Search

This article responds to author's commentaries on the article "The Study of Organizational Effectiveness," by J. L. Price. The basis of simplistic approach rests with three assumptions supposedly made by the paper. First, the paper, according to the authors, assumes uniformity in the meanings that respondents attach to words designating core organizational activities. The paper assumes that respondents possess knowledge and competency with respect to the evaluation of nursing care within their limited spheres of involvement in the hospitals. Although, it may be desirable to have a general measure of organizational effectiveness for the reason suggested in the paper, this may not be possible. Some scholars believe that organizational effectiveness is so specific that a general measure cannot be developed.

This paper discusses the importance of identifying the environmental context in which organizations function. The relationship between an organization and those other groups and individuals constituting its environment is specified in terms of linkages. Two key dimensions of linkage are identified: strength and breadth. The former refers to how intimately the organization is connected with any other group while the latter refers to how extensive is the support. These linkages' dimensions are viewed from a "resource mobilization" perspective, i.e., as the means by which resources are brought into an organization. A study of linkages sustained by the NAACP during 1961-69 illustrates how the dimensions of linkage strength and breadth can be operationalized and applied. New avenues of research then are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is argued that the theory of negotiated order, which has remained largely submerged within a series of fairly specific "grounded" case studies of occupations, professions, and complex organizations in the health field, has a number of attractive qualities to it. As such, it represents one of the more exciting recent developments in the study of organizations. The present paper examines the more recent historical origins of the theory, summarizes its major points, and critically assesses its strengths and weaknesses. Since most of the substance of the theory is found in studies of health professionals working in hospital settings, the examples used here are also derived from this particular body of literature. Some future possible directions which we believe will improve the overall explanatory power of the perspective are presented in the concluding section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years the field of sociology and the subfield of complex organization have experienced a series of running debates between persons subscribing to structural approaches and those holding to interaction perspectives of scientific inquiry. Drawing upon Spinner's (1973) discussion of the types of intertheory relationships, this paper extends his analysis by drawing attention to the Polanyi-Hanson-Kuhn position on the fundamental nature of theory-laden observation. A methodological rule is proposed, using theoretic blockage as the basis for alternate shifting between diverse theories. In this manner, tenets of various theoretic perspectives can serve as heuristics to a more informed analysis. A theoretical discussion of power, deference, and social coordination is used to illustrate how the methodological rule of theoretic blockage can be employed to advance organization theory. I argue that the theoretical diversities in the subfield of complex organization can provide an excellent arena for exploring critical intertheory dialogues which can advance our knowledge of organizations. At the same time they can serve as a testing ground for general intertheory and interdisciplinary linkages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An alternative approach to organizational theory is outlined, based on Marxian categories and propositions. The concepts of "productive forces" and "social relations of production" are specified in terms of various organizational phenomena such as organizing activity vs. organization; historical contradictions between organizational control structures and new forms of organizing work activity (e.g., occupational and professional status groups vs. administrative rationalization and bureaucratization; bureaucratic and technocratic administration vs. selforganization of labor and workers' control); the contradictions between such organizational dimensions as labor-power and its manifestations in terms of skills and knowledge, the object of labor (complexity of task structure), the means of labor (technology), the division of labor, the control of labor (cost-accounting and hierarchical authority relations), and the organization of labor (e.g., either in terms of occupations and professions or unions, corporate management, state bureaucracies, or self-organization and workers' control). Organizational contradictions between functional as well as historical phases of the work process are described for work organizations, in general, and for public service bureaucracies and courts of law, in particular. For example, administrative and technical innovations designed to increase productivity tend to come into contradiction with strategies of established authority structures (e.g., of the professional judicial elite) designed to expand domain, thus impeding or nullifying various organizational reform efforts. The paper concludes with a more general discussion of Marxian method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal and system resource approaches represent alternative conceptions of organizational effectiveness. The goal approach views effectiveness in terms of internal organizational objectives and performance. Organization-environment relations are the focus of the system resource approach, though previous applications of this perspective have been limited to profit-making organizations. This paper reconceptualizes the system resource approach for use in public agencies and examines the flow of organizational resources as an indicator of effectiveness.

This paper examines Blau's recent attempt to construct a deductive theoretical explanation of structural differentiation in formal organizations. Blau claims that certain generalizations are explanatory, and cites certain philosophers in support of this claim. A closer examination of these philosophers' views shows the resemblance between these generalizations and explanatory scientific generalizations to be only superficial. They can be better understood as descriptions of patterns. These patterns hold in virtue of the following of certain practices by organizational participants. Explanations of the instances covered by the generalizations which refer to these practices may be provided. These explanations require no supplementation. This suggests that the dependence is parasitic, insofar as explanation is concerned. Blau's explanations add nothing, nor are they fully independent alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between size and structure is a general problem in the study of social organization. Organization can be seen as a system of relationships among differentiated activities performed by units of a population. Viewed as arising out of the exchange relations among these units, the structural characteristics of organizations should be affected by population size. As specific expressions of this general concern, size has been included in every taxonomy of group properties and has been related to goals, effectiveness, succession, and job satisfaction in studies of formal organizations (Merton, 1957:310-326; Berelson and Steiner, 1964:364-367; Tannenbaum, 1961; Meltzer and Salter, 1962; Simpson and Gulley, 1962; and Grusky, 1961). But perhaps the greatest amount of theoretical and research attention has focused on the relationship between size and the administrative component as one structural aspect of formal organizations (Melman, 1951; Terrien and Mills, 1955; Tsouderos, 1955; Bendix, 1956:221-223; Haire, 1959:287-296; Anderson and Warkov, 1961; Lindenfeld, 1961; Haas et al., 1963; Hawley et al., 1965; Starbuck, 1965:495-502; Rushing, 1966; Raphael, 1967; Hall et al., 1967). The findings produced by this research along with other inquiries into the effects of size on structural characteristics have been inconclusive. This has led some to conclude that "… size may be irrelevant in determining organizational structure" (Hall et al., 1967:912). Such a conclusion, however, may be premature. It is clear from both our own work and that of others that the effects of size may vary by type of organization (Akers and Campbell, 1968). Further, a clearer understanding of the size factor, especially as related to the administrative segment, requires a systematic investigation into other structural features of organization. In particular, Blau and Scott (1962:227) have suggested that complexity, as a second structural characteristic, may be an intervening variable between size and the administrative component, as well as being itself directly affected by organizational size. While other studies have treated complexity in a variety of ways, none has attempted systematically to explore the interrelationships among size, complexity, and the administrative component in a relatively large number of voluntary organizations. It is the purpose of this paper to examine these interrelationships for one kind of organization. Specifically, we want to consider: 1. the relationship between organizational size and the administrative component, controlling for complexity. 2. the relationship between size and complexity controlling for the relative size of the administrative component. 3. the relationship between complexity and the size of the administrative component controlling for organizational size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with the effects of members on organizations. We looked at the kinds of responses organizations can make to members, the connection of different responses to the type of relationship between organization and members, the choice of different organizational responses, and the conditions maximizing effects of members. The term "organizational response" is used to cover both new developments which are customarily thought to be changes and those which are not usually viewed as changes. The basis for distinguishing two major types of responses to members is how the pressure for change is handled: Any new activities, procedures, norms, or goals introduced in order to alter or manipulate the source of pressure on the organization are called controls. Any new activities, etc., introduced in order to alter or manipulate the targets of pressure are called organizational modifications. The most important organizational responses to members are social controls. These may involve major redistributions of resources, the creation of new departments and services, dramatic shifts in conceptions of the organization's purposes, and so on. At the same time, they represent attempts by agents of the organization to resist, control, contain, manipulate, and prevent possible influence from members on the organization. Many times, these attempts to protect the organization are more costly than modifying those aspects of the organization which are the targets of influence. The social controls can backfire and engender greater member disaffection. Nevertheless, it was assumed that social controls should be a preferred response when pressures from members occur. Should the range of controls available to an organization become depleted—either because it has few available or because previous attempts at control have failed—organizational modifications then occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ORGANIZaTiON goals and their consequences provide a major frame of reference for the systematic investigation of variation in the structure and operation of large-scale organizations. Sociologists have traditionally identified relatively specific goals as one of the distinctive aspects of large-scale organization. But they have not analyzed comparatively the effects of different goals on organizational behavior, nor have they confronted the problem of measuring goals when comparing organizations. In a study recently concluded, custodial and treatment goals of correctional institutions for delinquents were used as the major source for independent variables in the testing of hypothesized relationships about the social structure of these institutions.)Using data from this study, this paper has two purposes. First, we wish to illustrate a method for the measurement of goals when these are defined vaguely and in such a way as to protect the institution's public image. By using several methods of measuring goals we were able to achieve both a more precise definition of goals and one which showed how the goals of different levels and groups in the institution intermeshed. Second, we wish to present illustrative data demonstrating the effects of different goals on the internal structures of the organizations. Specifically, we will compare departmental structures, power balances, and staff perceptions of organizational norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]