viewthematter,
in viewof thecentralinterestof economics:its sharpfocus the answer to these questions is: Yes. My view (or
upon theeconomicto theexclusionof thesocial, theinsti- argument)is thatthecore of consistencyis givenbycertain
tutional,the "human." Perhaps the paradox can be ex- deeply-groundedvalues of twentiethcentury Western
plained by saying that certain economists have contri- (particularly American?)culture.
butedto organizationtheory.
My thought goes hereto theimmenselysuggestiveessay
I have in mind severalcontributions.One is the line of
ofCarlBecker,TheHeavenlyCityof theEighteenth Cen-
anti-bureaucratic argument(or anti-organizational theory)
turyPhilosophers,arguingthateach age has a numberof
associated prominently withLudwigvon Mises and Fried-
mutuallysupportingconceptsthat "ground" the thought
richA. Hayek and currently verymuch withus. Another
of theage: conceptsdeemedto be self-evident and beyond
(somewhatrelated)is the use of the economist'smode of
questionby reasonablepersons. In our time(for the area
reasoningset to work on large organization;here promi-
we addressat least) theseconceptswould include,I judge,
nentlybutby no meansexclusively,AnthonyDowns. Then
thereare maverickeconomists,above all John Kenneth scientific,rationality,effectiveness,efficiency,produc-
tivity.
Galbraith, who focus upon organizationsin the entire
social-political-economicworld. If thisperspectiveis adopted, thenmuchorderand con-
Anthropologypresentsanotherparadox. Its traditional sistencypresentsitselfin an area of seemingwilddiversity.
focusupon "simple" societieswould seemto make it irrel- What work in organizationtheorypurportsto be non-
evant to the studyof organizationsin the sense that the scientific,repudiatesrationality,dismisseseffectiveness,
term is used in organization theory: all of the usual eschewsefficiency? An illustrationof myperspectivefrom
qualifying adjectives-large, complex, formal, goal our history(forwhichI claim no originality):Once it was
specific, bureaucratic-speak to the "civilized" world. argued thathuman relationsrepresenteda repudiationof
Patently,however,anthropologyhas made more than a ScientificManagement,but it came to be recognizedthat,
peripheralcontributionto organizationtheory,beginning rather,it soughta refinement of the means, not a shiftin
(at least) with Alexander Leighton's The Governingof goals or even an essentialchange in (scientific)method.
Men. The concept of culture (if that can be held to Organizationalhumanism,succeedinghumanrelations,is,
"belong" to anthropology)is oftenaccorded an honor- in turn, taxed by critics as subject to the same
able place, even in the highlyscientific-behavioral works; "limitation": its "human" concernsin the end subjectto
and structural-functional theoryin sociology is in deep thedictatesof rationality and efficiency.
debtto anthropology. If thisperspectiveis adopted it explainscertainconven-
And what of political science? Here I confrontnot a tionsin theuse of languageand thebasis fortheexclusion
paradox but a puzzle, one that has baffledme for two of certainmattersfrom"organizationtheory"despitethe
decades. The puzzle is setbyMarchand Simon's Organiza- breadthand inclusivenessof the term.(Again, I claim no
tions. This work, by two who have degrees in political originality formyobservations.)It explainsthepropensity
science,purportsto codifyorganizationtheoryup to that to regardconflictas abnormal,dysfunctional.It explains
time.But politicalscience,essentially,is dismissedas insig- theverysparinguse of "power." It explainsthegreatdiffi-
nificantfor theirenterprise.This interpretation has been cultyof-and underscoresthe importanceof-the recon-
widelyaccepted;3a typicalsurveyof organizationtheory ciliation of the realm of administrationwith the ideas,
will-as a matterof courtesy?-include a few bibliogra- sentimentsand institutionsrepresentedby the word
phic items that can be classified as political science, democracy.It explains the absence-except verymargin-
nothingmore. Is politicalsciencereallythat irrelevantto ally-of ethicaltheory.And it may give the chiefclue to
the enterprise?The question is well worthaddressing,I the solution of the puzzle noted above: Why is political
think,from"both sides." My own thoughtson thematter sciencenot a partof or contributor to organizationtheory
go farbeyondthepresentcommission-anotheroccasion. as thattermis ordinarilyconstrued?
In theprecedingreviewof institutional and disciplinary (Perhaps, to make mypoint,I have exaggerated:Some
foci,despitesome indicationsof "borrowing,"theimpres- recent work finds virtuesin conflict. Time will reveal
sion was probablycreatedthattheseveralfoci weremore whetherthisis a "paradigmenlargement"or a "paradigm
discreteand dividedthan theyare. The foci indicateddo change.")

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
592
5. In thisdecade a tidal shiftis evident:away fromdes-
cription,toward prescription,but with the shiftfor the
most part toward the "hard" values of our underlying
beliefs. This is a complicatedmatter,and like so many
touchedon hereworthyof extendedtreatment.But a few
aspects,in brief.
The shiftdoes not, necessarilyor essentially,mean an
abandonment of science, but rather some shifting
emphases in its use, some evolvinginterpretations of its
foundationsand methods. Afterall, the shiftprobably
owes somethingto HerbertSimon's The Sciences of the
Artificial(1969), whichemphasizesdesignas the focus of
professional education, and nobody has ever accused
Simon of defectingfromscience. What has been taking
place perhapscan be put in the termsof the Appendixof
AdministrativeBehavior: a shift of emphasis from
theoreticalscienceto practicalscience.
Shiftsin theenvironment in whichresearchand writing
takesplace ("I would hypothesize")are responsibleforthe
shiftin emphasis.In thepast decade we have passed from
the "easy optimism"of thefuturists' predictionsthat"the
problemof productionhas beensolved" to a senseof strin-
gency, even peril. Actual economic difficultiesand
retrenchments have been paced by predictionsof scarcities
and crises. While the "climate" of the late seventiesis
muchdifferent fromthatof thelate sixties,neitherclimate
has been conducive to a sense of (or the funding of)
researchwithoutan ostensiblepurpose beyond Scientific
Curiosity.
For whateverreasons,a trendis apparent,as evidenced
by the "productivity"movementin both business and
government.In organizationtheorytherenewedemphasis
is signaled by works withefficientor effective(or their
cognatesor surrogates)in theirtitles.Overall, one way of
puttingit is thatorganizationtheoryis less an independent
pursuitthanit earlierwas (or wishedto be), moretiedback
intomanagement.
Danger of oversimplificationexists. "Soft" values,
comingforwardprominently in thesixtiesand indicatedby
such termsas humanism,enrichment,self-actualization,
Theory Y, participation,OD, democracy,have not dis-
appeared. They also can be, and are, thegoal of prescrip-
tiveendeavors.Often,even typically,what one findsis a
movementtowardprescription withsome "mix" of hard
and softobjectives.
6. Does any theory(or complex of theories)hold the
promiseof becominga "unifiedfieldtheory"fororgani-
zation theory? The two most obvious candidates are
systemstheoryand contingency theory.I judge it unlikely
that eitherwill performthis function-thoughI predict
continuingpopularityforboth.
Some would perhaps say that systems theory now
performsan overarching,unifyingrole. Such a stance is
notabsurd. Systemstheoryhas fora generationpenetrated
and suffusedorganizationtheoryand, indeed,a greatdeal
of social science. We tend to think,talk and write-and
sometimes research-differentlybecause of systems
theory.So much can easily be granted.More, it can be
grantedthatour enterprise has been greatlystimulatedand
enrichedbysystemstheory.
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
Nevertheless,it would seem clear thatsystemstheoryis
not now "advancing." Rather,it is a "given," a useful,
respectableadditionto the stock of ideas, not a threatto
themor a replacementforthem.Perhapsin a way it is the
victim of its successes: by becoming "everything" it
becomesnothingin particular.Example: fourof theeight
chaptersof a recentintroductory book allegedlyconcern
systems theory: S6cial Exchange Systems Theory,
Structural Systems Theory, Technological Systems
Theory,and AdaptiveSystemsTheory.
A negativeverdictcan be reached fromanotherroute,
by way of the literature on the philosophy and
methodologyof scientificresearch.I referto the point of
view thatsystemtheoryis neitheritselfa scientifictheory
nor a basis forconceptsand testablehypothesesthatcan
lead to genuine science. Rather, like other "grand"
theoriesit is at base a philosophy.As such it mayperform
a usefulorientingand motivatingfunction;withcharity,
even a heuristicfunction.But-repeat-it is not science
norcan itdirectlybe transformed intoscience.
Contingencytheoryhas emergedin thisdecade as a con-
tenderforperformanceof theorderingand unifyingfunc-
tion.Currently it is fashionable,"big." Butwhatis it? Is it
a theory?a perspective?a philosophy?a methodology?
The correctanswerprobablyis "all of theabove."4
Contingencytheorymightbe characterizedas a much
elaborated and theoreticallyrefinedacademic versionof
the position taken by Harvey Sherman in his It All
Depends: A PragmaticApproach to Organization(1966).
This characterization mightoffendsome adherents,due to
the anti-academic, anti-theoreticaland-some would
say-anti-intellectualtone of Sherman's book. Some,
however,acknowledgethe work as at least a respectable
beginningstatement.
Certainly "it all depends" is close to the central
significanceof contingency theory.It is emphaticin hold-
ing that "correct" or "workable" answers to organiza-
tionaland managerialproblemsare dependentupon a mul-
titude of quickly changing and intricatelyinterrelated
factors;factorswithinthe organizationbut, especially,in
itsenvironment. But contingency theorists,beingacademic
and "theorists," believe that in findingcorrectanswers,
makingthe best decision, a theoreticallyinformedjudg-
mentis betterthana personaljudgmentbased onlyon ex-
perienceand commonsense.
Contingencytheory is not hostile to (most) other
theories,whichmayargueforregardingit as a perspective
and methodratherthan a theory.Indeed, some hold that
contingency theoryemergesfromor is an aspectof system
theory:viewingthisorganizationas a systemcomposedof
(sub)systems,interactingwith other systems,and taking
"everything"into consideration,what then? What will
"work"? Certainlycontingency theoryis pragmaticin out-
look and method; but it avoids the name and (to my
knowledge)theliterature of pragmatism. 5
Contingencytheoryshares with systemtheorycertain
advantagesand certainlimitations.Certainlyit has plausi-
bilityand appeal: who believestheworldis simpleand that
decisionsshould be made as thoughit were? It is difficult
to be againstusingall thetheorythatis relevantand recog-
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978
BOOK REVIEWS
nizingall of thefactsthatcan be recognized.Emphasizing
the contingentnature of the organizationalsituationis
proper-but what then? If all of us become contingency
theorists,will theidea become so dilutedit loses its power
(or popularity)?This mighthappen unless thereis gener-
ated more of a conceptualbase and (or) empiricalframe-
workthanis yetevident.On theotherhand, it maybe that
lack of precisionand substanceis theessenceof theappeal,
guaranteeing continuingpopularity.
RecentBooks More or Less Representative
The books notedand characterizedhere(I willnotclaim
to reviewthemin depth)are associatedin partbychance-
theywere recentlypublished and "available" from the
Book Revieweditor;and in partby design-I chose them
as illustrative
of themesor trends.
A General Theoryof Bureaucracyprovidesa link with
themain Britishfocusin and contributionto organization
theory,namely,studyof the technologyof productionin
relationto organizationalvariables,and beyond theseto
the largerenvironment.During the course of some three
decades ElliottJaques,theauthor,has had a variedwork-
researchexperiencein the "real world" of organizations
(whichhe stressesto give authenticity
to his argument),in
addition to practicingpsychoanalysisduringthis period.
Some of his publications,notablyThe ChangingCulture
of a Factoryand (withWilfredBrown)theGlacierProject
Papers are recognizablefeaturesin our scholarlyland-
scape.
This work was not sufficiently"framed" in the
introductory discussion,perhapsbecause,thoughitis well-
rooted in the world of organization,its branchesextend
into many areas not ordinarilyregardedas organization
theory.Perhaps-nevertheless-it should have been noted
that a spate of books has recently appeared with
bureaucracy(or its cognates)in theirtitles;6and thepoint
made that this is not an accident but a phenomenonof
some importance,reflecting importantdevelopmentsand
concerns.CertainlyI believe this to be the case. Indeed,
someoneshould favorus witha survey,analysisand inter-
pretationof thesebooks-for whichI suggestthetitleThe
BureaucraticBook Phenomenon.
By the author's intent,this is a "big" book about
bureaucracy,and by myjudgmentit is an importantwork
on the subject-though not necessarily,as the dustjacket
asserts,"the mostsignificant advancein theunderstanding
of bureaucracysince Max Weber." In any event,Jaques'
intentis no less than "to build a general theoretical
constructionof how social institutionsand human nature
affecteach other,withspecial referenceto bureaucracy."
(vii)
Jaques' argumentcan onlybe suggested,it cannoteven
be fullyoutlined. In briefthen: Jaques firstof all sees
bureaucraciesas inevitable."The simplefactis thatif we
decide to proceed with the developmentof industralized
societies,thenbureaucracieson a large scale are here to
stay." (13) What he seeks is a strategyby whichhe may
have theirbenefitswithoutsufferingtheirdiseases and
dangers.He believesthatthisis possible (thoughfar from
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
593
inevitable): "The argumentI shall pursue is that...
bureaucraciesper se are neithercentralizingor localizing
powers,neitherhumanizingor dehumanizing."(2)
I willarguethatunderconditions of urbanindustralism in
whichthegreatmajority ofpeoplecometoworkinbureaucracies,
theseself-same institutions
which seemtostultifyso manylivescan
be madeto offerat leastone sanctioned sourceof authorityat
community level.In factories,
inoffices, inschools,ingovernment
departments, inhospitals,andinsocialservices, of
representatives
eachemploying associationcan interact withelectedrepresenta-
tivesoftheir employees, locallyas wellas centrally,
tofindpolicies
and on-going modifications topolicywhichhavea sufficient con-
sensustobeacceptable.
Through thisconstitutional processof interactiveparticipation
andsanctioning, bureaucratic
powercanbe harnessed. Itcanthen
be transmuted intothelegitimated managerial authoritynecessary
forthebureaucracy toworkina humanizing way.(2-3)
One piece of the argument,to indicatehow the work
mayintrigue,please or anger:Jaquescontendsthathierar-
chical differentiation and rewardsin bureaucraciesreflect
somethingimportantand are not in themselvesunjust or
sociallyharmful.The problemto be solvedis how to make
and keep bureaucracies"open systems" so that "work-
status" correspondsto functionand rewardsand is not
deformedbyclass, race,accident,or whatever.
The Managementof OrganizationDesign is theproduct
of a largeconferenceon organizationdesignsponsoredby
theGraduateSchool of Businessof theUniversity of Pitts-
burghin 1974,a conferencerelatedin significant measure
to earlier activitiesand associations at the Instituteof
Management Sciences at Carnegie-Mellon. There are
twelvechapters(essays or "papers") in the firstvolume,
twelve in the second, in addition to the introductory
chapterfor each volume writtenby the editors.Familiar
namesreappear:Harold Leavitt,JayLorsch,Ian Mitroff,
WilliamStarbuck;and new ones (to me) appear: Donald
Gerwin, Larry Pate, Peter Vail. (This might well be
presumed.It is true for the othermultiple-author works
and I willnotrepeattheobservation.)
Volume I, subtitled Strategies and Implementation,
consistsof threeparts.Part I is limitedto theintroductory
chapterby theeditors,"Patternsand EmergingThemesin
OrganizationDesign." (By the way, anyonewho has not
been paying attentionshould know that "organization
planning" is now gauche: organizations should be
designed,not planned.) Part 2 is titledSystemsPerspec-
tives and Design Strategies.Volume II consists of four
parts,again withthefirstpartbeingtheeditors'introduc-
tion, "Directions of Research on OrganizationDesign."
Subsequent parts are organized according to level of
analysis-"Micro-Organization Design," "Macro-Orga-
nizationDesign," and "Interorganization Design."
It is easilypredictablethata reviewerof a worksuch as
thiswillmakecertainobservations;and I do so. The firstis
that the contributionsare of unequal quality-though of
unequal interestto me mightbe more accurate since the
technicalaspectsof someessays(particularly in VolumeII)
are beyondmy competence.The second is that,however
excellentthe individualcontributions,thereis a lack of
continuity: the"order" decreedby theeditorsis somewhat
fictitious.As one who has organized conferencesand
594
symposia and edited their product, I understand.Pro-
fessorswill do what theywish, organizersand editorsbe
damned. "Professors"?-an observationon anotherprob-
lem, that of gettingacademics and practitionersinto a
productiverelationship;or, as theeditorsputit (in thePre-
face), thereis a "design problem" in "how to matchup
those two sets of problem-solution pairs." They state as
their "major problem" that the "conference was
dominatedbytheacademics,whilethepractitioners played
the role primarilyof observers." This too is a familiar
problem;and I have foundno formulato solveit.
This work illustratesor documents several matters
discussed above. First, it well represents-in subjects
chosen, in empiricalareas addressed,in tone and style-
the approach to organization theory designated
managementscience,whichtendsto centerin schools of
businessor management.Second, it represents theshiftto-
ward the "applied." Indeed, this is made explicitby the
editors in their preface: "In the 1930's and 40's the
balance tiltedtowardthe prescriptiveside, but withouta
highlydevelopedempiricalbase. For the last two decades
or so, thebalance has been on thedescriptive side. . . . But
withinthe last few years the balance has begun to shift
back towardprescriptive design,now groundedin a firmer
empiricalbase."7 Third,theworkreflectsuse of and, per-
haps, the mixingand even meldingof theoreticalperspec-
tivescurrently in favor.Fourth,the survivalor revivalof
"values," thepenetrationof the"soft," is evidentevenin
this "hard" environment.(See especially Chapter 10,
Volume I: "On OrganizationStories:An Approach to the
Design and Analysisof OrganizationsThroughMythsand
Stories.") Fifth,theabsence of what mightbe designated
"the political" is almost complete. "Participation" is
admitted;but the world picturedhere is largelyvoid of
power,status,conflict,evenbargaining.
Sixth, the recyclingand refurbishingof concepts is
reflectedhere. "Design" is now "in." But the idea of
designingorganizationswas fundamentalto classicalorga-
nization theory, related presumablyto its engineering
background.
The most seriousproblemsand "defects" of the work
are recognizedby theeditors."To theircredit," one might
say, fortheproblemsare fundamental:(1) It is unclear,on
seriousattention,what the objectives) of designis (are).
(2) It is unclearwho should designor by whatprocessess.
(3) It is unclearhow a designconceptcan be implemented.
Lest thisbe regardedsimplyas sarcasm let me ask: Who
succeeds in slayingerrorand enthroningtruth?In that
never-ending enterprise
thisis a notableattempt.
ArlynJ. Melcher,the authorof Structureand Process
of Organizations:A SystemsApproach,is professorof ad-
ministrativesciences at Kent State University,a center
for the administrativescience orientation. The work
stronglyreflectsthebusinessbackgroundthatis suggested,
but it is by intent"ecumenical": "The orientationis to
providegeneraltheorythatis applicableregardlessof insti-
tutionalsetting-industrial,educational,hospital,govern-
mental,prison,or othercontext." (3) The work is given
"authenticity"by an introduction by HerbertSimon, and
all evidencepointsto professionalcompetence.
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
The emphasisis firstof all on understanding-"learning
to see"-organizations. Beyondthat,the objectivewould
seemto be "professionalorientation"if not "professional
training."There is a "scientific"aura: "The emphasisis
upon cause and effectrelationships."(3)
The conceptual frameworkappears in Chapter 2, "A
System Model for Analyzing Organization Behavior."
Here, surprisingly,Melcher does not expound system
theory.He does it, so to speak, by settingforthin brief
schematic fashion the "Dimensions of Organization
Behavior." These are developed in parts of the book as
follows: II PrimaryStructuralVariables; III Secondary
StructuralVariables: Formal AuthorityRelationships;IV
SecondaryStructuralVariables: Formal Control System;
V LeadershipStyle.
This is verymucha "closed system"book. I mean that
as a statementof factand nota criticism, thoughtheuse of
"systems"in thesubtitlewell illustratesthatby becoming
everything "systems"becomesnothingin particular.Very
littlein the book addresses "environment";the emphasis
is "management,"the flavor"behavioral." Withinthese
limits(iftheyare limits)thetreatment is, I judge, excellent.
This is very much a "teaching" book. Chapters are
followedby discussionquestions.A fieldmanual (whichI
have not seen) is available to provide "guidelines in
applyingthe frameworkto the analysisof complexcases
and . . . diagnosingcauses of problemsin actual organiza-
tions." (4) The work is "lightened" not only by the
customarychartsand graphs,but by "boxed" insertsof
illustrativeor complementarymaterialand by cartoons
takenfrom(shallwe say) non-academicmedia.
Human, humanizing, humanization, are the theme
wordsin Humanizing
Organizational
Behavior.Its disci-
plinary locus is psychology-socialpsychology,Meltzer
being a professorof organizationalpsychologyand Wic-
kert a professorof psychologyand graduate business
administration.As the second part of Wickert's title
indicates,thereis a business school aura but not a pro-
nouncedone.
One is not surprisedto learn thatthe book grewout of
symposia; specifically,symposiain 1973 and 1974 at the
annual meetings of the American Psychological
Association under the title Humanizing Organizational
Psychology.While the customary"edited books" prob-
lems of coherence,continuityand quality are evident,
this work succeeds better than most in solving the
problemsbecause the editors have gone far beyond the
symposia presentationsin findingappropriatematerial.
(Thereare twenty"contributors.")
The four parts of the book are intendedto parallel
Lincoln's "If we could firstknow where we are and
whitherwe are tending,we could betterjudge what to do,
and how to do it." (Part I (where we are) is Human
Realitiesin ContemporaryOrganizations;Part II (whither
we are tending)is DiagnosingOrganizationsforPurposes
of Humanizing;Part III (whatto do) is Individualizingthe
Organization:The Individualand the Organization;Part
IV (how to do it) is Facilitatingthe Developmentof the
Humanizing Organization. The editors provide an
introduction to thevolumeand to each part.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978
BOOK REVIEWS 595

Thisworkreflects- thecontinuation of humanrelations, newdata." The secondsignifies thecurrent popularity of

itstransmutation intoorganizational humanism, and the contingency theory:"significant conceptual changeshave
continued interweaving oftheseconcerns intoorganization occurred. Forexample,thecontingency approachto man-
theory.The impetusfortheprojectcamefroma survey agementhas grown. . . . in thepast fouryears." (Systems
which"indicated thatorganizational psychology andorga- theoryis also well represented.)The third is of
nizationbehaviorwerecentered on developing technology considerable interest:"to suggestchangingemphasisin
thatlostsightof itsreasonforexistence-the humanizing valuesthathavean impacton organizations." Of thisina
process."(ix) moment.
Does thework"succeed"?It is a respectable effort in a As a straight textbook, so to speak,thisworkis excel-
good cause, and let our judgmentbe "human." The lent.It coversthestandard subjectswithenoughdepthbut
problemdealtwith,afterall, is a centralone,perhapsthe witha certain liveliness;anditprovides chronological and
centralone,inpoliticalandsocialtheory: howtoreconcile conceptualperspectives oftenabsentfromsuch efforts.
theindividual to theentity(ties)ofwhichheis a part;how (But someone slipped on the proof-reading in this
to preserve and forward theformer and at thesametime edition-badly.)
preserve andforward thelatter. Whatis ofmorethanpassinginterest is thatScottis not
Anant R. Negandhi'sInterorganization Theoryis only a "management scientist," he is also a
another"edited" work. Again, it growsout of our "philosopher";and thelatterinterest is reflected in the
esteemed academic rite, the scholarlyconference. firstand-especially-lastchapters. Scottalone,and with
Specifically, theworkgrowsoutofa seriesofconferences his other"regular"collaborator,
David K. Hart, has
withan "interorganization focus"conducted bytheCom- writtena numberof itemsthat ventureinto political
parativeAdministration ResearchInstitute at KentState theory, ethicaltheory, and futurology. (Some,notall, of
University earlyin thedecade.Thebookconsistsofintro- theseitemsare citedin thelastchapter.Somehave
been
ductory and concluding chaptersby theeditorand four published in thisReview.)In hisphilosopher roleScottis
parts,as follows:PartI Theoretical andConceptual Issues sometimes originalandfrequently stimulating, indeedpro-
in Interorganization Theory; Part II Organization- vocative.In his firstand (again)especiallylast
chapters
Environment Interface; PartIII Conceptualization at the Scott raises "value" questions,politicaland ethical
Organization FieldLevel.Therearetwenty-one "contribu- questions,thatare quite outsidethe framework
tors" and seven "commentators." of the
The usual "edited organization theory associatedwithmanagement
book" problems science.
are evident, butthegenerallevelof the Indeed,since-as Scotthas elsewhere
contributions is high.The editorhas performed observed-teaching
hisfunc- materials arealso instruments of professional "accultura-
tions,bothmechanical andintellectual, well. tion,"onewonders howteachers willreceive theworkand
This work reflectsand illustrates,of course, the whatstudents willmakeofit.
"discovery"of the organizational environment in the OrganizationalEffectiveness:Theory-Utilization-Re-
sixtiesand itsprominence as a concernin theseventies. It search,editedbyS. Lee Spray,is thethirdvolumein this
reflectsthe intertwining of variousthemesand foci, groupfromthebusy
"shop" at KentStateUniversity, the
notably thecloseassociation ofenvironment, opensystems ComparativeAdministration
theory, and contingency Research Institute of the
theory. Of courseit reflects also GraduateSchoolof BusinessAdministration.
itsbusiness administration-management sciencematrix. Again,it is
the productof a conference (1975); it consistsof nine
Probablythepointshouldbe emphasizedthat,while papersplusan introduction and concluding essayby the
interorganization theoryrelatessignificantly to (at least) editor.
environmentaltheory, open systems theory, and In hisprefacetheeditornotesthat"interest in under-
contingency theory, it is an important area "in its own standingorganizational effectiveness has undergonea
right,"presently an activefrontier. Thiswas thefunction markedgrowthin thepast fewyears." This volumeis
explored, preeminently, bythelateJamesD. Thompson. intended to aid in finding a waythrough the"labyrinth of
Withtherealization thatnosimpleorganization, no matter writings.""More specifically, the volumeattemptsto
howlarge,is capableof performing sometasks;thatwe identifyand examinecriticallysome of the major
mustthinkinterms ofnetworks, or sectoralcomplexes, in approachesto thestudyof organizational
matters effectiveness,
suchas healthand education,theenterprises of indicatewaysin whichsuchapproaches arelinkedto each
organization and administration enteran area forwhich other, andsuggest waystonarrow theexisting gapbetween
wedo notevenhavean adequatevocabulary. theoreticalknowledge andpractical action."Following the
OrganizationTheory:A Structuraland Behavioral introduction thepresentation is: SectionI: Organizational
Analysis, byWilliamG. ScottandTerrence R. Mitchell, is Effectiveness-Theory; SectionII: Organizational Effec-
thethirdeditionof thiswork,one of severalsubstantial tiveness-Research; SectionIII: Organizational Effective-
textbooks(essentially rootedin businessadministration ness-Utilization;SectionIV: Organizational Effective-
andaimedat businessadministration) to wearthesilksof ness-Relevance(this is solelythe editor'sconcluding
The IrwinSeries in Managementand the Behavioral essay). A bibliography of the literature (since 1970) is
Sciences. included.Thematter of organizational "effectiveness" in
Threereasonsaregivenforthisrevision. (vii)The first, a governmental environment-whether and howa special
whilepresumably important, is ofno specialinterest tous: problem-isnotaddressed; butonewouldbe surprised ifit
"researchin thebehavioral sciencescontinues to produce were.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER1978

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
596
The editorprofessesto findsome patternsand an area
of consensus in the "labyrinth." The "search for
commonality" reveals "five distinctbut closely inter-
relatedquestions." (2) More important,the "diversityof
perspectivesshouldnotbe allowed to obscurethefactthat,
at thepresenttime,thereis a growingtheoreticalunityand
coherencein the studyof organizationaleffectiveness: a sional, protean,not subjectto disproof,it is notsurprising
unitybased on a systemsmodelof organizationalfunction-
ing." (166) Perhaps; but nothingin the papers or in the
editor's summaryargumentsignifiesthat systemstheory
willquickly,or evencertainly,giveus answersto thediffi-
cultquestionsposed byeffectiveness and efficiency.
The editor,especiallyin his concludingpages, discusses
a problemthat has long intriguedme (intellectually) and
baffledme (practically),a problemindicatedabove. This is
the problemof puttingtheoryand practice,the academy
and practitioner,togetherin a "package" that enables
each "side" to contributeequally to a productgreaterand
better than either is capable of producingalone. This
problemwas presented,fortheeditor,by thefamiliarcon-
ference situation: practitionerswere invited to the
conferenceand did attend,but theirparticipationwas less,
and different;
and difficult to "put together"withthecon-
cerns of the professors.With much more experiencein
dealingwiththe problemthantheeditor,I have, alas, no
advice to give for his next attempt.The fact that the
problem is not limited to administration,private and
public, but extends across the professionalspectrumis
simultaneouslya source of consolation and discourage-
ment.
Organizational
Behaviorand Management:
A Contin-
gencyApproach, edited by Henry L. Tosi and W. Clay
Hamner,is a revisededitionof a workpublishedonlythree
years earlier. It is a book of "readings" intendedfor
"courses in management,organizationtheory,organiza-
tionalbehavior,and industrialpsychology."I countfifty-
five authors (or co-authors)includingthe editors. (Only
two of the authors, Presthusand Simon, are identified
withpolitical science or public administration,and their
contributionsdo not concern public administration.)I
gatherthatit has beena successful,i.e., widelyused, work.
The prefaceto the revisededitionstatesthat: "As in its
firstedition, this book is designedto bringpresentand
potentialmanagersinto first-handcontact with the past
decade's vast increasein informationabout organizations
and environmentalinfluenceson performanceand satis-
factionin industry."The organizationof thebook is: Part
One, The Organizationand the Environment;Part Two,
Individual Learning and Socialization; Part Three,
Individual Behavior in the Organization; Part Four,
Group Behaviorand IntergroupConflictin theOrganiza-
tion;Part Five, The Effectsof theOrganizationalEnviron-
ment on Individual and Group Behavior; Part Six, The
Effectsof Leadershipon Individualand Group Behavior;
Part Seven, Organizational Change and Development.
Listsof referencesfolloweach part.
This work reflectsor illustratesmany of the above
observations on trends in organization theory, but
presumablyit is not now necessaryto discuss all of the
relationships.Two mattersonly.
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
The firstis to emphasizetheinterweaving of systemsand
contingencyconcepts. The editors' introductorypiece
begins: "The contingency approach to managingassumes
thatan organizationis a system,or unit,of behaviorcom-
posed of subsystems, or subunits."As systemsand contin-
gency are both flexible,multi-facetedand multi-dimen-
thattheycan be melded. By the same token,their"run"
maybe long.
The second is to ask: Is this a work in organization
theory,and thusproperlyincludedin thisreview?Since it
is labeledOrganizational
Behaviorand Management,
is
not its organizational component properly designated
behavior?In usage, in theuniversewe addresshere,there
is no clear line dividingthese two terms-remember,for
example,thatone of theintendedmarketsforthebook is
classes in "organizationtheory."My own viewis thatfor
themostpartthetwo termsare interchangeable. But some
differencesin usage, in connotation, are apparent.
Behavioris the "harder," moreputativelyscientificterm;
theoryis the"softer," moreflexibleterm,allowing"orga-
nization theory" to comprehend,at least peripherally,a
rangeof matters(purposely)excludedby thosewhose pre-
ferredusage is organizationbehavior.8
Mosaicsof Organization An I-D Approach
Character,
to ExplainOrganization
Behavior,by RobertGranfield
Wrightrepresentsa worthyintentand presentswhat is
probablya useful,if hardlynew,idea. Unfortunately, the
deliveryfallsshortof thepromise-or hope.
The intentis to put theoryand practicein organizational
studyand analysisinto fertileinteraction.The authorhas
both academic credentials(a Ph.D. in business admini-
stration)and much "operating" experience;and he has
queried other practicingorganizationalanalysts in the
search for critical variables and useful techniques. He
hopes that the analyticschema he presentswill be useful
not onlyforindicatingenlightening researchbut fortrain-
ingconsultantsand managers.
The "idea" is thatany organizationis a mixtureof the
universaland theparticular,of theIntegraland theDiffer-
ential: I-D. Integral,or Common aspects (or variables)of
organizationare such thingsas purposeor goals, division
of labor, span of control, and incentive system.
Differentialaspects are divided into three categories:
externalenvironment, consistingof such thingsas climate
and weather,capital resources,and labor market;internal
culture,consistingof such thingsas customs,symbolism,
and leadershipstyle; man in organization,consistingof
such thingsas motivationaltraits,ethnicstatus,and refer-
encegroups(Table I, 46).
Patently,it is not absurd to thinkof any particularor-
ganization as having universal characteristics(at least
universalsthatcan be definedintoexistence,"stipulated")
and unique characteristics-thegeneral idea is as old as
Greek philosophy. Probably the idea, worked into a
schema,has itsuses. But thiseffortis badlyflawed.
The firstpage of Chapter One has a quotation from
RoderickSeidenberg,and in thecitationboth thename of
theauthorand of thesourceare misspelled.This is unnerv-
ing. Unfortunately nothinghappens thereafter to restore
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978
BOOK REVIEWS
confidencein theseriousnessof theeffort.Thereare many
errors,the typographyis poor, the bindinginadequate.
(My softcovercopybegan to defoliatewithChapterOne.)
More important,of course: theargumentis not clearly,
cogently and persuasivelydeveloped. There are little
lectures on scientific methodology, of no particular
relevance.The book, thoughbrief,is repetitious, inconsis-
tent.We are told, forexample,that"As a teachingdevice
I-D analysis providesthe studentwith a sOund guide to
intelligentaction." (106) A fewpages laterwe are told that
"to thiswriter'sknowledge,no researcheffortshave been
published concerningthe actual application of the I-D
approach." (110)
A pity.I have the feelingthattheauthoris a competent
organizationalanalyst, that he has authenticoperating
skill.But thetransfer of whathe "knows" to printhas not
beensuccessful.
Elephantology:
AnAdvancing
Science?
Clearly, no single and agreed upon "picture" of the
elephanthas emergedin thepast two decades. Rather,the
modernperiod in organizationtheoryis characterizedby
vogues, heterogeneity,9 claims and counter-claims.I
suggesta titlefor a book certainto finda wide market:
Designing and Managing an Innovative, Efficient,
Notes
1. Of course, no one has everseen an organizationapart from
thepersonswho allegedlycomposeit and theartifactsamong
whichand withwhichthesepersonsinteract.I suggestthat
thepatrongod of social scienceshouldbe theprimaldeityof
Memphis,Ptah, who createdall of thethingsin theuniverse,
includingthe othergods, by firstthinkingof themand then
uttering theirnames.
2. I recognize,but pass by, the matterof psychologyas apart
fromsocial psychology.Woven intotheliteratureof organi-
zationtheoryis a greatamountof materialfocusingupon the
psychologyof theindividual.
3. CharlesPerrow,in his 1973essay, "The Shortand Glorious
Historyof OrganizationalTheory" (reprinted in theTosi and
Hamner volume) findsa political science influence,but I
questionhisevidenceand interpretation.
4. Scott and Mitchellobservethat,though"contingency"is a
vogueof thisdecade, mostof thecitationsin itsliteraturean-
tedate1970.
5. One of my manyunwritten (and probablyneverto be writ-
ten)essaysis "What EverHappened to JohnDewey?"
6. They includeGuy Benveniste,Bureaucracy(San Francisco:
1977); Ralph P. Hummel,TheBureaucraticExperience(New
York: 1977); Henry Jacoby, The Bureaucratizationof the
World (Berkeley,CA: 1973); David Schuman, Bureaucra-
cies, Organizations,and Administration: A Political Primer
(New York: 1976); and VictorA. Thompson, Bureaucracy
and theModern World(Morristown,NJ: 1976).
7. A colleague,whose opinionshouldweighheavierthanmine,
sees thiseffortas atypical;and disputesmyclaimthatthereis
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:19:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
597
Humane,Adaptive,Organization:
A Systems,
Structural,
Behavioral,Environmental
and Contingency
Approach.
Withoutundue crowding,the titlepage (or certainlythe
dustjacket) willaccommodatethetag-line:"A tool forthe
activeexecutiveand a guide forthecreativeresearcher,in
today'sbureaucraticworld."
Plainlywe have muchmore "organizationtheory"than
we had two decades ago. But do we knowmoreabout or-
ganizations?Of course. Anyreasonablybrightsophomore
who has workedhis or herway througha generaltextbook
knows (in an intellectual,not an operatingsense) a great
deal moreorganizationtheory(or, ifyou please, about or-
ganizationbehavior) than the Giants of the classical pe-
riod. I believewe are the beneficiaries,not the victimsof
thewide varietyof theories:all (well, nearlyall) enable us
to see somethingor do somethingwe otherwisecould not
see or do.
Whetherthisconclusionis accepteddependscentrallyon
thedefinitiongivento knowing-and herewe moveimme-
diatelyinto deep, and rough,water.My own definition-
no more an act of faiththan thatof the followersof the
most narrow and rigid ScientificMethodologist-is a
loose, pragmaticone. I findbiological evolutiona better
analogy for the evolution of "social science" than the
word-picturesof the developmentof theoreticalphysics
(painted for us by non-physicists).But that is another
tale. . ..
a movementtoward "the applied." But I let my opinion
standas an "hypothesis."
8. Perhaps it should be noted (lest I be accused of ignorance)
that to many witha scientific-behavioral commitment, the
use of "theory"to covertherangeof concepts,schemata,ar-
guments,etc., thatitis customarilymade to cover,is inexcus-
able. Some, thatis, wouldrestrict
theoryto "a setof assump-
tions from which can be derived purelyby logico-mathe-
maticalproceduresa largersetof empiricallaws." (Feigl)
9. Perhapsmentionshouldbe made of two "entries" notnoted
above. One is organizationtheorybased on phenomenology.
The chiefitemfor examinationhere,and the only "book"
presentationof whichI am aware, is David Silverman,The
Theoryof Organisations:A Sociological Framework(New
York: 1971). This work explicitlyargues for an "action
frameof reference,"bottomedon Weber and framedby
Schutzand Berger.Silvermanis British(as thespellingorga-
nisationattests)and thisperhapshelps account for the fact
that thiswork remainsto date an "exotic" in America. In
any event,though"action" theoryhas made a significant
penetrationin Americansocial sciencein the past decade, it
has not succeeded in becominga recognizedpart of the
Americanorganizationtheory"world."
The otherentryis Marxistorganizationtheory.In thiscon-
nectionI call attentionto J. KennethBenson, "Organiza-
tions: A Dialectical View," AdministrativeScience Quar-
terly,Vol. 22, no. 1 (March 1977), pp. 1-21.Space does not
permita discussion.Sufficeit to observethatthereis a para-
dox since "pure" Marxismis a theoryof beneficent anarchy;
but in thereal worldthereare Marxistorganizationtheories
just as in the real world thereare Christiangentlemenand
Catholicuniversities.