Organizational Design Types, Tracks and the

Dynamics of Strategic Change

Royston Greenwood, C. R. Hinings*

Abstract

Royston Greenwood, Change and stability in organizations is to be understood through the twin concepts of
C. R. Hinings design archetypes and tracks. Organizations operate with structural designs which are
Department of given meaning and coherence by underlying interpretive schemes. Particular interpre-
Organizational tive schemes coupled with associated structural arrangements constitute a design
Analysis, Faculty of archetype. The temporal relationship between an organization and one or more
Business, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, archetypes defines an organization’s track. Prototypical tracks include inertia, aborted
Canada excursions, re-orientations and unresolved excursions. The particular track followed by
an organization will be a function of the degree of alignment or compatibility between

structures and contingency constraints, the pattern of commitment to prevailing and

alternative interpretive schemes and the incidence of interest dissatisfaction of powerful
groups.

Introduction

The study of organizational design and of organizational change is moving into

a new phase. The emergence and development of contingency theory provided
a wealth of data on relationships between several contextual variahles -

notably size, environment and technology and aspects of organization

-

design; and despite weaknesses (e.g., Child 1972; Schoonhoven 1980; Aldrich
et al. 1984; Tosi and Slocum 1984) the approach provided useful ideas on the
constraints operating upon organizational design and some of the possible
causes of structural change. There is, however, a growing recognition of the
need for a measure of synthesis and a more explicit understanding of the
dynamics of change. Several writers have suggested design ’archetypes’ (Miles
and Snow 1978) ’gestalts’ or ’configurations’ (Mintzberg 1979; Miller and
Friesen 1980a) in order to produce theoretical coherence. Others have begun
the search for factors explaining the ’transitions’ of organizations and/or their
’transformation’ (Kimberley and Quinn 1984; Miller and Friesen 19811a;
Pettigrew 1985). There is, in short, an emerging focus upon the incidence and
nature of design types and the dynamics that control and propel movement
from one design type to another.
Central to this emerging focus is a recognition of organizational design change
as involving a mutual penetration of contingency theories, with their essentially
294

’mechanistic’ assumption of organizational structures changing in response to

altered contingencies, and strategic choice theory which emphasizes the role of
managerial interpretation and decision as shaping the direction and scope of
structural change (Ranson et al. 1980a). There is also a recognition that a
neglected area of research concerns the attempts by organizations to manage
structural transformation, i.e. radical and comprehensive change.
This paper adds to the emerging discussion of design types, or gestalts, and the
dynamics of transformational organizational change. It advances the concept
of organizational tracks i.e. the temporal association of an organization with
-

one or more design archetypes. Tracks are maps of the extent to which

organizations move from the constraining assumptions of a given archetype

and assume the characteristics of an alternative archetype. The primary aim of
the present paper is to elaborate the concept of tracks as an important focus of
future research effort and attention.

<I
.
.

Background Ideas

There are twoparticular, current, sets of ideas which are especially important
to our argument. These are the work of Miller and Friesen ( 1980a;1980b; 1984)
and those contained in Ranson et al. (1980a), Ranson et al. (1980b), Walsh et
al. (1981) and Hinings and Greenwood (1987). Initially, we will give a brief
overview of this work. As the overall framework for understanding organiza-
tional design types and tracks is developed in the paper, the relationship of
these ideas to wider organizational theorizing will also be set out.
The essential ideas taken from Miller and Friesen are those of archetypes,
inertia, momentum and quantum change. The concept of an archetype derives
from the idea that organizations operate with a limited number of configura-
tions of structure, strategy and environment:

’configurations are composed of tightly interdependent and mutually supportive

elements such that the importance of each element can best be understood by making
reference to the whole configuration.’ (Miller and Friesen 1984: 1).

The primary analytical thrust of Miller and Friesen is that organizational

designs should be considered in terms of the patterning or coherence of
component elements because the structural attributes and processes of an
organization frequently have a coherence or common orientation, forming an

archetype (as will become apparent later in the paper, this approach is very
much an extension of the long-term concerns of organizational analysis with
typologies). Organizations have a ’total’ design giving them an overall ’gestalt’
or ’configuration’. An understanding of the parts within an organization can be

gained only by looking at the pattern of the total design.

For Miller and Friesen, understanding which archetype an organization is in, is
crucial for understanding structural change and its difficulties. The coherence
 295

of an archetype is not accidental; it represents the appropriate design for

adequate performance. Archetypes, moreover, exhibit momentum and
inertia. Momentum is the process whereby an organization exhibits change
which is an extension of its current archetype. Indeed, Miller and Friesen
argue, and show, that momentum is a dominant organizational condition
(1980a; 1984). That is, change occurs, but within an organizational design
rather than between such designs. There is continuity in the direction or
organizational evolution in line with operative goals, power structures,
programmes and expectations (Miller and Friesen 1980a). From the point of
view of major change or transformations, what Miller and Friesen (1984) call
’quantum change’, organizations exhibit inertia, precisely because they are
caught within an archetype. Quantum change only occurs when there are
important, unmistakable problems to be faced.
Working with the notions of archetypes and the underlying concept of
coherence raises the issue of the basis of classifying organizations into such
archetypes or design types. Our previous work suggested that organizational
structures should be seen as embodiments of ideas, beliefs and values which
constitute an overarching and prevailing ’province of meaning’ our interpretive
.

scheme’ (Ranson et al, 1980a). Structures, according to this approach, are

.

reflexive expressions of intentions, aspirations and meanings or ’interpretive

schemes’. The classification and identification of organizational design
archetypes becomes a function of the isolation of clusters of ideas, values and
beliefs coupled with associated patterns of organization design. Hinings and
.

Greenwood (1987: 2) suggested that:

’The structural elements and organizational processes making up the design type are
strongly underpinned by provinces of meaning and interpretive schemes which bind
them together in an institutionally derived normative order.’

Hinings and Greenwood (1987) also suggest that interpretive schemes contain
beliefs and values about three principal and constraining vectors of activity: ( 1 )
the appropriate dornain of operations i.e. the broad nature of an organization’s
raison d’etre; (2) beliefs and values about appropriate principles of organizing;
and (3) appropriate criteria that should be used for evaluating organizational
performance. A design archetype is thus a set of ideas, beliefs and values that
shape prevailing conceptions of what an organization should be doing, of how it
should be doing it and how it should be judged, combined with structures and
processes that serve to implement and reinforce those ideas.
Walsh et al. ( 1981 ), in developing Ranson et al.’s (1Y80a) argument, further
elaborate the role that power and interests can play in maintaining, as well as
changing, the structure of an organization. Organization design types establish
a particular distribution of resources and power that in turn buttresses the

coherence of that design. Miller and Friesen (1980a) also point out that vested
interests and their power base become intertwined with a particular archetype
emphasizing the process of momentum and inertia.
296

Taken together, then, Miller and Friesen and Ranson et al. provide the basis
for a more developed theory of organizational change and stability by
suggesting (1) the importance of an organizational starting point (i.e. the
particular archetype); (2) a general outline for establishing such archetypes
(the coherence of meanings, structures and processes); (3) suggestions as to the
principles for directing change or stability (momentum, inertia and quantum
change); and (4) categories for explaining the relative causation of change and
stability (context, values, interests and power). The first three of these sets of
ideas are elaborated in turn below. The fourth, which deals with dynamics of
change is returned to at the end of the paper.
z

Introducing Design Archetypes

The Concept of a Design Archetype .

The work of Miller and Friesen (1984) is generally within the tradition of
searching for organizational typologies. Typologies have long been at the
basis of organizational theorizing, from Weber’s ( 1949) notions of charies-
ma, traditionalism and bureaucracy, to Burns and Stalker’s (1961) distinc-
tion between mechanistic and organic structures, and finally to Mintzberg’s
(1979) distinctions between simple structure, machine bureaucracy, profes-
sional bureaucracy, divisionalized form and adhocracy. To varying degrees,
these represent ideal-types, in that they are abstract and general, and do
not ’describe or directly represent concrete courses of action, but in-
stead... (are) representative of objectively possible modes of action’
...

(McKinney 1966: 22). , .

Typologies are important, in a general sense, because they are ways of

abstracting and directing key theoretical ideas. They are specifically impor-
tant and central to organization theory because of the general proposition
that there are different kinds of organization and that these generic
differences have consequences for performance, power, decision-making,
conflict, morale, job satisfaction, etc. One of the key points about typolo-
gies is that they are mholistic in nature, emphasizing the totality of
relationships between a set of concepts; types are based on an idea of
coherence between organizational elements. This marks a break from the
dominant contingency work of the past 20 years, which has been concerned
with abstracting limited numbers of structural arrangements -

for exam-
ple, the level of centralization, or standardization and
-

exploration of
their association with situational factors such as size. This approach essen-
tially misses the importance of the whole patterning of elements and of the
prevailing orientation.
McKelvey (1982) has argued that some form of classification is essential to the
development of organization theory in order to understand what kind of
organization is being dealt with, in any sphere of investigation. This involves
 297

the use of a theoretical base for specifying characteristics

joint (phyletics) and
the of empirical taxonomic methods (phenetics). Miller and Friesen (1984)
use

emphasize the two important aspects for producing organizational types,

namely, that there are a limited number of configurations of organizational
elements, and that such types are based on the essential coherence between
those organizational elements as a whole.
We are suggesting that the concept of design archetype, based upon the
combination of structural coherence and underpinning interpretive schemes is,
in fact, the basis of typologies and classification in organizational theory. In
fact, Mintzberg (1979) argues that his typology represents a summary of
theoretical and empirical work based on dimensions of organization struc-
ture. We would argue that the theoretical and empirical work done under the
rubric of contingency theory, as well as that of organizational politics, provide
strong arguments for a concern with organizational design types, even though
this has not been their main thrust.
The general form of the contingency argument has been recently expressed by
Donaldson ( 1985), showing how particular organizational forms e.g. the
divisionalized form, is appropriate, in a task efficiency sense, to particular
combinations of scale, product diversity, product market, geography and
process. This argument, based upon the logic of task accomplishment and
productive efficiency, is that certain coherent organizational forms work well in
certain circumstances. The basic argument of contingency theory is that
structural and processual coherence facilitates task accomplishment. Similarly,
the approach from organizational politics suggests that advantaged groups,
whose interests are served by prevailing structures, will wish organizational
arrangements to express coherence, or a common orientation, in order to
minimize the latent disruption of discordent structures. Purposes of political
control and preservation of privilege are advanced by giving attention to the
coherence of organizational design.
We are arguing that an understanding of the processes of stability and change
requires a concerted return to classification, and that such a concern is at the
very basis of organizational theorizing. Yet, in spite of the underlying concern
with typologies of design, there have been few attempts to actually work with
them, a point made by McKelvey (1982). But, estahlishing the necessity.
possibility or likelihood of archetypes does not resolve the problem of how such
archetypes should be defined and identified.

The Basis of Organizational Coherence

Miller and Friesen (1984) and Mintzberg ( 1979) suggest that the basis for
establishing organizational coherence, and thus producing a set of organiza-
tional design types, is the occurrence of relationships between structure,
strategy and environment. In this, they are following the general thrust of
298

contingency theory. However, we have already suggested that the work of

Ranson et al. (1980a) is persuasive in arguing that coherence comes from the
relationships between provinces of meaning and structure and processes.
There are a number of reasons for taking this latter approach. One is that
organizatiunal classification has been centrally concerned with structural and
processual issues; the nature of the environment in which an organization is
placed is almost always conceptualized as something to be adapted to or
controlled. The inclusion of environment in a classification of design types
marks a major theoretical break which does not help with the theoretical issues
about change and stability. A further reason is the overconcern of the analysis
of organization structure with what Ranson et al. (1980a) term ’prescribed’
structure and a lack of attention to ’realized’ structure. It is through attention to

organizational processes that the realized structure is caught. A third reason is

that, in actuality, the literature of organizational analysis contains many
interesting examples of organizational designs given coherence and meaning by
underlying ideas and values, even though the main concern has not been with
design types as elaborated here.
Helco and Wildavsky (1974), for example, in their studv of British central
government, noted the deep-seated importance given to the values of trust and
confidence. Arriving at optimal or ’correct’ decisions appeared to be secondary
to the goal of minimizing and containing disruptive behaviour. The norms of
the Whitehall ’village community’ worked to exclude those who would neglect
or deny such values, or who sought to establish a different priority.

Organizational arrangements. such as systems for recruitment, appraisal and

career advancement, depended upon the initial reflection and subsequent
expression -

through work patterns- of these values (Chapman 1984).

.

Resource allocation procedures were similarly designed to show how

potentially disruptive agreements should be handled, how to consult, and how
to agree upon allocations without rocking the boat. The basic structure and

processes of the organization were underpinned by, and reflexive of, a set of
values as to what ought to be.
Other examples of how ideas and values shape organizational arrangements
are provided by Burns ( 1977), Clark ( 1972), Starbuck and Dutton (1978) and
Starbuck (1983). One example of recent interest concerns the attempts to
introduce participatory work practices into U.S. industry. Cole (1982)
analyzed the dissemination and impact of ideas about worker participation in
Sweden, Japan and the United States. He indicates that although ideas to do
with participation had their origins in the U.S., the values associated with them
were not consistent with those traditionally held by senior management in the

United States. The degree of hierarchical distancc, emphasis upon respect for
authority, and the heavy reliance upon external management control systems,
,
all of which are pervasive values within U.S. organizations, prevented worker
participative practices from becoming easily assimilated. The connection of
such practices to egalitarian norms and values and their denial of specialist
expertise as a prerogative of management were more easily embraced in Japan
 299

and Sweden where the new ideas about structural form were less alien.
Our investigations of 27 municipal organizations in the United Kingdom
from 1967 to 1983 identified two competing interpretive schemes -

the
professional bureaucracy model and the corporate bureaucracy model - each
of which held structural and processual implications. The corporate model
emphasized the value of analytical appraisal and rigorous assessment of
programmatic performance focussing upon the conception of a local authority
as an instrument of community governance. The professional bureaucracy

model, on the other hand, regarded the values of professional autonomy and
judgment as critical within a conception of a local authority as an administrative
vehicle for the delivery of essentially disparate services.
These alternative conceptions of domain (community governance versus local
administration) and of evaluative criteria (analytical appraisal of programmes
versus professional judgment and discretion) held implications for structural
form. Thus, the professional bureaucracy model pursued differentiation based
upon professional disciplines and had weak development of lateral devices
other than budget committees. Recruitment and career development systems
emphasised the importance of professional qualification (e.g., all department
heads would be professionals rather than general managers: ’administrators’
would be of low status and position). Compensation and appraisal systems
focussed upon performance of professional activities, and, perhaps most
important of all, the resource allocation mechanism was an incremental mode
of budgeting, a mode suited to a professional bureaucracy (Greenwood
1984).
The corporate bureaucracy model emphasized the construction of integrative
devices such as a chief executive officer, management team, directorates of
programmes and central analytic capabilities. Recruitment at the highest levels
emphasized general management competence combined with professional
experience, and incentive systems rewarded corporate rather than professional
contribution. Career structures were altered to facilitate movements across
professional boundaries. The resource allocation system encompassed rigor-
ous programmatic (as well as professional) analysis and review. Allocations

were to reflect corporate rather than professional goals, and ’professionalism’

was subordinated to ’managerialism’.

These examples illustrate how organizatiunal form is derivative of underlying
ideas and beliefs, and, drawing on Hinings and Greenwood ( 1987), interpretive
schemes contain beliefs and values about domain, organizational form and
.

criteria for performance evaluation. The notion of coherence between these

beliefs and values, on the one hand, and structural arrangements and processes
on the other, provides a basis for the delineation of organizational design

archetypes. The starting poi1lt for identification and classifiration of design

archetypes is, we suggest. identihcatiort of the interpretive scheme and of how
that relates to structural attribute and processes.
Two further questions are raised by our approach which require some
discussion, although definitive answers cannot be given at this stage. The first
300

question concerns the typological status of a design archetype; the second

question concerns the issue of how coherent an organizational design has to be
to retain the status of an archetype.
With regard to the first question, we are using what McKinney (1966: 3) calls a
constructed type,

‘... a purposive, planned selection, abstraction, combination, and (sometimes)

accentuation of a set of criteria with empirical referents that serves as a basis for
comparison of empirical cases.’
Within this general notion, we are closer to the notion of an ideal type than an
empirical taxonomy. That is, it is entirely possible, as with all ideal types, that
our observations of empirical occurrences could yield nothing but deviations.
To establish an organizational design archetype, underlying values have to be
first isolated and the structural and processual implications analyzed, by the
observer. For example, in the case of the British local authorities used
previously, a corporate model of organization entails a structure emphasizing
integrative devices such as teams and analytical processes. This could be
established by the researcher’s knowledge of such organizational types, by
examining documents prepared about the purposes and forms of the
organization, and by interviews. But it is the observer who eventually outlines
the nature of the coherent organizational design. It is therefore possible (but
not very likely) that no organizations exist which exactly conform to the
archetype. ..

This statement leads to the second question raised of the degree of coherence
required for an organization to be in an archetype. It is in the nature of any
typification that any particular case may be ’between’ types. Indeed this
becomes an important notion for our idea of tracks. As with any such approach,
the issue of how much coherence is needed in order to be classified as ‘coherent’
is both a theoretical and empirical one. Our approach through provinces of
meaning gives an initial primacy to values and their implications for
organizational form. This means that not all possible organizational elements
are equal. A corporate bureaucracy in local government cannot necessarily be

typed according to a set of scores on, for example, specialization, standardiza-

tion, formalization and centralization. It is what is specialized, standardized,
etc. and how that relates to the value premises of the type. In a corporate

bureaucracy it is integration which is a central organizational purpose. The lack

of a central management team, policy planning, project groups, would be more
crucial to being outside the type than the lack of a separate line department for
carrying out environmental health tasks.
This is quite similar to Kanter’s (1984) notion of ’high impact systems’ in
organizations. Some structural elements are more crucial than others in an
organization because they embody central values. She argues that in changing
organizational cultures it is high impact systems that have to be changed
, because they give such powerful signals. In dealing with cultural change, she is,
in our terms, dealing with inter-archetype change.
 301

Of course, organizations do not always operate with all-embracing, unified sets

of values about their proper domain, mode of organizing and criteria for
evaluation (Ranson et al. 19~3()a). There may be a variety of preferences about
desired outcomes and ways of working. Sets of values can emerge in
competition, providing an essential dynamic of change. In this case, there may
be a variety of organizational elements which indicate the presence of a range
of design types. The issue of coherence in relation to the dynamics of
organizational design type change now has to be addressed, and hopefully it
will illustrate further the nature of an archetype and coherence.

The Character or Organizational Coherence

An important implication of defining archetypes in terms of underpinning

interpretive schemes is that the transition from one archetype to another may
not easily be achieved. Design archetypes may have the attribute of a paradigm
with its connotation of world view and intractability.
It is important to stress that change is not denied by the concept of design
archetypes. Miller and Friesen’s (1984) concepts of inertia and momentum
involve change, but it is the adjustment of structures and processes to secure
internal consistency and coherence within an archetype. Their research showed
that momentum was dominant and reversals in the direction of change were
rare. It is the ease of movement from one design archetype to another that is

problematic. Essentially, we are arguing that organizations operate within the

contoured mould of existing design orientations.
Three reasons are put forward in the literature for the failure of organizations
to appreciate and alter pervasive and prevailing assumptions. The first,
identified with Hedberg (1951), Starbuck (1976; 1983), Meyer (1982) and
Weick (1979) is that structures and processes are often designed to monitor
selectively, thus missing critical information. Even where relevant information
is detected, interpretation is in terms of prevailing references and orientations:

’Because the search for solutions to new problems does not extend much bevond already
known solutions, the organization is motivated to transform ill-definc~i problems mto a
form that can be handled with existing routines.’ (Miles and Snow 1978: 156).

Similarly,

, ... the filtered stimuli elicit responses that exploit caches of slack resources and are
constrained by hehavioural repertoires crystallized m structures.’ (Meyer 1982:
519-520).

The first explanation of design inertia assumes that organizations simply do not
recognize the need for reorientation because they are caught within the
meanings and structural form of the prevailing design archetype.
A second explanation (Miller and Friesen 19~Oa; 1984) assumes that though the
302

need for change may be recognized it is subject to a calculus of costs and

benefits:

’potentially disruptive changes must be delayed until the costs of not restructuring
becomes high enough to justify the widespread structural modifications that may be
required to re-establish harmony among structural elements.’ (Miller and Friesen 1984:
208).

A third explanation stems from a view of an organization as a political system

composed of constituencies of interests seeking to advance and sustain claims
upon scarce and valued resources (Cyert and March 1963; Greenwood et al.
1977; Pfeffer 1981). From this perspective organizations are not hierarchical,
ordered machines smoothly orchestrated to achieve task ends and purposes,
but shot through with Dalton’s ’internal combustics’ ( 1964) as a consequence of
structural differentiation. Struggles for resources connect to structural
arrangements by providing some actors with preferential access to key decision
processes and, thus, the opportunities to preserve and recreate a pattern of
advantage and disadvantage (Ranson et al. 1980; Walsh et al. 1981; Clegg and
Dunkerley 1982).
Patterns of privilege and disadvantage are largely sustained by the institutiona-
lization of the structures which support them. Organizational arrangements
become regarded as the appropriate, perhaps even the only way of doing
things: ‘alternatives may be literally unthinkable’ (Zucker 1984: 5). As a result,
privileged, dominant coalitions maintain their interests by denying structural
reorientation. Attempts to reorientate an organizational design have to
overcome the sustaining forces of favoured interests and embedded privilege
which is usually achieved only with considerable difficulty.
For these reasons, structural or processional adjustment to achieve coherence,
rather than structural or processual reorientation (movement from one
archetype to another) is the more usual progression. The prevailing hegemony
of ideas and the logic of task accomplishment become part of accepted
assumptions and rigidify organizational design.
Of course, movements between design archetypes can and do occur. But the
nature of these organizational movements, and the forces that can sustain
inertia or promote change, have been fitfully and inadequately addressed in the
literature. The majority of studies of organizational change have focussed upon
intra-archetypical change, i.e. archetype inertia, or have failed to recognize the
existence of constraining design types and ideological bases. Furthermore,
there has been a focus on change rather than inertia, and of successful rather
than abortive change efforts. A more appropriate approach would concentrate
on the tracks of organizations through time, some of which may exhibit

reorientations and someof which may exhibit abortive and aborted move-
ments from design archetypes, but there is no adequate language for ad-
dressing the problems of organizational change and inertia of this form. The
next section begins to develop such a language, with the central idea of
‘tracks’. -
 303

Organizational Tracks

The process of identifying organization design archetypes is an important focus

for theoretical and empirical work, but the central concern here is with
mapping and etplaining the incidence, nature and cause of movements and the
absence of movement hetmeen archetypes. Such movements and inertia are
>
labelled ’tracks’.
In developing the language of tracks, two considerations have to be borne in
mind. First, we are dealing with the idea that organizations develop over time
and that theories have to make allowance for organizational histories. The
same conclusion is reached by Kimbertey et al. (1980) and Kimberlev and

Quinn ( 984) with the life cycle metaphor and the idea of transitions. But not
all organizations pass through transitions or the same set of stages, nor do they
depart from similar positions or have common destinations. The language of
tracks has to provide for the study of organizations over time, allowing for the
possibilities not only of radical transformations but of abortive shifts between
design archetypes crnd of the absence of change. We must allow for a complex
array of tracks.
The second consideration in developing a language is the importance of
interpretive schemes as underpinning design arrangements. It is the concept of
interpretive scheme which enables the identification of directions of change
and the explanation of why organizations confronting similar contextual ’crises’
may respond by moving along different tracks. A key aspect of tracks, in other
words, is the rate at which design arrangements become de-coupled from the
prevailing interpretive scheme and become attached to suffusing ideas and
values. Tracks, we would suggest, are configurations of ititei-pretti,e de-coupling
and re-coupling. An organizational track concerns whether there is any loss of
structural coherence and any displacement of underpinning interpretive
,
schemes, over time.
~ z
~

Configurations of Interpretive De-Coupling

The number and form of design archetypes within a set of organizations can be
ascertained only through close attention to the meanings which organizational
actors give to their situation and to the historical context of ideas and

legitimatiun processes operating upon them (Zucker 1984). Foi- tlieptirposes of

exposition, though, assume that there art’ iii><> design urrfretypes. This permits
the classification of tracks according to the movements of organizations
between and through several analytical positions. These positions are:

(a) archetype coherence in which the structures and processes of the

organization’s design consistency reNect and reinforce one interpretive
.
scheme. In a situation of two available archetypes there would be two positions
of archetype coherence.
,
(b) embryonic archetype coherence in which the strumures and processes nearly
304

consistently reflect the ideas and values of an interpretive scheme. In this

position, however, organizations have structures and processes in which
significant design elements are discordant. In a situation of two available
archetypes there would be two positions of embryonic archetype coher-
ence.

(c) schizoid incoherence in which structures and processes reflect the tension
between two contradictory sets of ideas and values. In this position,
organizations show the presence of both interpretive schemes, and elements of
both organizational forms.
These analytical positions are shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Tracks

The study of organizational tracks becomes the mapping of movements

between these five positions. Organizations that move from either of the
coherent positions experience the process of interpretive de-coupling and, as
they move towards the alternative position of coherence, experience the
process of interpretive re-coupling. The possible permutation of movements is
obviously considerable; however. four principal prototypical tracks can be
envisaged. These are summarized in Figure 2 and discussed, with examples, in
turn.

Track A: Inertia
Miller and Friesen (1984) suggest that most organizations can be expected to
gravitate towards a design archetype and remain there for a lengthy period.
Structural arrangements will develop a consistency and coherence given
meaning by a pervasive interpretive scheme. Changes will take the form of
structural adjustment to the guiding assumptions of the design archetype.
Changes inconsistent with the prevailing meanings will not exist or will be
suppressed. Over time there will be inertia. The organization demonstrates
consistent and sustained attachment to one interpretive scheme. There is no
de-coupling of structural and processual elements from the confines of the
basic interpretive assumptions.
Because change has been studied, but not stability, there are few examples of
inertia in the literature. Those that do occur emphasize the importance of the
design archetype approach because they examine the failure of organizations to
change in the face of contextual pressures. For example, Burns and Stalker
(1961) show that mechanistic organizations, instead of developing new
missions and strategies (interpretive schemes), work within the assumptions
and structural patterns of the existing design archetype, adding more
mechanistic elements. Similarly, Starbuck et al. (1978) in their examination of
three formerly successful Swedish companies show how the responses to a
 305

Figure 2
Configurations (Tracks)
of Interpretive De-
coupling and Re-
coupling (-denotes
one timc period)

&dquo;

,,
’.

changing environment re-emphasize previously successful programmes and

roles. Prevailing interpretive schemes and their structural emanations are seen
as the touchstones to future success.
., In these cases, there is structural adjustment in the face of external pressures,
.
but we see inertia due to the fact that the range of structural attributes remains
consistent with the logic of the existing interpretive scheme.

Track B: Aborted Excursions

This second track involves limited and temporary fraying of an initial
;
structural coherence. Selective parts of the structure or systems become
.

decoupled from the ordering assumptions of the prevailing interpretive

,.
.

~ scheme. Movement then occurs to the embryonic archetype category. But,

306

for whatever reason, movement away from the starting archetype is rever-
sed. The fraying of the paradigm is followed by its subsequent archetype
retention; thus, the track may be labelled an aborted excursion.
There are at least two reasons for aborted excursions. One reason is a genuine
experiment with new ideas and structures, often for reasons of presumed task
efficiency. In their work on change in a puhlic accounting office, Hinings et al.
(1987) have described an attempt to re-organize on the basis of the
prescriptions of Peters and Waterman (1982), such as having ’turned-on
people’ and ’closeness to the customer’. New organizational elements were
introduced, such as new sub-units and a new authority system, which were later
recognized as being inappropriate in terms of the values espoused, and were
then withdrawn. The change was fraught with difficulties because it was unclear
’
what this meant in structural and processual terms. The fact that the link
between the prescribed ideas and the form of organizing was ambiguous was
one reason for the aborted excursion.
-

A second reason for an aborted excursion relates to political motivations.

Structures serve symbolic purposes. Meyer and Rowan (1977) have shown how
’

organizations may find it expedient to adopt the structural trappings of a

legitimated form whilst operating according to the principles of an alternative
set of ideas and values. Subsequently, the particular structural elements may
become unnecessary and be dropped. Several examples of this kind of aborted
excursion were noted in our investigation of British municipalities. The
,

’
corporate bureaucracy model was so pervasively legitimated (Hinings and
Greenwood 1987) that certain aspects of it were grafted onto organizations that
remained quintessentially professional in character (e.g. management teams,
-
corporate planning units). However, once the ideas underlying the corporate
form began to lose their legitimacy the structural trappings were dismantled
and the professional bureaucracy reassembled in coherent form.
, The allocation of an organization to the aborted excursion track raises again the
question of the nature of coherence and its breakup. To reiterate, the key is the
relationship between interpretive schemes and the content and activities of
organizational form. In the cases cited, the relative lack of coherence rests on
certain crucial organizational values and certain crucial organizational
-

elements. In the case of the public accounting firm, the introduction of three
.

auditing sub-units was not a structural expression of achieving ’turned-on

people’. In the case of the municipalities, key forms were introduced such as a
management team to coordinate the activities of the organization as a whole,
’
&dquo;’

but it rested uneasily in a meaning system stressing departmental autonomy. In

such organizations, the management team was not concerned with the issues of
overall policy formulation and resource allocation.
po-
,
.._ ,,
, ~I.

Track C: Reorientations (Transformations)

Where an organization leaves one archetypedesign and ultimately moves to
.

another, design
a reorientation (or transformation) has occurred. Prevailing
ideas and values have lost legitimacy and become discredited. In their place, an
 307

alternative interpretive scheme emerges, carrying with it a different pattern of

structural arrangements. Structures become de-coupled from the old legitimat-
ing interpretive scheme, and connected re-coupled to a new one. The
- -

organization has emerged in a different design archetype.

Barrett and Cammann (1984) describe the attempt of National Steel to move
from an autonomously organized set of units to a corporately coordinated firm.
On the one hand, a new interpretive scheme was developed by the chief
executive and other senior managers emphasizing coordination, strategic
planning and profit centres. These values and strategies were embodied in a
mission statement. On the other hand new organizational structures and
processes were put in place as embodiments of this new interpretation of
domain and performance. These involved, inter alia, new organizational
operating divisions, task forces and a strategic planning process. Over time, the
new interpretive scheme and organizational form were brought more and more

into line, producing coherence within the new design archetype.

~ Burns and Stalker (1961) as well as describing (in our terms) the tracks of
inertia and aborted excursions also showed that some mechanistic organiza-
tions eventually managed the change to an organic structure. While inertia was
the initial response (pathology in their terms), these responses fitted so uneasily
and inappropriately with contextual pressures that the prevailing interpretive
scheme was held less surely. The result was a dissipation of the scheme’s
constituting presence and force. Erosion and displacement of the prevailing
.

ideas allowed further structural change and, ultimately, movement from one
archetype to another.
These descriptions of movement from one archetype to another are couched in
terms of a linear progression through the embryonic and schizoid categories.
Track C (i) of Figure 2 is drawn in this way. However, linear transition from one
archetype to another is only one of several possible reorientation tracks.
Temporary reversals of direction could occur and/or categories be omitted. It is
not difficult to envisage an organization whose reorientation track involves
oscillations, as in example C (ii). Delays, or lags, may also occur as in example
C (iii). An organization may stay for a short or long period in a particular
position. Incremental movements from one transitional position to another
may require varying amounts of time in the push towards reorientation.
An example of a non-linear reorientation is to be found in the work of Burns
(1977) on the British Broadcasting Corporation. Burns charts the change from
a ’creative’ archetype, with a highly segmented organization operated by

creative and professional staff, to a corporate, managerial, organization. This

latter form has strong central departments for personnel, finance and strategic
planning. However, the process of interpretive de-coupling and re-coupling in
the BBC was not straightforward. The initial introduction of staff grading
systems, central financial controls and a managerial hierarchy (part of an
embryo corporate form) was not smooth and led to the subsequent withdrawal
and rethinking of structural devices. The professional system reasserted itself.
.

However, because of financial pressures on the Corporation, corporate

308

systems were reintroduced and reinforced and over time became the

established ways of operating.

We could find few documented examples of this track. We suspect, though,
that these non-linear tracks are much more common in practice than is evident
from the literature. It is possihle that planned organizational change, which has
been the focus of much interest amongst organizational theorists, is more likely
than not to display the characteristics of linear transformation. Much change,
however, may be unplanned, occurring in response to task exigencies and
political pressures that are ill-understood. As a consequence, change may be
fitful and replete with oscillations and delays rather than an ordered and
consistent revolution.

Track D: Unresolved Excursions

This is a track where there is failure to obtain coherence, involving sustained
a

movement from a coherent archetype without attaining a reorientation.

Incomplete de-coupling occurs without completed re-coupling. These tracks

. are examples of failed or resisted attempts at reorientation. In this situation, an

organization remains in an intermediate category over a long period of
time.
One of the debates over the contingency theory literature concerns the extent
to which organization structures are not aligned to the exigencies of the
.

organizational setting. Iacocca ( 1984), in describing Chrysler as it was when he

.
joined it in 1978 outlines an organization in an unresolved excursion. From his
perspective it had been in an excursion for 30 years. As with so many industrial
organizations, the two archetypes were the autonomous, deconcentrated
organization and the corporately coordinated organization. Chrysler had
started as a series of independent units, each with its own marque, serving
different markets and operating from different plants. As the company grew
through the fifties and sixties, so it added such corporate functions as finance,
strategic planning and product development. What occurred was that two
,

competing sets of values developed, one set emphasizing separation and

autonomy and the other emphasizing central control. By 1978, there were 35
vice-presidents representing the whole range of operating and corporate
functions. There were fitful attempts to corporately control the company
through financial and product planning, but with no reinforcement of
structures and systems. Chrysler had been in this situation for at least 15 years.
(The rest of Iacocca’s story is of how he resolved the excursion of reorientating
Chrysler as a corporately coordinated organization).
The unresolved excursions track is potentially a very important but neglected
one. There is a great attraction for researchers to study sliccessjlil change at the
.

expense of unresolved change. But theorizing has to encompass aborted and

unresolved excursions so that the play of determinant factors may be
understood. Miller and Friesen (1984) cite five configurations (over one-third
of their sample) that lacked coherence. In our study of British local authorities,
,. 25% of the organizations examined followed tracks of unresolved excursions
 309

over a ten year period. Unresolved excursions are important and as yet, largely
.

neglected tracks.

A Research Agenda
In this final section of the paper, we raise a number of questions and propose a
.
course of inquiry that might assist elaboration of the concepts of track and
design archetype and provide an assessment of their relative utility. To do this,
three questions will be examined:
1. What are the archetypes utilized by organizations?
2. What tracks do organizations follow through time, how stable are they and
what are their frequencies? . ,

3. Why do organizations follow particular tracks?

Taking the first question, the development of a theory of tracks involves the
preparatory identification of archetypes which, in turn, requires the uncovering
of ideas and meaning reflected in structural arrangements. Some of the
theoretical implications have been explored in this paper in our discussion of
coherence and the relationship between interpretive schemes, on the one hand,
and structures and processes, on the other. Other theoretical and methodolo-
gical implications have begun to be addressed in the few studies that have
utilized the notion of interpretive schemes underpinning structures (Lebleblici
et al. 1983; Bartunek 1984; Hinings and Greenwood 1987).
.

One implication that has not been considered is the possibility that archetypes
may be institutionally specific. The work of Meyer and Rowan ( 1977), Meyer
>
and Scott ( 1983), DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Zucker (1987) suggests that
the norms and values within an interpretive scheme are connected to an
institutionally derived normative order. They argue that organizations
experience pressures to conform to expectations of how certain types of
’
’
organizations should be designed and that these expectations will vary across
the boundaries of institutional ’fields’:

’Organizations are increasingly homogeneous within given domains and increasingly

organized around rituals of conformity to wider institutions ... Under such circumst-
ances organizations employ ritualized controls of credentials and group solidarity.’

(DiMaggio and Powell 1983: lSl~-151).

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that a theory of organizational tracks,

based upon archetypes delineated by underlying sets of meanings, will have to
.

be sensitive to institutional contexts and differences. Similarities in structural

elements across institutional boundaries may conceal significant differences of
meanings and thus differences in design archetypes.
In this context, it is appropriate to look at the concepts of loose coupling and

.’
organized anarchies (Weick 1976; March and Olsen 1976). There is a sense in
which these ideas may appear to challenge the notion of coherence as
310

developed in this paper. However, we would argue that loosely coupled and
anarchic organizations may be design archetypes, in our terms. The essence of
coherence is the relationship between interpretive schemes, structures and
processes. The kinds of organizations described by Weick and March and
Olsen may well be coherent in the sense of having interpretive schemes which
emphasize non-specific domains, uncertainties of performance and looseness
of form, together with independent organizational units, decentralized
decision-making and professional incentive systems. In addition, they may well
be institutionally specific. While not a great deal of research has been carried
out based on their conceptualizations, what has been done has tended to be
within the educational sector. Universities are often put forward as the
paradigmatic case. We would argue that our conceptualization of design
archetype and coherence allows for the possibility of loose coupling and
organized anarchy.
The second question examines the temporal association of organizations with
: identifiable archetypes, i.e., the nature of tracks. This work has already been
.
started by Miller and Friesen (1984) who have suggested that inertia is a
.
dominant track and that organizations find it difficult to push away from the
prevailing directions of any given evolution. Empirically. there is the question
of whether organizations do usually exhibit archetype inertia, remaining within
the assumptions of a given interpretive scheme and operating with a particular
set of structural arrangements over lengthy periods. Or, do they break from a
’

design archetype and install a set of ideas and meanings holding different
structural implications? If the latter is true, what is the configuration and speed
of interpretive de-coupling and re-coupling?
Hinings and Greenwood ( 1987) have suggested that certain institutional fields
are characterized by a tighter prescription of the organizational domain,

organizational form and criteria of evaluation, and are thus less flexibly
. inclined towards change than is the case in other institutional arenas. It is from
attempts to map tracks in different institutional settings that a richer
understanding of organizational evolution and transformation will occur.
Establishing archetypes and mapping tracks inevitahly leads to the third
, question of why organizations folluw those tracks. The remainder of the paper
proposes a tentative framework for understanding the dynamics of inertia and
reorientation. The framework emanates directly from Ranson et al. (1980a)
and the way it has been developed in Ranson et al. (1980b), Walsh et al.
(1981), Greenwood (1984) and Hinings and Greenwood (1987). It is outlined
.

,
in Figure 3.
At the centre of the figure is a particular organizational design connected to
three potential dynamics of change. For purposes of exposition the structures
n and processes of the design are assumed to be an archetype. However, no
assumption is made as to whether the design archetype is actually congruent
.

with each or any of the three potential dynamics.

’

The first dynamic involves the compatibility between. on the one hand,
.

contingencies such as size, technology and em/ironment. and, on the other hand,
 311

Figurc 3
The Dynamics of
Organizational Change

design structures and processes. Contingency theory implies that effective task
accomplishment is a function of accommodating organization design to the
exigencies of situational constraints and concludes that changes to that design
occur wherever c01llradictions are found between the impulses of task

contingencies and the capacities of prevailing structures. In fact, contingencies

might operate as a destabilizing influence and dynamic for change in two
circumstances: first, where the contingencies are pressing in different
directions (multiple, inconsistent pressures); and second, where an organiza-
tion is out of step with all of its contingencies.
Contingency theory implies that the absence of contradiction between
.

contingent circumstances and design arrangements results in an organization

following Inertia (Track A). Severe contradictions between all contingencies
and design arrangements would produce Reorientations (Track C), and the
problem of inconsistent contingencies would result in either Aborted
Excursions (Track B) or Unresolved Excursions (Track D).
The second dynamic is the pattern of commitme1llS by members of the
organization to alternative and prevailing interpretive schemes. At least four
patterns of commitment can be identified:
1. Widespread commitment to the existing interpretive scheme (a status t/t«3
commitment).
2. Widespread commitment to an alternative interpretive scheme (a reforma-
tive commitment).
.
3. Substantial commitment to two or more interpretive schemes (a cottipeiiiive
’

commitment).
4. Low commitment to prevailing and alternative interpretive schemes (an
indifferent commitment).
Where commitment is status cluo orientated the pressure is for Inertia (Track
A). Reformative commitments are liable to lead towards Reorientations
.

(Track C). Competitive commitments will act to destabilize organizational

312

arrangements without necessarily activating reorientations, producing Unre-

solved Excursions (Track D) or Aborted Excursions (Track A).
The third dvnamic is the structure of power-dependencies within an organiza-
tion. Organizational designs,it was noted earlier, serve the interests of some
groups rather than others and act as delineators of advantage and privilege.
Structural change is affected by the extent to which groups are dissatisfied with
the accommodation of their interests; and, by the abilities of groups to express
and protect those interests in structural and processual terms, in effect using
structures to obtain and utilize power (Pfeffer 1981; Walsh et al. 1981).
Pettigrew (1985: 27) has asserted that:
’The possibilities and
limitations of change in any organization are influenced by the
history of attitudes and relationships between interest groups ... and by the
mobilization of support for a change within the power structure at any point in
time.’ _

Of course, power does not just operate in relation to interests. Patterns of

commitment to prevailing or alternative interpretive schemes have to be
related to the power structure of an organization. The configuration of
power-dependence can operate as a destabilizing dynamic for change if the
dominant coalition embraces an alternative interpretive scheme, or if it
perceives its interest to be ill-served by existing structures; this would produce
Reorientation (Track C). A not uncommon scenario for such a transformation
is to remove the existing senior managers and replace them with a group who
are committed to the new design archetype and whose interests are served by

ensuring its introduction and success.

.

Starbuck et al. (1978) argue that the replacement of top managers is essential in
order to bring an organization out of crisis. Their analysis illustrates the
.

relationships between the four elements of our framework. Existing powerful

’
groups are tied to prevailing interpretive schemes and structural arrangements.
This is the basis of inertia. However, even when contingencies change,
Starbuck et al. (1978) argue that the commitment of senior managers to
prevailing interpretations and structural responses means that crisis will be
produced. It is only with the onset of contextual crisis that the necessity of a
response is recognized, but this can only take place with a change in values,
interests and power. The easiest way to do this is to change the top managers.
This example also shows how the combination of commitment to the prevailing
interpretive scheme, satisfaction of interests and dominant power can be the
basis of the maintenance of an archetype in the face of changed circumstances.
..
Design archetypes can be upheld through organizational politics. This is Inertia
(Track A). ..

.
A dispersed power structure allows a greater interplay of competing values and
interest. This was the situation facing Iacocca in Chrysler, producing a track of
Unresolved Excursion (Track D). Again, in that example, we see the
mobilization of new interpretive schemes through hiring executives with whom
Iacocca had worked at Ford and changing the power structure by firing
 313

vice-presidents and building up the chief executive’s office. This moved

Chrysler towards a Reorientation. The recent literature on major transitions
(cf. Kanter 1983; Tichy 1983; Kimberley and Quinn 1984; Schein 1985) can be
seen as dealing with the issue of managing a Reorientation Track and the

interplay of interpretive schemes (culture), power (leadership), interests

(rewards and incentives) and context (crisis).
While our framework conceives of organizational archetypes being held in
place or destabilized by one or more of three dynamics, it is the interplay
between these that will determine the particular track followed by an
organization. Contingencies do not operate independently upon structural
’
arrangements but are interpreted through filters of meanings and aspirations.
The distribution of power is not disconnected from the environment nor from
.

interpretive schemes. The particular tracks followed will depend upon the
- manner in which changes occur in one or more of the dynamics and the

triggered response in the other variables.

Conclusion ,

The thesis developed in this paper may be summarized as follows:

1. Organizations operate with structural designs given meaning and coherence
by underlying sets of ideas, beliefs and values i.e. interpretive schemes.
Particular interpretive schemes coupled with associated structural arrange-
ments constitute a design archetype. Archetypes may be institutionally
specific.
2. The temporal relationship between an organization and one or more
archetypes defines an organization’s track. A track is marked by the
configuration of structural de-coupling and re-coupling to alternative interpre-
tive schemes. Prototypical tracks include inertia, aborted excursions, re-
orientations and unresolved excursions. The inertia track is the more common;
that is, organizations develop a structural coherence which is sustained for long
periods.
3. The particular track of an organization will be a function of the degree of
alignment or compatibility between structures and contingency constraints and
the pattern of commitment to prevailing and alternative interpretive schemes
and the incidence of interest dissatisfaction of powerful groups.
Certain of these ideas have a measure of empirical support. The concept of
archetype is, we believe, at the centre of organizational theorizing and is
consistent with a number of existing empirical works. To a considerable extent.
however, the thesis of track and the dynamics of change underlying them
remain unproven and invite research application. This paper does not attempt
to deal directly with the methods for carrying out this research agenda. Details
can be found in Greenwood tt al. ( 1977), Hinings et al. ( 19811), Ranson et al.

(1980b), Greenwood and Hinings (1987) and Hinings et al. (1987). Hopefully,
the cases and examples cited will have given some insight into this issue. Our
314

purpose has been to direct attention to a vocabulary of ideas from which, we

....I believe, will emerge a richer and more exciting understanding of how and why
.. ,
I .-
I

organizations retain and transform their organizational design.

Notes *
The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers, and the
comments and encouragement of Danny Millcr, Stewart Ranson, J. D. Stewart, Michael Tushman
and Lynne Zucker.

References Aldrich, Howard, Bill McKelvey, and Dave Cole, Robert E.

Ulrich
1984 ’Design strategy from the population
perspective’. Journal of Management
10; 67-86.
Barratt, A. Lee, and Cortlandt Cammann
1984 ’Transitioning to change: lessons from
NSC’, in Managing organizational
transitions. John R. Kimberly and
Robert E. Quinn (eds.), 218-239.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Bartunek, Jean M.
1984 ’Changing interpretive schemes and
organizational restructuring: the ex-
ample of a religious order’. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly 29: 355-372.
Burns, Tom
1977 The BBC. London: Macmillan.
Burns, Tom, and George M. Stalker
1961 The Management of Innovation. Lon-
don : Tavistock Press.
Chapman, Richard A.
1984 ’Administrative culture and personnel
management: the British Civil Service
in the 1980s’. Teaching Public Admi-
nistration 4: 1-14.
Child, John
1972 ’Organization structure, environment
and performance: the role of strategic
choice’. Sociology 6: 1-22.
Clark, Burton R.
1972 ’The organizational saga in higher
education’. Administrative Science
Quarterly 17: 178-184.
1982 ’Diffusion of participatory work struc-
tures in Japan, Sweden and the United
States’ in Change in organizations.
Paul S. Goodman et al. (eds.), 1-46.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Richard L., and James G. March
Cyert,
1963 behavioural theory of the firm
A .
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dalton, Melville
1964 Men who manage. New York: Wiley.
DiMaggio, P., and W. W. Powell
1983 ’The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collectiverationality
in organizational fields’. American
Sociological Review 82: 147-160.
Donaldson, Lex
1985 In defence of organization theory: a
reply to the critics. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Greenwood, Royston, C. R. Hinings, and
Stewart Ranson
1977 ’The politics of the budgetary process
in English local government’. Political
Studies 25: 25-47.
Greenwood, Royston
1984 ’Incremental budgeting: antecedents
of change’. Journal of Public Policy 4:
277-306.
Heclo, Hugh, and Aaron Wildavsky
1974 The private government of public
money. London: Macmillan.

Clegg, Stewart, and David Dunkerley

1982 Organization, class and control. Lon-
don : Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hedberg, Bo.
1981 ’How organizations learn and un-
learn’, in Handbook of organizational
design, vol. 1. Paul C Nystrom and
William H. Starbuck (eds.), 3-27.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hinings, C. R., R. Greenwood, and S.
Ranson
1980 Management systems in local govern-
ment. University of Birmingham: In-
stitute of Local Government Studies.
Hinings, Bob, and Royston Greenwood
1987 ’The normative prescription of orga-
nizations’, in Institutional patterns and
organizations. Lynne G. Zucker (ed.),
53-70. Chicago: Ballinger.
Hinings, Bob, Royston Greenwood, Stewart
Ranson, and Kieron Walsh
1987 The dynamics of organizational
change. University of Alberta: Human
Resources Management Research
Centre.
Hinings, Bob, John L. Brown, and Royston
Greenwood
1987 Content and authority in change: the
caseof a professional service organiza-
tion.University of Alberta: Human
Resources Management Research
Centre.
Iacocca, Lee
1984 Iacocca: an autobiography. New York:
Bantam.
Kanter, Rosabeth
1983 The change masters. New York: Simon
and Shuster.
Kanter, Rosabeth
1984 ’Managing transitions in organization-
al culture; the case of participative
management at Honeywell’, in Man-
aging organizational transitions. John
R. Kimberly and Robert E. Quinn
(eds.), 195-217. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Kimberly, John R., Robert H. Miles, et
editors
1980 The organizational life cycle. San Fran-
cisco : Jossey-Bass.
315
Kimberly, John R., and Robert E. Quinn,
editors
1984 Managing organizational transitions.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Leblecici, Hvseyin, Edward K. Marlow, and
Kendrith M. Rowland
1983 ’Research note: a longitudinal study of
interpretive schemes, organizational
structure, and their contextual cor-
relates’. Organization Studies 4: 105-
145.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen
1976 Ambiguity and choice in organiza-
tions. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
McKelvey, Bill
1982 Organizational systematics. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
McKinney, John C.
1966 Constructive typology and social
theory. New York: Appleton, Century
Crofts.
Meyer, Alan D.
1982 ’How ideologies supplant formal struc-
tures and shape responses to environ-
ments’. Journal of Management Stu-
dies 29: 45-61.
Meyer, John, and Brian Rowan
1977 ’Institutional organizations; formal
structure as myth and ceremony’.
American Journal of Sociology 83:
340-363.
Meyer, John, and W. R. Scott, editors
1983 Organizational environments. Bever-
ley Hills: Sage.
Miles, Raymond, and Charles Snow
1978 Organizational strategy, structure and
process. New York: McGraw Hill.
Miller, Danny, and Peter Friesen
1980a ’Momentum and revolution in or-
ganization adaptation’. Academy of
Management Journal 23: 591-614.
al., Miller, Danny, and Peter Friesen
1980b ’Archetypes of organizational transi-
tion’. Administrative Science Quarterly
25: 269-299.
316

Miller, Danny, and Peter Friesen Starbuck, William H.

1984 Organizations: aquantum view. En- 1983 ’Organizations as action generators’.
glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. American Sociological Review 48: 91-
102.
Mintzberg, Henry
1979 The structuring of organizations. En- Starbuck, William H., and John M. Dutton
glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1978 ’Designing adaptive organizations’.
Journal of Business Administration 9:
Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman, 111-137.
Jr.
1982 In search of excellence. New York: Starbuck, William H., Arent Greve, and Bo
Harper and Row. L. T.Hedberg
1978 ’Responding to crises’. Journal of
Pettigrew, Andrew Business Administration 9: 111-137.
1985 The awakening giant. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell. Tichy, Noel
1983 Managing strategic change: technical,
Pfeffer, Jeffrey political, and cultural dynamics. New
1981 Power in organizations. London: York: Wiley-Interscience.
Pitman.
Tosi, Henry, and John W. Slocum
Ranson, Stewart, Bob Hinings, and Royston 1984 ’Contingency theory: some suggested
Greenwood directions’. Journal of Management
1980a ’The structuring of organizational 10: 9-26.
structures’. Administrative Science
Quarterly 25: 1-17. Walsh, Kieron, Bob Hinings, Royston Green-
wood, and Stewart Ranson
Ranson, Stewart, Bob Hinings, Royston 1981 ’Power and advantage in organiza-
Greenwood, and Kieron Walsh tion’. Organization Studies 2: 131-152.
1980b ’Value preferences and tensions in
the organization of local government’, Weber, Max
in The international yearbook of orga- 1949 The theory of economics and social
nization studies. David Dunkerley organization. Glencoe, IL: The Free
and Graeme Salaman (eds.), 197-221. Press.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Weick, Karl E.
Schein, Edgar H. 1976 ’Educational organizations as loosely
1985 Organizational culture and leadership. coupled systems’. Administrative Sci-
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ence Quarterly 21: 1-19.

Schoonhoven, Claudia B. Weick, Karl E.

1980 ’Problems with contingency theory: 1979 The social psychology of organizing.
testing assumptions hidden within the Reading, MA.: Addison Wesley.
language of contingency theory’.
Administrative Science Quarterly 25: Zucker, Lynne G.
1-17. 1984 ’Organizations as institutions’, Pers-
pectives in organizational sociology:
Starbuck, William H. theory and research. Samuel B.
1976 ’Organizations and their environ- Bacharach (ed.), 1-47. Greenwich:
ment’, in Handbookof industrial and JAI Press.
organizational psychology. M. D.
Dunnette (ed.). Chicago: Rand Zucker, Lynne G., editor
McNally. 1987 Institutional patterns and organiza-
tions. Chicago: Ballinger.