In this episode (which took place in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic), we explore the social and emotional impacts to the worker on having to work from home. For some workers, the concept of telework is hardly new. But many other vocations place great value on regular social contact with clients and customers. These include teachers, doctors, lawyers, public servants, and many others. The sudden thrust to teleworking for an unknown period of time has raised questions as to how these workers are coping with the new normal.
The Aston Group was based in the United Kingdom and played a major role in the early development of organization theory and management science. Starting in the 1960s, they carried out a program of research that departed from the comparative study of work organizations in the Birmingham area in the UK and contributed landmark works on organizational structure and the development of contingency approach. Derek S. Pugh (pictured, 1930-2015) led the Group that included, among others, Bob Hinings, John Child, Lex Donaldson, David Hickson, Roy Payne, Diana Pheysey, and Charles McMillan. The collective spirit and the participation of scholars from a wide range of disciplines including psychology, sociology, political science, and economics make it reminiscent of the work of another important group, the Carnegie-Mellon School covered in several episodes in the podcast.
We are therefore honored to welcome one of its members, Bob Hinings, as a special guest to talk about the Aston School, its contributions, and some of the stories behind them. Our conversation centered on the four papers published in Administrative Science Quarterly which revolutionized our understanding of organization structure, organizational forms and bureaucracy as well as expanding the methodological toolkit of organizational and management researchers. Specifically, the first papers proposed a new multidimensional conceptualization of bureaucracy in terms of formal organization structure (1963) and examined the clustering of these dimensions based on work organizations that lead to the now-famous notion of structuration of activities and concentration of authority (1968). Subsequent papers explored how the context impacts organization structure (e.g., size, control, location, dependence on other organizations) evidencing the particular importance of size (1969a). Finally, they brought together these multiple insights into a taxonomy of different structures and forms of bureaucracy (1969b).
Part 1. Who was the Aston Group and Why Did They Form?
Part 2. The Aston School’s Legacy and How it May View Contemporary Organizations
Read With Us:
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Macdonald, K. M., Turner, C., & Lupton, T. (1963). A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis. Administrative science quarterly, 289-315.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative science quarterly, 65-105.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969a). The context of organization structures. Administrative science quarterly, 91-114.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1969b). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 115-126.
To Know More:
Donaldson, L., & Luo, B. N. (2014). The Aston Programme contribution to organizational research: a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 84-104.
Greenwood, R., & Devine, K. (1997). Inside Aston: a conversation with Derek Pugh. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6(3), 200-208.
Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck, R. E. (1974). Structural conditions of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22-44.
Kostera, M. (2020). The Imagined Organization: Spaces, Dreams and Places. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Crises and disasters are regular occurrences in organizational life, putting leaders into the spotlight and organizations under tremendous pressure to respond appropriately — whether it is to preserve life or salvage reputations. With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, we wanted to discuss some important texts on organizational crises and their management, and in this episode we present two. The first text is a classic case study — Karl Weick’s famous paper from 1990 titled “The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster,” published in the Journal of Management. The Tenerife air disaster (also referred to as ‘airport disaster’) occurred at Gran Canaria Airport in 1977 when fog and poor communications between the tower and the pilots of two Boeing 747s resulted in a collision that destroyed both planes and resulted in the death of 583 people. Weick’s retrospective analysis shows how several factors set conditions that “encouraged the occurrence and rapid diffusion of multiple small errors.”
The second article helps answer the question, “How does an organization rebound from crisis?” We explore an article from Edward Powley on activating organizational resilience — “Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis,” published in Human Relations in 2009. The article describes three different social mechanisms that are put into action according to Powley — liminal suspension, compassionate witnessing, and relational redundancy. Respectively, these mechanisms cause the organization to temporarily restructure itself to respond to the crisis, leverage interpersonal relationships within the organization more intensely, and leverage social connections across boundaries to reach out and help others outside the organization. Together these readings can help us understand what it takes to analyze an emerging crisis situation and mobilize to confront it.
Part 1: What happens to an organization under crisis?
Part 2: How can organizations become more proactive and prepare better for crisis?
Read With Us:
Powley, E. H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis. Human relations, 62(9), 1289-1326.
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of management, 16(3), 571-593.
For this episode we discuss the history of a classic firm which exercised remote operations as a matter of course and faced multiple pandemics during its early existence. The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) was chartered in 1670 by King Charles II at a time when the French monopolized fur trading with Native Americans in modern-day Canada. From then, the English would establish its own robust fur trading industry, establishing hundreds of posts from the western shores of Hudson Bay all across modern western Canada. The case is exceptional in demonstrating the historical challenges of remote operations where communications were limited to letters sent annually with the fur shipments across the Atlantic. How could London possibly maintain oversight and exercise control under such conditions?
Joan Woodward was a pioneer in organization theory, and in this episode we explore her seminal work Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, originally published in 1965. The book presents the results of an extensive longitudinal study of the technologies, processes, and systems used by over one hundred industrial firms concentrated in southeast England over a ten year period. The studies produced a finding that successful firms did not follow a single ‘best way’ to manage the firm, but that each had an optimal way based on the congruence or alignment between the technologies and the processes & systems to manage them. This included differences among firms regarding the dominance of marketing, research and development, and production; variations in status of employees among various roles, and variations in how success is measured. Follow-on studies examined how firms underwent transformational change from one form of industry to another, largely confirming the prior results.
In contrast to prevailing beliefs at the time, Woodward’s book concludes with what is now known as contingency theory, that there is no single perfect way to organize any industrial firm. Instead, the best way is contingent on the internal and external context.
Join us as we discuss this important text that represented one of the largest and most comprehensive look at industry in the mid-20th century. Could such large, complex research projects be done today? Listen to what Tom, Frithjof, Greetje, and Leonardo have to say about it!
Part 1. Not All Industrial Organizations are Alike?
Part 2. The Meaning and Relevance of Contingency Theory
With Speakers Sarah Kaplan, Signe Vikkelsø, and Gino Cattani
This PDW represents the second edition of what we hope to be a standing series showcasing the enduring relevance of earlier organizational research and raise interest for it. We believe that paying attention to the classics of our field may complement the strong emphasis (at AOM and beyond) on new/disruptive ideas, enable cumulative insights, and promote the value of research committed to theorizing core organizational dynamics.
This edition focuses on the contingency approach as exemplary of classic scholarship in organization and management theory. We focus on the historical context of the contingency approach, the main ideas of authors and traditions associated with it, and their connections with contemporary research.
The Contingency Approach
The contingency approach gained in popularity during the 1960s and 1970s. Contingency theorists disputed the assumption at the time that a single form of organization is best for all firms and in all circumstances. They posited instead that the most appropriate organizational form is the one that is best suited to the kinds of actions a firm undertakes. In brief, scholars suggested that organizational effectiveness results from the fit between characteristics of the organization, such as its structure, and contingencies that reflect the particular situation of the organization. Contingencies can for instance include the size of an organization, its strategy, and its environment. Because it is the fit between organizational characteristics and contingencies that leads to high performance, organizations seek to attain fit while avoiding misfit when confronted with changes in contingencies. They do so by adopting new organizational characteristics that fit new levels of the contingencies. The contingency approach is associated with various scholars and research groups with divergent orientations and sensitivities. Some focused primarily on structure (e.g., the Aston School) while other were also interested in social relations (e.g., the Tavistock institute); many were concerned about the link between organization structure and demands from the environment, whereas others have a more discreet focus on the work process and its fit with internal conditions.
The contingency approach occupies an ambiguous position in today’s organizational scholarship. While some people see it as dated and surpassed, some of its key insights still underpin contemporary organizational research. Arguably, we all operate under the central contingency assumption that there is no ‘one best way’ (Donaldson, 2001); that structures and processes depend on certain conditions (Van de Ven, Ganco, & Hinings, 2013); and that organizing is about adjusting to circumstances and balancing competing demands (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Besides, specific insights from the contingency approach continue to inform contemporary research on organization design (Grandori & Furnari, 2008), organizational change (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012), and other themes.
Our community as a whole does not always recognize how much contingency theory still matters. Worried about novelty and disruption, we sometimes lose sight of continuity (and our history) even though we are a somewhat new field in the social sciences. As a consequence, some critical aspects of the contingency approach — such as its attention to formal organizational structures (visible in the work of the Aston School, Joan Woodward, and James D. Thompson) and the task/work level of analysis (explored by researchers from the Tavistock Institute) — seem to have withered as organization theory became more interested in fields and macro dynamics. Much can, therefore, be gained by looking back to reflect on the importance of this approach in the development of our field and (re-)considering the analytical value of some of its axioms and insights!
In this PDW we paid particular attention to the European(/UK) tradition as this is usually overlooked in our area (especially the work of the Tavistock Institute). We selected authors and groups representing different aspects of this approach with presentations by Sarah Kaplan (on Joan Woodward), Signe Vikkelsø (on the Tavistock Institute and Socio-Technical Systems), and Gino Cattani (on James D. Thompson). This was followed by roundtables mediated by the speakers and a plenary discussion.
The episode begins with the presentation of some “postcards” — notes sent to us from several prominent scholars who applaud the attention we are giving to the contingency approach. You can view the postcards in the gallery below. Enjoy!
Full Episode (Postcards and All Speakers):
Introduction by Pedro Monteiro & Greetje Corporaal only:
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change Agents, Networks, and Institutions: A Contingency Theory of Organizational Change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.
Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. (2008). A Chemistry of Organization: Combinatory Analysis and Design. Organization Studies, 29(3), 459–485.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.
Van de Ven, A. H., Ganco, M., & Hinings, C. R. B. (2013). Returning to the Frontier of Contingency Theory of Organizational and Institutional Designs. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 393–440.
Related Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast:
Episode 16 about Lawrence & Lorsch and Contingency Theory
Episode 34 about Trist & Bamforth and Socio-Technical Systems
Episode 46 about the 2018 Academy of Management professional development workshop on Organization Theory Classics
We discuss Charlie Chaplin's 1936 film "Modern Times" balances great physical comedy with powerful social commentary. Chaplin portrayed a hapless Worker on an assembly line who is tormented both by supervisors and the work itself. After being subjected to a humiliating experiment intended to improve the line's efficiency, the Worker runs through a series of rotating jobs, stints in jail, and other misadventures as he tries to find his purpose in life.
Talking about organizations has reached 50 episodes!
Pedro and the mythical signed poster!
Ralph and Miranda in BIrmingham, UK around the time of Episode 15
Brian Pentland performing live on Episode 21
Dmitrijs and Pedro working hard at the TAOP Symposium
To mark this occasion, we gathered all seven of us hosts to discuss what we like (and perhaps not) about the podcast and podcasting, what our favorite or most remembered episodes were, and what we have learned along the way.
Turns out, one of the key things we learned was how much such a small number of dedicated scholars and practitioners can do with a lot of motivation and energy. As we discuss, there were many in the beginning who scoffed at the idea of podcasting on classic and emerging organization theories and concepts of management science. But with over 12,000 active listeners worldwide, Talking About Organizations has proven to be useful and entertaining all at once.
We hope you enjoy this brief retrospective. Also, click on the below graphic to view all the places where we have podcasted from in our many travels — sometimes having to find unique and interesting places to record to avoid noise and other problems!
Did you know THAT…
the podcast grew out of intellectually fertile soil of the Innovation, Knowledge and Organisational Networks Research Centre at the Warwick Business School. Thank you Jacky Swan, Davide Nicolini, Dawn Coton and many others for your early support and feedback!
while TAOP is no longer the sole academic podcast of its kind in management and organization studies, it is by far the largest one? Enjoyed by over 12000 regular listeners, Talking About Organizations is a reminder to all of us of the value of conversations to intellectual development and of the interest that our community has in foundational texts.
by the 50th episode we have had the pleasure of welcoming 25 guests on the show 27 times? And this is excluding guests and keynote speakers for our special events!
Speaking of special events, December 2017 marked the very first time we independently hosted an event – the Symposium on the Continuities and Disruptions of Management in the Gig Economy, featuring a whole bunch of wonderful people! Also big thanks to Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and University of Sussex for providing the resources that made it possible!
Katharina Dittrich (E4 and E21) and Mats Alvesson (E28 and E32) are the only two guests to make more than a single appearance on the show? Katharina also holds the honor of being our very first guest!
the podcast has been referenced in two peer-reviewed journals? See du Gay and Vikkelso (2018) and Bridgman, Cummings and Ballard (2018) for examples of two articles showing exceptionally good taste in their choice of sources.
there is a myth that rare collectable artefacts from the early days of the podcast exist scattered throughout the land… these range from the five original coffee mugs to a unique signed poster from the time of E21. Rest assured – we don’t know where most of these are either.
Originally published in 1992, Gideon Kunda’s ethnographic study of a high-tech corporation altered the discourse on organizational culture. “Tech,” the firm being studied, was a firm on the rise and saw itself as a leader and ground breaker in the rapidly growing high-tech industries of the 1980s. But as the firm grew from a modest couple hundred to tens of thousands of employees and multiple sites, Tech undertook an effort to indoctrinate its members with its tried-and-true formula for success — hard work, sacrifice, and belief in the company. The degree to which this indoctrination occurred was extensive, from the choreographed leader messages, trained cultural experts and internal publications to the highly competitive and cut-throat nature of project work. Kunda captured it all in gripping detail.
The centerpiece of Kunda’s thesis was Tech’s exercise of normative control. This was ironic in a way given how Tech’s professed culture valued self-determination and autonomy. But, the rewards and sanctions were constructed to enforce a particular form of autonomy, one in which Tech extracted the most out of its people while breaking their lives in the process.
Does this mean ‘normative control’ as a mechanism for mission accomplishment is bad? As we dove into the text and applied its lessons to present-day matters, the question is actually difficult to answer as there are many factors to consider. Listen as we wrestle with this extraordinary and provocative text!
The pursuit of an answer to this tantalizingly simple question began with a book chapter written in 1985 by organization theorists Stuart Albert and David Whetten. “Organizational Identity” established the construct of identity at the organizational level and described it as the sum of three types of claims — claims of an organization’s central character, claims of its distinctiveness from other organizations, and claims of temporal continuity that tie the present organization to its history. The chapter also raised the idea that organizations can have multiple identities, which each being more salient at different times. With seven key research questions and thirty-three hypothesis, the chapter also laid out a far-reaching research agenda.
But as we discuss in this episode, the twenty years that followed saw much of the research yield lots of confusion and consternation. David Whetten would prepare a follow-up commentary in 2006 to clarify and update the construct while addressing the conflicts.
So how useful is it? Listen in as we grapple with answering questions like, “Who are we as the Talking About Organizations Podcast?” using Albert & Whetten’s construct as a starting point. We then follow with examples, case studies, and uses of organizational identity in both scholarship and practice. We hope you enjoy the discussion and find it useful for understanding the deep culture of organizations.
