Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory

206 Pages·1967·67.24 MB·English

by  James D. Thompson

organizations in action
SOCIAL SCIENCE BASES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
THEORY I
I
james d. thompson
PROFESSOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
AND PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY,
INDIAN A UNIVERSITY
mc graw-hill book company
NEW YORK
ST. LOUIS / SAN FRANCISCO / TORONTO
LONDON / SYDNEY
organizations in action
SOCIAL SCIENCE BASES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
THEORY I
I
james d. thompson
PROFESSOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
AND PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY,
INDIAN A UNIVERSITY
mc graw-hill book company
NEW YORK
ST. LOUIS / SAN FRANCISCO / TORONTO
LONDON / SYDNEY
organizations in ac tion
to my families and shay
COPYRIGHT © 1967 BY McGRAW
HILL, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. THIS BOOK, OR PARTS
THEREOF, MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION
OF THE PUBLISHERS.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD
NUMBER 67-11564
07-064380-6
14 15 iO 000,79876'
organizations in ac tion
to my families and shay
COPYRIGHT © 1967 BY McGRAW
HILL, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. THIS BOOK, OR PARTS
THEREOF, MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION
OF THE PUBLISHERS.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD
NUMBER 67-11564
07-064380-6
14 15 iO 000,79876'
preface
No useful theory can rest on the assumption that everything is
unique. It is probably inevitable that the early history of a scientific
I nd avor will be characterized by the opposite assumption, and by the
lUr h for universals. This certainly has been the case with organization
III ly, which until recently has been preoccupied with discovering the
ntial elements of all complex organizations.
1
I believe it is a sign of relative maturity when a field begins to focus
on 1I €tt rued variations. The discovery of universal elements is necessary,
I II ' tll 11 it provides a static understanding. To get leverage on a topic,
'( :must begin to see some of the universal elements as capable of
1II'Ini 11.
In th s t nus, I believe organization theory is beginning to mature,
I II' l rowing inventory of empirical studies makes possible comparisons
1111 I onlmsts whi h reinforce the assumption of common elements, but
111111'( 1111 t"tnntly so sts ways of conceiving of variables.
til/IV wrllt tl this book to aU attention to some of these develop-
1I11111l , will It t n 1 10 p;ounl1oti 01 b aus w \ ar encouraged to con
'ill I , lit II dl. II IIIlON, wililo 01' llllizulions 111' mnlLi lis iplinary h -
II
preface
No useful theory can rest on the assumption that everything is
unique. It is probably inevitable that the early history of a scientific
I nd avor will be characterized by the opposite assumption, and by the
lUr h for universals. This certainly has been the case with organization
III ly, which until recently has been preoccupied with discovering the
ntial elements of all complex organizations.
1
I believe it is a sign of relative maturity when a field begins to focus
on 1I €tt rued variations. The discovery of universal elements is necessary,
I II ' tll 11 it provides a static understanding. To get leverage on a topic,
'( :must begin to see some of the universal elements as capable of
1II'Ini 11.
In th s t nus, I believe organization theory is beginning to mature,
I II' l rowing inventory of empirical studies makes possible comparisons
1111 I onlmsts whi h reinforce the assumption of common elements, but
111111'( 1111 t"tnntly so sts ways of conceiving of variables.
til/IV wrllt tl this book to aU attention to some of these develop-
1I11111l , will It t n 1 10 p;ounl1oti 01 b aus w \ ar encouraged to con
'ill I , lit II dl. II IIIlON, wililo 01' llllizulions 111' mnlLi lis iplinary h -
II
nomena. A central purpose of this book is to i] nLffy a [ram work which variety of disciplines. I have carried concepts from one discipline into
might link at important points several of the now in 1 I 11 i nt approaches fields not typically studied with those concepts. I have tried to say more,
to the understanding of complex organizations. using some concepts, than has typically been said with them. At the
Because this is a broad if still shallow field, I hav had to match same time, I have said considerably less, using those same concepts,
task to talent by imposing some major constraints on myself: than has been said. The economist, sociologist, political scientist, or social
1. Attention is limited to instrumental organi7.D.tlons which induce psychologist will each find that I have overlooked refinements and
or coerce participation, and not to organizations of a "voluntary" nature, intrica,cies of concepts he knows well. I have done so deliberately, in
such as religious or ideological associations. Hopefully, some of the order to achieve a generality across typical categories of organizations, I
propositions advanced will apply to these as well, but I will not be hope, however, that I have avoided outright distortion of concepts.
explicit about them. My focus is on the behavior of organizations; behavior within or
2. I have undertaken no obligation to portray faithfully the evolu ganizations is considered only to the extent that it helps us understand
tion of organization theories. Concepts are important, but for present organizations in the round. In order to focus attention on organizations
purposes the sequence in which they appeared is not. Ideas are im as such, I have resorted in Part One to some verbal Simplifications which
portant; tracing them to their ultimate origins is another matter. are indefensible if taken literally. Specifically, in considering organizations
3. I have exercised considerable discretion, selecting those concepts as "actors," I employ terms usually associated with human actors- terms
which appear fruitful for present purposes and omitting all others, no r ferring to purpose or motivation. I realize that organizations act only
matter how widely they are used or how powerful they have proved to as the result of action by their members, and I deal explicitly with such
be for other purposes. Only those which I could hook together have matters in Part Two. Meanwhile, the reader is asked to consider such
been used. phrasings as shorthand conventions employed only temporarily to fa-
4. I have taken the liberty of extending or modifying some of the ilitate communication.
concepts found in existing literature. Whenever such liberties have been Of course, I hope that this book will be regarded as an original
taken, I have tried to show the ways in which my usage differs from 'ontribution, but the claim to originality is a difficult one to establish. In
those cited. th building of a science, each of us starts with the contributions of
This book might be considered a conceptual inventory. This is a others. Those familiar with organization theory in the mid-sixties will
departure from the recent fashion of conducting "propositional inven " ognize that my debts fan out much further than specific citations
tories," which assumes that important relationships have already been lnelicate. But in addition to works in the public domain, I have profited
explored (Berelson and Steiner, 1964). I assume merely that the concepts p rsonally and deeply from colaboration with colleagues Robert W.
relevant to important relationships exist, and once having identified some, v ry, Frederick L. Bates, Richard O. Carlson, Peter B. Hammond,
I hope to generate potentially significant propositions. We lack the l ob 1't W. Hawkes, William J. McEwen, and Arthur Tuden; and from
systematic evidence that eventually must come, but there are illustrative Iny friends and teachers, N. J. Demerath and Edward H. Litchfield.
I
studies cited to indicate that the propositions are plausible. Most of my rganizations and administrators have been important to me. Had
citations are of contemporary American organizations, but the intention lIot th late Howard W. Odum built the department of sociology at the
has been to state propositions which are neither time- nor space-bound. llnlv rsity of North Carolina, I could not have benefited from association
I assume that there are differences among organizations, and hope Itll h c1 Bates and Nick Demerath. Had not Litchfield had the vision
to account for some of them. But I also assume that ther is l Ot a on - III III 'orr orat' the social sciences into the Graduate School of Business
to-one correspondence between significant organizational lif£ 11" n sand IIlId I Ll!>li Administration at Cornell University, I would not have
the typical categories of business, governm'nt, In '(il 'il10, (\111 0(1\1 tition. 111l/0 «1 nsso iuti. 11 with Bill McEwen or continued learning from Fred
Likewise, I believe ther is not a dire t orr 'lllllolllHIlw( (Ill til( n 'n] Inl ' 1111111 , II 1 hud n t it hfl 1cl stablish d the Administrative Science
disciplines andl.1s fill 'at gorics of 'oJllp'lo' 01' llIlIVoH! 011 , llllll(II' nl lll( LJnlvorslly or PlltsbUI" h, T would not Inv b n privil ged
Tllustrntions n1" dl"llwll 1"'0111 II vnl'/o! or 11(11<1 , IIlId (1( 01\(11 I f"WIl It III 1(lIi,d )l'1l1( with noh A (11' , I i ,1 JnrlsOll, 1 ( t< r Trnrnrnond, Bob
nomena. A central purpose of this book is to i] nLffy a [ram work which variety of disciplines. I have carried concepts from one discipline into
might link at important points several of the now in 1 I 11 i nt approaches fields not typically studied with those concepts. I have tried to say more,
to the understanding of complex organizations. using some concepts, than has typically been said with them. At the
Because this is a broad if still shallow field, I hav had to match same time, I have said considerably less, using those same concepts,
task to talent by imposing some major constraints on myself: than has been said. The economist, sociologist, political scientist, or social
1. Attention is limited to instrumental organi7.D.tlons which induce psychologist will each find that I have overlooked refinements and
or coerce participation, and not to organizations of a "voluntary" nature, intrica,cies of concepts he knows well. I have done so deliberately, in
such as religious or ideological associations. Hopefully, some of the order to achieve a generality across typical categories of organizations, I
propositions advanced will apply to these as well, but I will not be hope, however, that I have avoided outright distortion of concepts.
explicit about them. My focus is on the behavior of organizations; behavior within or
2. I have undertaken no obligation to portray faithfully the evolu ganizations is considered only to the extent that it helps us understand
tion of organization theories. Concepts are important, but for present organizations in the round. In order to focus attention on organizations
purposes the sequence in which they appeared is not. Ideas are im as such, I have resorted in Part One to some verbal Simplifications which
portant; tracing them to their ultimate origins is another matter. are indefensible if taken literally. Specifically, in considering organizations
3. I have exercised considerable discretion, selecting those concepts as "actors," I employ terms usually associated with human actors- terms
which appear fruitful for present purposes and omitting all others, no r ferring to purpose or motivation. I realize that organizations act only
matter how widely they are used or how powerful they have proved to as the result of action by their members, and I deal explicitly with such
be for other purposes. Only those which I could hook together have matters in Part Two. Meanwhile, the reader is asked to consider such
been used. phrasings as shorthand conventions employed only temporarily to fa-
4. I have taken the liberty of extending or modifying some of the ilitate communication.
concepts found in existing literature. Whenever such liberties have been Of course, I hope that this book will be regarded as an original
taken, I have tried to show the ways in which my usage differs from 'ontribution, but the claim to originality is a difficult one to establish. In
those cited. th building of a science, each of us starts with the contributions of
This book might be considered a conceptual inventory. This is a others. Those familiar with organization theory in the mid-sixties will
departure from the recent fashion of conducting "propositional inven " ognize that my debts fan out much further than specific citations
tories," which assumes that important relationships have already been lnelicate. But in addition to works in the public domain, I have profited
explored (Berelson and Steiner, 1964). I assume merely that the concepts p rsonally and deeply from colaboration with colleagues Robert W.
relevant to important relationships exist, and once having identified some, v ry, Frederick L. Bates, Richard O. Carlson, Peter B. Hammond,
I hope to generate potentially significant propositions. We lack the l ob 1't W. Hawkes, William J. McEwen, and Arthur Tuden; and from
systematic evidence that eventually must come, but there are illustrative Iny friends and teachers, N. J. Demerath and Edward H. Litchfield.
I
studies cited to indicate that the propositions are plausible. Most of my rganizations and administrators have been important to me. Had
citations are of contemporary American organizations, but the intention lIot th late Howard W. Odum built the department of sociology at the
has been to state propositions which are neither time- nor space-bound. llnlv rsity of North Carolina, I could not have benefited from association
I assume that there are differences among organizations, and hope Itll h c1 Bates and Nick Demerath. Had not Litchfield had the vision
to account for some of them. But I also assume that ther is l Ot a on - III III 'orr orat' the social sciences into the Graduate School of Business
to-one correspondence between significant organizational lif£ 11" n sand IIlId I Ll!>li Administration at Cornell University, I would not have
the typical categories of business, governm'nt, In '(il 'il10, (\111 0(1\1 tition. 111l/0 «1 nsso iuti. 11 with Bill McEwen or continued learning from Fred
Likewise, I believe ther is not a dire t orr 'lllllolllHIlw( (Ill til( n 'n] Inl ' 1111111 , II 1 hud n t it hfl 1cl stablish d the Administrative Science
disciplines andl.1s fill 'at gorics of 'oJllp'lo' 01' llIlIVoH! 011 , llllll(II' nl lll( LJnlvorslly or PlltsbUI" h, T would not Inv b n privil ged
Tllustrntions n1" dl"llwll 1"'0111 II vnl'/o! or 11(11<1 , IIlId (1( 01\(11 I f"WIl It III 1(lIi,d )l'1l1( with noh A (11' , I i ,1 JnrlsOll, 1 ( t< r Trnrnrnond, Bob