Suchergebnisse

Patterns in the evolutionary development of bureaucratic organization are analysed as functions of the interplay between four structural dimensions: work-flow interdepen dence, hierarchical shape, administrative intensity, and mechanisms of control. Three stages of growth, marked by distinct configurations of these four structural dimensions are associated with increases in organizational size. The growth stages are derived as ideal types which are constructed on the basis of 'technical rationality'. These technically ideal types are compared to Max Weber's bureaucratic ideal-type, and some terminological confusions in the organizational literature are identified.

This study critically examines the relevance of exchange theory in explaining the power of organizational sub-units. The study argues that sub-unit power is generated not by the balance of exchange dependencies between sub-units, but by workflow interdependencies created by the organization's division of labour. The findings support the arguments of the study. The paper concludes that dyadic power relationships between organizational sub-units can only be fully understood in terms of their location in organization-wide systems of functional interdependence.

This paper examines the relationship between organization science and managerial practice. Science and practice are viewed as interdependent, yet semiautonomous, domains which engage in their own specialized forms of discourse or "language games." The paper examines both the internal dynamics of these language games and the relationship between them. The analysis suggests a reinterpretation of the role played by organizational scientists in relation to practitioners. Organizational scientists should be viewed not as engineers offering technical advice to managers but as providers of conceptual and symbolic language for use in organizational discourse. This view's implications for enhancing the relationship between organization science and managerial practice is discussed.

This paper contends that the analysis of organizational design and the analysis of intraorganizational power are inextricably intertwined for all major models of organization. While the coalitional model of organization is often viewed as the only model that explicitly links these topics, we argue that power does in fact play a central role in the traditional, rational model of organization, and that it is only the conception of intraorganizational power that differs between the two models. After contrasting the design prescriptions and power implications of the coalitional and rational models, the paper reconciles these two models by developing an "adaptively rational" model of organization that takes into account both the political dynamics and the task requirements of organizations.