Element contents
Series: Elements in Organization Theory
Starting Points
Intellectual and Institutional Foundations of Organization Theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2018
Summary
This Element reviews the first 120 years of organization theory, examining its development from the sociology of organizations and management theory. It is initially organized around two streams of thought. The first is found in political economy and the sociology of organizations, with an emphasis on understanding the new organizations that arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The second derives from practitioner–scholars, whose aim was to provide theories and approaches to managing these new organizations. The Element then shows how each of the streams of understanding and managing came together to produce organization theory. In doing this, it also describes how the institutional frameworks in academic associations, academic centres and journals came out of these approaches and how they strengthened the development of organization theory.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Organization TheoryOnline ISBN: 9781108671286Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 16 August 2018
References
Adler, P. 2012. Marx and organization studies today. In Adler, P. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies. Classical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, P. 2015. Marxist philosophy and organization studies: Marxist contributions to the understanding of some important organizational forms. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 32: 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, P. S., Kwon, S.-W. and Heckscher, C. 2008. Professional work: The emergence of collaborative community. Organization Science, 19: 359–376.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (eds.). 1992. Critical Management Studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ansell, C. 2012. Mary Parker Follett and pragmatist organization. In Adler, P. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies. Classical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Augier, M. 2013. Behavioral theory of the firm: Hopes for the past; lessons from the future. M@n@gement, 16: 636–652.Google Scholar
Aviolo, B. and Yammarino, F. (eds.). 2013. Transformation and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Barnard, C. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barnard, C. 1948. Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Battilana, J. and D’Aunno, T. 2009. Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bendix, R. 1960. Max Weber. An Intellectual Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Benson, K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4: 259–301.Google Scholar
Berger, M. 1956. Bureaucracy East and West. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 518–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulding, K. 1956. General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2: 197–208.Google Scholar
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brech, E., Thomson, A. and Wilson, J. 2010. Lyndall Urwick, Management Pioneer: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Bromley, P. and Meyer, J. 2015. Hyper-organization: Global Organizational Expansion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burawoy, M. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burns, T. 1961. Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6: 257–281.Google Scholar
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. and Dunkerley, D. 1980. Organization, Class and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R. and Hardy, C. 2006. Some dare call it power. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. and Nord, W. R. (eds.). 2006. The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. and Nord, W. R. (eds.). 2006. The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cohen, M., March, J. and Olsen, J. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, M. and Friedberg, E. 1977/1980. Actors and Systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. and March, J. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dalton, M. 1950. Conflicts between staff and line managerial officers. American Sociological Review, 15: 342–351.Google Scholar
Davis, G. F. 2016. The Vanishing American Corporation: Navigating the Hazards of a New Economy. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Djelic, M. L. and Quack, S. 2008. Institutions and transnationalization. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Djilas, M. 1957. The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. 1995. American Anti-management Theories of Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, F. and Trist, E. 1965. The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18: 21–32.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espeland, W. N. and Stevens, M. L. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fayol, H. 1916. Administration industrielle et générale; prévoyance, organisation, commandement, coordination, controle. Paris: H. Dunod et E. Pinat.Google Scholar
Follett, M. P. 1918. The New State: Group Organization – the Solution for Popular Government. New York: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Friedberg, E. 2009. Introduction. In Crozier, M., The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G., Greve, H., Levinthal, D. and Ocasio, W. 2012. The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 1–40.Google Scholar
Gerth, H. 1952. The Nazi party: Its leadership and composition. In Merton, R., Gray, A., Hockey, B. and Selvin, H. (eds.), Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds.). 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. 1957. Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5: 485–521.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R. and Lawrence, T. 2005. The iron cage in the information age: The legacy and relevance of Max Weber for organization studies. Organization Studies, 26: 493–499.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R. and Whetten, D. 2014. Rethinking institutions and organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 51: 1206–1220.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. and Meyer, R. E. (eds.). 2017. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gremion, P. 1992. Michel Crozier’s long march: The making of the bureaucratic phenomenon. Political Studies, 40: 5–20.Google Scholar
Gulick, L. and Urwick, L. 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
Hage, J. and Aiken, M. 1967a. Program change and organizational properties: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 72: 503–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hage, J. and Aiken, M. 1967b. Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 72–92.Google Scholar
Hage, J. and Aiken, M. 1969. Routine technology, social structure and organizational goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 366–376.Google Scholar
Hall, R. H. 1963a. The concept of bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 69: 32–40.Google Scholar
Hall, R. H. 1963b. Bureaucracy and small organizations. Sociology and Social Research, 48: 38–46.Google Scholar
Hall, R. H. 1967. Some organizational considerations in the professional-organizational relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. H. 1968. Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33: 92–104.Google Scholar
Hall, R. H., Haas, E. and Johnson, N. 1967. Organizational size, complexity, and formalization. American Sociological Review, 32: 903–912.Google Scholar
Hall, R. H. and Tittle, C. 1966. Bureaucracy and its correlates. American Journal of Sociology, 72: 267–272.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929–964.Google Scholar
Hickson, D., Hinings, C. R., Schneck, R., Pennings, H. and Lee, C. 1971. A strategic contingencies theory of power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 216–229.Google Scholar
Hickson, D. and McMillan, C. (eds.). 1981. Organization and Nation: The Aston Programme IV. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
Hinings, C. R., Gegenhuber, T. and Greenwood, R. 2018. Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28 (1): 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinings, C. R. and Greenwood, R. 2015. Missing in action: The further contribution of Philip Selznick to contemporary institutional theory. Research in the Sociology of Organization, 44: 121–148.Google Scholar
Hinings, C. R. and Greenwood, R. 2017. The opening up of organization theory: Open systems, contingency theory, and organizational design. In Wilkinson, A., Armstrong, S. and Lounsbury, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinings, C. R., Greenwood, R. and Meyer, R. E. 2018. Dusty books: The liability of oldness. Academy of Management Review, 43: 333–343.Google Scholar
Höllerer, M. A., Walgenbach, P. and Drori, G. S. 2017. The consequences of globalization for institutions and organizations. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. and Meyer, R. E. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Institute for Social Research. 2016. Timeline. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from http://home.isr.umich.edu/about/history/timeline/.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305–360.Google Scholar
Kast, F. and Rosenzweig, J. (eds.). 1973. Contingency views of organization and management. Palo Alto: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Kieser, A. and Kubicek, H. 1978a. Organisationstheorien I: Wissenschaftstheoretische Anforderungen und kritische Analyse klassischer Ansätze. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Kieser, A. and Kubicek, H. 1978b. Organisationstheorien II: Kritische Analysen neuer sozialwissenschaftlicher Ansätze. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Kieser, A. and Leiner, L. 2009. Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, B., Felin, T. and Whetten, D. 2009. Comparative organizational analysis: An introduction. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 26: 3–20.Google Scholar
Kipping, M. and Engwall, L. (eds.). 2002. Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge Industry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, L. 2010. Working with Joan Woodward. In Phillips, N., Sewell, G. and Griffiths, D. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29: 35–40.Google Scholar
Kornberger, M., Justesen, L., Anders, K. M. and Mouritsen, J. (eds.). 2015. Making Things Valuable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornberger, M., Leixnering, S., Meyer, R. E. and Höllerer, M. forthcoming. Rethinking the Sharing Economy: The Nature and Organization of Sharing in the 2015 Refugee Crisis. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1–32.Google Scholar
Kornberger, M., Meyer, R. E., Brandtner, C. and Höllerer, M. 2017. When bureaucracy meets the crowd: Studying ‘open government’ in the Vienna City Administration. Organization Studies, 38: 179–200.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. 2009. Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. In Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (eds.), Institutional Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. 2015. Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 44.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. and Flores, R. 2015. Reinfusing values. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 44: 353–381.Google Scholar
Küpper, W. and Ortmann, G. 1988. Mikropolitik. Rationalität, Macht und Spiele in Organisationen. Berlin: Opladen.Google Scholar
Landes, D. S. 1969. The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. 1967a. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. 1967b. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 1–47.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. 1969. Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Lorsch, J. and Morse, J. 1974. Organizations and Their Members: A Contingency Approach. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. 1964. Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. 1968. Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität: Über die Funktion von Zwecken in sozialen Systemen. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. 1984. Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 2002. Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1867. Das Kapital. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprocess des Kapitals. Hamburg: Verlag von Otto Meisner.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1973. Grundrisse: Foundations of a Critique of Political Economy. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1848. Manifest der kommunistischen Partei. London: Workers’ Educational Association.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1955. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.Google Scholar
Mayntz, R. 1965. Max Webers Idealtypus der Bürokratie und die Organisationssoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 17: 493–502.Google Scholar
Mayntz, R. 1968. Bürokratische Organisation. Neue Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Band 27. Köln: Kiepenhauer und Witsch.Google Scholar
McKenna, C. 2006. The World’s Newest Profession: Management Consulting in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. 1936. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1: 894–904.Google Scholar
Merton, R. 1952. Bureaucratic structure and personality. In Merton, R., Gray, A., Hockey, B. and Selvin, H. (eds.), Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R., Gray, A., Hockey, B. and Selvin, H. (eds.). 1952. Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Metcalf, H. C. and Urwick, L. (eds.). 1941. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. Bath: Management Publications Trust.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. 2008. New sociology of knowledge: Historical legacy and contributions to current debates in institutional research. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. and Höllerer, M. 2014. Does institutional theory need redirecting? Journal of Management Studies, 51: 1221–1233.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.Google Scholar
Michels, R. 1911. Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie. Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens. Leipzig: Verlag von Dr. Werner Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
Michels, R. 1949. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. 2005. Managing for the Long Run. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Oberg, A., Schöllhorn, T. and Wruk, D. 2016. How to measure similarities and differences of organizational forms in the Sharing Economy: A semantic network approach. European Group of Organization Studies Colloquium, Naples, Italy.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1956a. Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations – I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 63–85.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1956b. Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations – II. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 224–239.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. 1970. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. 1972. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. 1985. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in ICI. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Phillips, N., Sewell, G. and Griffiths, D. (eds.). 2010. Technology and organization: Essays in honour of Joan Woodward. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29.Google Scholar
Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds.). 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Presthus, R. V. 1959. Behavior and bureaucracy in many cultures. Public Administration Review, 19: 25–35.Google Scholar
Presthus, R. V. 1961. Weberian v. welfare bureaucracy in a traditional society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6: 1–24.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. S. (ed.). 1985. Organization theory. In Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. and Hickson, D. (eds.). 1976. Organization Structure in Its Context: The Aston Programme I. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. and Hickson, D. J. 2007. Writers on Organizations. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. and Hinings, C. R. (eds.). 1976. Organization Structure – Extensions and Peplications: The Aston Programme II. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. and Payne, R. (eds.). 1977. Organization Behaviour in Its Context: The Aston Programme III. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
Pugh, D., Hickson, D. J. and Hinings, C. R. 1964. Writers on Organizations. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Pugh, D., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. and Turner, C. 1968. Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13: 65–105.Google Scholar
Pugh, D., Hickson, D. J. and Hinings, C. R. 1969a. An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 115–126.Google Scholar
Pugh, D., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., McDonald, K., Turner, C. and Lupton, T. 1963. A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8: 289–315.Google Scholar
Pugh, D., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. and Turner, C. 1969b. The context of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 91–114.Google Scholar
Reay, T., Berta, W. and Kohn, M. 2009. What’s the evidence on evidence-based management? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23: 5–18.Google Scholar
Roethlisberger, F. and Dickson, W. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. and McCarthy, S. 2007. Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6: 84–101.Google Scholar
Roy, D. 1952. Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. American Journal of Sociology, 57: 427–442.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. and Davis, G. F. 2011. Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. 1943. An approach to the theory of bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 8: 47–54.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. 1948. Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13: 25–35.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. 1996. Institutionalism ‘old’ and ‘new’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 270–277.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. 1970. The Theory of Organizations: A Sociological Framework. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1947. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1957. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sine, W., Mitsuhashi, H. and Kirsch, D. 2006. Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 121–132.Google Scholar
Steyrer, J. 1998. Charisma and the archetypes of leadership. Organization Studies, 19: 807–828.Google Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1959. Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: A comparative study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4: 168–187.Google Scholar
Svejenova, S., Croidieu, G. and Meyer, R. 2013. Welcome to the Hotel California: Strangers and hospitable organizations. Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier, 15: 68–90.Google Scholar
Trist, E. and Bamforth, K. 1951. Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4: 3–28.Google Scholar
Udy, S. H. 1959. ‘Bureaucracy’ and ‘rationality’ in Weber’s organization theory: An empirical study. American Sociological Review, 24: 791–795.Google Scholar
Urwick, L. 1952. Notes on the Theory of Organization. New York: American Management Association.Google Scholar
Urwick, L. 1956. The Golden Book of Management: A Historical Record of the Life and Work of Seventy Pioneers. Edited for the International Committee of Scientific Management. London: N. Neame.Google Scholar
Urwick, L. 1962. A Short Survey of Industrial Management. London: British Institute of Management.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A., Ganco, M. and Hinings, C. R. 2013. Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional design. Annals of the Academy of Management, 7: 393–440.Google Scholar
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1956). General systems theory. In Von Bertalanffy, L. and Rapoport, A. (eds.), General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory, 1. Washington, DC: Society for General Systems Research.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1963a. Objectivity in social science and social policy. In Natanson, M. (ed.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1958. Management and technology. Problems of Progress in Industry, 3. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (ed.). 1970. Industrial Organization: Behaviour and Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 18
- Cited by