2020 ushered in a full year of major change and renewed a lot of conversations about how we work, live, and cooperate in organizations and societies. In that spirit, we discuss Melville Dalton's classic 1959 book "Men Who Manage: Fusions of Feeling and Theory in Administration." The study provided an intimate look at how men (as these were all men at the time) entered into the managerial culture of a firm, how the separations between managers are workers were structured and maintained, and how managers felt about their standing -- which ranged from secure to tenuous. In Part 1, we focus on the study itself, which is still very relevant not only for understanding what happens within the circle of managers but also how the boundaries can exclude others, particularly along gender lines.
In Episode 56, we opened a window to the world of African-American studies in management studies when we discussed the work of Charles Clinton Spaulding. We now continue the effort to expand the canon of organization theory and management science, this time focusing on Latin America. Worldwide, much of the theorizing and publishing of research has been greatly influenced by a dominant mode of thought originating in western Europe, the U.S., and Canada. Mainstream journals and institutions located in these centers have produced great scholarship. But its perspective is frequently parochial. Or more specifically, it is assumed to be global despite being based on a particular reality of organizing and managing. Also, the political economy of knowledge is such that scholars in the periphery have been wrapped into colonial dynamics which prevented the emergence of a distinctive body of knowledge reflective of the richness of their contexts.
Such is the critique leveled by Eduardo Ibarra-Colado, whose famous 2006 work “Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: thinking otherness from the margins” represents a manifesto and call to action by all scholars to consider how the current paradigm severely disadvantages scholarship in Latin America — a region that includes Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. This region is home to both global enterprises and deeply historic indigenous cultures, each with important stories to tell about organizations and organizing. Ibarra-Colado charges that the current approach to scholarship forces Latin American scholars to forgo their own identity and assume that of what he called the “Anglo-Euro-Centre” that disproportionately controls the generation of knowledge in unhelpful ways.
Joining Pedro, Leonardo, and Tom to discuss this text is our special guest Samantha Ortiz, who joined us for this episode from Mexico City. She is a PhD candidate at EM Lyon Business School and has conducted multiple research projects in Latin America. Samantha is familiar with the situation described by Ibarra-Colado and she shares her take on the matter in this episode.
Part 1. Analyzing epistemic coloniality in Organization Studies (released 10 September 2020)
Part 2. Pursuing a post-colonial research agenda with Ibarra-Colado (released 17 September 2020)
Read With Us:
Ibarra-Colado, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: thinking otherness from the margins. Organization, 13(4), 463-488.
To Know More:
Alcadipani, R., Khan, F. R., Gantman, E., & Nkomo, S. (2012). Southern voices in management and organization knowledge. Organization 19(2), 131–143.
Boyacigiller, N.A. & Adler, N.J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. The Academy of Management Review16(2), 262.
McDonnell, E. M. (2017). Patchwork leviathan: How pockets of bureaucratic governance flourish within institutionally diverse developing states. American Sociological Review82(3), 476–510.
Ortiz, C. S. (2020). Caring as an organizing principle: Reflections on ethnography of and as care. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12614
Stark, D. (1989). Bending the bars of the iron cage: bureaucratization and informalization in capitalism and socialism. Sociological Forum4(4), 637–664.
The work of certain groups of specialists in society is a crucial theme for those interested in organizations. And it became particularly relevant in light of the COVID-19 pandemic as debates emerge on whether “experts” got things wrong or how decision-makers have decided (or not) to listen to the professionals. But who exactly are the “professionals” anyway? Is it just doctors, lawyers, educators? How do they work? Are all professionals created equally? Why some wield more attention than others? Sociologist Andrew Abbott does more than answer these questions, he constructed a comprehensive framework to analyze the meaning of professional work and how professions form and compete with each other.
The text for this episode is Andrew Abbott’s 1989 book The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. This book is a watershed in our understanding of professions and their work. While previous literature had a focus on distinctive occupational groups and their professionalization projects, Abbott invited us to think more systemically about the interdependencies and how professions compete with each other over “jurisdictions,” claims of ownership and responsibility over expert knowledge and its applications.
This is the first of two planned episodes covering this magnificent work. In this episode, the focus is on how Abbott defines the major constructs of his framework — professionalization, professional work (diagnosis, inference, treatment), and claims of jurisdiction. We concentrate on their application in individual professions and subdivisions therein, followed by a discussion of one of Abbott’s case studies — that of the information professions (e.g., librarian, statistician, computer programmer). The insights shed light the modern-day issues facing professions today such as the public health sector who have been under intense scrutiny in the pandemic.
Part 1. What distinguishes professional work?
Part 2. Contemporary challenges for professions and professionals
Abbott, A. (1995). Boundaries of Social Work or Social Work of Boundaries?: The Social Service Review Lecture. Social Service Review. 69 (4), 545-62.
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 720-752.
Related Episodes:
Episodes 7&8: Two episodes covering Chester Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive — Episode 7 on “Phases of Cooperation” and Episode 8 on “The Ends of Men“
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.
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
We discuss Kurt Lewin's article, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics," that makes a strong case for treating the social sciences on the same level with the natural sciences--previously, social science was considered neither rigorous nor valid. Using metaphors from physics, Lewin explains social phenomena in tangible, physical terms and explains how individuals within a social space interact in ways that could be measured similarly to physical or chemical phenomenon.
As bureaucracies became more prevalent as a feature of organizations post-WWII, questions surfaced as to how they could be improved. Was there an optimal way to design them? What was the best role of individual members within a bureaucracy? Could individuals be developed to handle higher level roles?
Among those asking such questions was Elliott Jaques, co-founder of the Tavistock Institute and later the author of the renowned book Requisite Organization that combined social theories with theories of organization. As a scientific approach to organizational design, the “stratified systems theory” of requisite organization sought to optimize the hierarchical structure based on the time-span of decisions at echelon. Then, using methods for measuring individual capabilities and capacity for decision making, members could be assigned posts within the organization based on best fit. Stratified systems theory (SST) established a common schema for using time-span that could be applied to any organization.
Stratified systems theory found a home in the U.S. Army due to its immediate applicability in the Army’s large, complex hierarchical structures during the Cold War. The seven strata prescribed in the Theory were found to be analogous with various echelons in combat organizations, and the individual capabilities mirrored the duties and requirements of officers at particular ranks from lieutenant (lowest stratum or Stratum I) to general (highest or Stratum VII). For this reason, and because the report is in the public domain, we opted to read Jaques’ Army Research Institute Report Level and Type of Capability in Relation to Executive Organization, co-authored with Brunel University colleague Gillian Stamp in 1991. The report gives both a good summary of the theory and a thorough explication of its potential use in practice.
But as a scientific approach to organization, SST has been heavily criticized and largely shunned. Why, and whether or not this is fair is among the many topics we tackle in this episode.
Jaques, E. (1997). Requisite Organization: Total System for Effective Managerial Organization and Managerial Leadership for the 21st Century. London: Gower.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. In Clark, K. E. & Clark, M.. B. (Eds.) Measures of leadership (pp. 281-295). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
________ (1991). Executive leadership. In Gal, R. & Mangelsdorff, A. D. (Eds.) The handbook of military psychology (pp. 431-448). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Following on a theme from the previous episode, we explore an important reading that bridges organization theory with economics. This was the explicit aim of Oliver E. Williamson’s famous article, “The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach,” published in the American Journal of Sociology in 1981. The article begins with a statement that the assumption of firms operating on a profit motive has not helped organization theorists understand and explain the behaviors of firms, and that economists were also finding themselves similarly limited. He thus set out on a different path and argued that transactions, not the products or services the firm provides, is a better unit of analysis.
In the discussion, we wrestle with Williamson’s central arguments and proposals, such as the construct of the efficient organizational boundary, human asset specificity and the difference types of governance structures related to it, and how markets and hierarchies represent different choices for organizing. We also explored a related article presenting early thoughts about the growing impact of rapid advances in information technology on firm and market structures. Written in 1987, Tom Malone et al.’s “Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies” presages the modern online economic environment and its many virtual interactions between seller and buyers. This fascinating extension of Williamson’s ideas made a number of predictions. How many came true 30 years later?
Tune in as the podcasters discuss the transaction cost approach to organization theory and its lasting impacts on scholarship and practice!
We discuss Barbara Levitt and James G. March’s article “Organizational Learning,” published in the 1988 edition of the Annual Review of Sociology. Although the authors hailed from Stanford University in California, we have included this episode in our Carnegie-Mellon Series because of James March’s involvement and perspectives on organization that clearly influenced the article. This work was a literature review across various streams in organizational learning up through the 1980s. Topics include learning from experience, organizational memory, ecologies of learning, and organizational intelligence. Of particular interest is how organizational learning was defined as not an outcome but a process of translating the cumulative experiences of individuals and codifying them as routines within the organization. From this, the authors applied the brain metaphor – such as memory and intelligence – to explain the phenomenon.
We conclude Season 4 with one of our most ambitious efforts, tackling Gareth Morgan’s classic book Images of Organization, originally published in 1986. This lengthy and detailed volume synthesizes an incredible range of organization theories and concepts over the previous century and presents them under the umbrella of eight distinct metaphors. Each metaphor represents a different way of understanding the existence and dynamics of organizations, their members, and their interactions with the environment.
Each metaphor stems from distinct literature streams and management practice, and many will be familiar to our listeners — many have been discussed in the podcast before. The first is of the machine, in which the organization is a closed system and members constitute its parts. The metaphor conjures up images of Frederick Taylor and scientific management from the early 20th century, yet it is still in use today (episodes 1, 18 and 40). Next comes the organism, where the organization is explained as an adaptive, competitive whole with needs that must be satisfied to grow and prosper (episodes 9 and 16). As brains, organizations learn and self-organize (episode 4, 19, 39). As cultures, they operationalize shared values (see episodes 11, 30, and 38). These four are well-known and highlight some attractive qualities of organization, but Morgan then follows them with four others that draw attention to the darker side of organization — political system, psychic prisons, flux and transformation (episode 31), or domination (episode 17). each describing different purposes and behaviors of organizations that bridge theory and practice.
But, as Morgan warns, metaphors are a way of ‘seeing and not seeing.’ While they may stretch “imagination in a way that can create powerful insights,” there is also the “risk of distortion” (p. 5). He presents both the strengths and limitations of each metaphor—what do they explain well and what do they not explain? His work has both an academic and a practical stance. He discusses how these metaphors might form the basis … as well as provide the foundation for managers to think about organizational processes in their workplaces.
The podcasters explored both the different metaphors presented as well as the overall idea of how they might complement each other (or not). The discussion also explored current organizational and managerial issues. This includes organizational commitment, which inspired Tom to prepare a sidecast on the idea of organizational commitment to members and the historical example of Milton Hershey that is still relevant today.
Listen as the podcasters discuss and debate Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organization and the use of metaphor. Afterward, ask yourself which metaphor would you use to describe your organization?
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (Eds.). (2010). Metaphors we lead by: Understanding leadership in the real world. Routledge.
Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. (1989). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Routledge.
Huq, J.-L., T. Reay, and S. Chreim. (2017). “Protecting the Paradox of Interprofessional Collaboration.” Organization Studies, 38: 513–538.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980/2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
Tsoukas, H. (2016). “Don’t Simplify, Complexify: From Disjunctive to Conjunctive Theorizing in Organization and Management Studies.” Journal of Management Studies, 54: 132–153.
Turco, C. J. (2016). The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media. Columbia University Press.
Weick, K. E. (1989). “Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination.” The Academy of Management Review, 14: 516.
Whyte, W. H. (2013). The Organization Man. University of Pennsylvania Press.
