ASR 1976 Van de Ven Delbeq Determinants of Coordination

8/2/2019 ASR 1976 Van de Ven Delbeq Determinants of Coordination

1/18

Determinants of Coordination Modes within OrganizationsAuthor(s): Andrew H. Van De Ven, Andre L. Delbecq, Richard Koenig, Jr.Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 322-338Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094477 .

Accessed: 17/05/2011 13:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2094477?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2094477?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa


2/18

DETERMINANTSOF COORDINATIONMODESWITHINORGANIZATIONS*ANDREW H. VAN DE VEN ANDRE L. DELBECQ

The Wharton chool University f WisconsinMadisonUniversity f PennsylvaniaRICHARD KOENIG, JR.

KentState UniversityAmerican Sociological Review 1976, Vol. 41 (April): 322-338

This paper classifiesalternativemechanismsor coordinatingworkactivitieswithinorganiza-tions into impersonal, ersonalandgroupmodes.It investigates ow variations nd interactionsin the use of these coordinationmechanismsand modesare explainedby task uncertainty,interdependence nd unit size. Nine hypothesesthat relatethese threedeterminingactors tothe use of the threecoordinationmodesare developed n orderto test some key propositionsofThompson 1967) and others on coordination t the workunit or departmentalevel of organi-zation analysis. Researchresults from 197 work units within a largeemploymentsecurityagency largelysupportthe hypotheses.The indingssuggest hat thereare differences n degreeand kind of influenceof eachdeterminingactor on the mixof alternative oordinationmecha-nismsusedwithinorganizationalnits.

Basic to a theory of organizations s thepremisethat all organizationsneed coordina-tion. Coordination means integratingor link-ing together differentparts of anorganizationto accomplish a collective set of tasks.Differ-ent levels of analysis and perspectivehavebeen taken to study coordination.Most or-ganizationsociologistshave studiedmanager-ial coordinationat the organizationalevel ofanalysis (e.g., Blau, 1968; Thompson, 1967;Meyer, 1972; Hage, 1974; Heydebrand,1973). In this sense, mehcanismsfor coor-dinating task roles within work units or de-

*We are grateful to the Wisconsin EmploymentSecurity Division in the Department of Industry,Labor and Human Relations for support of this re-search. We also appreciate helpful critiques on pre-vious drafts of this paper from Howard Aldrich,Cornelis Lammers, Arlyn Melcher, Derek Pugh andan- anonymous reviewer of this journal. A pre-liminary report of this research was presented in theSection on Formal Organizations at the Annual Con-ference of the American Sociological Association inNew York, August, 1973.

partmentsof organizationsremainsrelativelyobscure.Yet it is withinworkunits or depart-ments where the majority of instrumentalfunctions are performed Parsons,1962). Fur-ther, while many researchershave followedWeber (1947) by measuringthe degrees ofstructural ntegration n termsof complexity,centralization,formalizationor socialization,few (Hage, 1974; Galbraith, 1970) have pur-sued the redirectionsoffered by MarchandSimon (1958) and Thompson(1967) for con-ceptualizingand measuringprocesses of co-ordination.This paper will attempt to focus upon co-ordinationprocessesandtest somekey propo-sitions of Thompson(1967) andothersaboutcoordinationat the work unit level of organi-zation analysis. Three alternative modes forcoordinatingwork activitieswill be presented(impersonal, personal and group). The re-searchwill examine the extent to which taskuncertainty, task interdependence and unitsize predict variations n the use of the threemodesof coordination.

322


3/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 323ALTERNATIVEMODESOFCOORDINATIONAccording to March and Simon (1958),

there are two generalways in which organiza-tions can be coordinated: 1) by programmingor (2) by feedback.For our purposes, we will classifyall formsof coordination by programming s an imper-sonal coordination mode. Coordination byprogrammings a clear constructexemplifiedby such integratingmechanismsas the use ofpre-established plans, schedules, forecasts,formalizedrules, policies and procedures,andstandardizednformation and communicationsystems. The common element of each ofthese exemplarymechanismss that a codifiedblueprintof action is impersonallyspecified.Departures rom the blueprintareimmediate-ly obvious and humandiscretiondoes not en-ter into the determination of what, where,when and how roles are to be articulated oaccomplish a given set of tasks (MarchandSimon, 1958); rather,roles and their articula-tion are formally prescribedin impersonal,standardized blueprints or action programs(Thompson, 1967). In addition, since theseimpersonal mechanisms of coordination arecodified, once implementedtheir use requiresminimalverbal communicationbetween taskperformersGalbraith,1970; 1973).

Coordinationby feedback, however, is aless crystallized construct. Thompson(1967:56) defines coordination by feedbackas mutual adjustmentsbased upon new infor-mation. Two operationalmodes for develop-ing plansand makingmutual adjustmentsarefrequently used in organizations:a personalmode and a group mode. In the personalmode, individualrole occupants serve as themechanism for making mutual task adjust-ments through either vertical or horizontalchannels of communication. In the groupmode, the mechanismfor mutual adjustmentis vested in a groupof role occupantsthroughscheduledor unscheduledstaff or committeemeetings.Within the personalmode, patternsof ver-tical and horizontal communicationshave re-ceived much attention for evaluatingcoor-dination processes n organizational iterature

(Hall, 1972:275). Themechanisms or verticalcommunicationare usually line managersandunit supervisors (Thompson, 1967). Whenhorizontalchannelsareused, the linkagefunc-tion is assumedby an individualunit memberwho communicates directly with other roleactors on a one-to-one basis in a non-hier-archicalrelationship. Alternatively,Lawrenceand Lorsch (1967) suggest non-hierarchicalcoordination may be vested in a designatedcoordinator, integrator or project expeditorwho has no formal authority over the indi-vidualswhose activities requirecoordination.Within the group mode, Hageet al. (1971)make the distinction between scheduledandunscheduledmeetings. The former is used forthe more routine, usually planned communi-cations such as staff or committee meetings;the latter is used for unplanned communica-tions, such as informal, impromptu con-ferences between more than two staff mem-bers about a work-related problem (Hage,1974:151).

In summary,three predominantmodesarefrequently used to coordinatework activitieswithin an organization.Coordinationby pro-gramming s exercisedthroughan impersonalmode, while feedback or mutual adjustmentsoccur througheither personal(verticalor hori-zontal) channels or group (scheduledor un-scheduled)meetings.

Simple observationsand experiencesin or-ganizational life suggest that each of thespecific mechanismsfor coordination in eachmode are used often, and in variouscombina-tions, to achieveintegrationof a collectivesetof activities. The more interesting question,which we turn to now, is to identify whichsituational factors determine when one or acombinationof these mechanismsareused.

DETERMINANTS OF COORDINATION MODES

Classically, impersonaland vertical mecha-nisms have been advocated as the most effi-cient and rational means for coordination,while use of horizontal communicationmechanismsand group meetings are at vari-ance with prescribed administrativepractice(Fayol, 1949; Urwick, 1943; Weber, 1947).


4/18

324 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWThe fact is well established, however, thathorizontal channels and group meetings areused extensively to coordinate task activitiesin organizations,particularlyat the workunitlevel (Simpson, 1962). Further, researchbyorganization sociologists (e.g., Rosengren,1964; Blau, 1968;Carzoand Yanouzas,1969;Tannenbaum,1974) and social psychologists(e.g., Bavelas, 1950; Shaw, 1964) suggestthere are potential benefits (e.g., efficiency,corrective feedback, speedy conflict resolu-tion and quality in task performance)andcosts (e.g., information omission, distortion,overload and low motivation) in the use ofany specificcoordinationmechanism.Thus,variations n the use of coordinationmechanismswithin organizationsare not ex-plainedsolely by administrative rescriptions.There are a set of more fundamental actorswhich may explain the use of alternativemechanisms for coordination; and this re-search will examine task uncertainty, inter-dependenceand unit size.Task Uncertainty

Task uncertainty refers to the difficultyand variabilityof the work undertakenby anorganizationalunit. Task variabilityhas beenoperationalizedas the numberof workexcep-tions encounteredby a unit (Perrow,1967).Alternatively,Hall(1972) measuresvariabilityas the samenessof work from day to day, thevariety in methods and the repetitivenessoftask processes. Task difficulty has beenmeasuredas the analyzabilityof the work andpredictability of work methods. Alternativemeasuresare: (1) the degreeof complexityofthe search processes;(2) the amountof think-ing time to solveproblems Perrow,1967); (3)the extent to whichtask processesor interven-tions have knowable outcomes (Thompson,1967; Burns and Stalker, 1961); (4) theamountof time requiredbefore outcomes areknown (Lefton and Rosengren,1966). Takentogether, task difficulty and variabilitycon-stitute the major dimensions of task uncer-tainty at the work unit level.Researchhas found that if the work under-taken by an organizationalunit is analyzable

and non-variable,most of the task activitiescanbe standardized nd programmedLitwak,1961; Hall, 1972; Perrow,1970). However,asthe task increasesin uncertainty, it becomesmore difficult to coordinate by impersonalmeans.Thiscan be due to a greaternumberofexceptional cases arising (Marchand Simon,1958; Thompson, 1967) or to encounteringtasks more difficult to analyze. If the task isnot well understood,then duringthe processof task execution thereis learningwhich leadsto changes in role allocations, schedules andpriorities(Galbraith,1973; Perrow, 1967). Inthe extreme case, a high level of uncertaintymay require that mutual adjustmentsbe ac-complishedby group judgments(Van de Venand Delbecq, 1974). This leads to the follow-ing hypotheses:

A. Increasesin the degree of task uncer-tainty for an organizationalunit is as-sociatedwith1. a lower use of the impersonalcoor-

dinationmode2. a greateruse of the personalcoordi-nation mode3. a significantly greater use of the

groupcoordinationmode.Task nterdependence

Interdependenceat the work unit level ofanalysis s the extent to which unit personnelare dependent upon one another to performtheir individual obs. Mohr (1971) defines in-terdependenceas the extent to which workunit members have one-personjobs and thedegree of collaborationrequiredamong unitmembers to produce or deliver the finishedproductor serviceof the unit. Thus, the fewerthe one-person obs and the greater he degreeof task-relatedcollaboration, the greater theinterdependence.Pennings(1974), however,points out thatinterdependence s a very difficult concept todefine,both theoreticallyandempirically.ForPennings, the concept involves at least fourdifferentbases of interconnectednessbetweenunit personnel: task (the flow of work be-tween actors), role (the position of actorsen-


5/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 325gaged in concerted action), social (mutualneeds or goals of actors) and knowledge (thedifferentiatedexpertise of actors). From thisperspective, Mohr's (1971) definition andmeasuresof task interdependence should beseen as focusing upon role interdependence.

Thompson (1967:54-65) defines interde-pendence in terms of work flow and suggeststhat it be measuredby focusingupon the flowof work, materials and objects between unitpersonnel. Hickson et al. (1969) have referredto this as "operationstechnology." Buildingupon Thompson, a hierarchy of increasinglevels of task interdependencebetween unitpersonnel can be determined by observingwhether the work flow is (1) independent(Thompson calls this "pooled"), (2) sequen-tial, (3) reciprocalor (4) in a team arrange-ment. Because the team arrangements an ex-tension of Thompson's hree work flow strate-gies,we will elaborateon the concept.

Teamwork flow refers to situationswherethe work is undertakenointly by unit person-nel who diagnose,problem-solveand collabo-rate in order to complete the work. In teamwork flow, there is no measurabletemporallapse in the flow of work between unit mem-bers, as there is in the sequentialandrecipro-cal cases; the work is acted upon jointly andsimultaneouslyby unit personnelat the samepoint in time. Examplesof team work flow inorganizational nits includegroup therapyses-sions in mental health units, a sports teamplaying a game and a group of researchcol-leagues designinga study as a "think tank."(See Appendix for further illustration anddescriptionof measurementproceduresof thefour alternativework flow strategies.)Thompson (1967:54-65) theorized that ahierarchicalrelationship exists between thetype of work flow interdependence:pooledmust exist before sequential,and sequentialmust exist before reciprocal forms of inter-dependence. A similar hierarchy exists be-tween the type of coordinationmechanisms;with programming irst, plans and schedulessecond and mutual adjustments hird. As taskinterdependence ncreases,more elaborateco-ordinationmechanismsarerequired o link or-

ganizational units. Specifically, pooled inter-dependencecauses standardization, equentialinterdependencecausesplanningand schedul-ing and intensive interdependence causesmutualadjustments.For example, the simplest and least costlymethod of coordinating independent workflow in a unit is to specify impersonallythebehaviorsto be followed by each role actor inadvanceof their execution (MarchandSimon,1958). However, Galbraith (1973) suggeststhat rules and plans have limited informationprocessingcapacities.As the unit membersun-dertake tasks that requireincreasingamountsof collaboration (e.g., shifts in work flowfrom independentto sequential o reciprocal),an increasingneed arises for hierarchy n ad-dition to impersonal coordination. In thiscase, recurring ob situationsareprogrammed,while exceptions are referredto higherlevelsof authority.This combinationof mechanismsis functionalwithin their limitedcapacitiestoprocess nformation.As the numberof mutualadjustments ncrease, still more elaborateco-ordinationmechanismsare required.Horizon-tal direct contact between unit members andgroup modes (when a numberof actors needsimultaneousfeedback to make adjustments)will be added while the capacity and sophis-tication of impersonaland personalcoordina-tion modeswill be expanded.

Althoughthere is alwaysa problemin mov-ing from an evolutionary theory to cross-sectional hypotheses, the key idea suggestedby Thompson(1967) and Galbraith 1973) isthat impersonal,personalandgroupcoordina-tion modesareadditive inkagemechanismsaswork flow interdependence increases. Thisleadsto the following hypotheses:B. Increases n work flow interdependencefrom independent to sequential to re-ciprocal to team arrangementswill beassociatedwith1. small increasesin use of impersonalcoordinationmechanisms2. moderateincreases n use of personalcoordinationmechanisms3. large ncreases n use of groupcoordi-nationmechanisms.


6/18

326 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWSize of WorkUnit

Size is defined here as the total numberofpeopleemployed in a work unit.Many researchers aveinvestigated he rela-

tionshipbetween total organization ize andanumber of structuraldimensions (see Child,1973 for a review).Ingeneral, ncreases n sizeincrease structuraldifferentiationat decreas-ing rates (Blau, 1971:204). This produces acorrespondingradeoffbetween increasing hecomplexity and cost of coordination at theaggregateadministrative evel and decreasingthe coordinationburdenwithinwork unitsbe-cause activities within units tend to becomemorehomogeneous.

However, the relationship between unitsize and unit coordination is not clearlyknown. Small group researcherswho havetreated size as an independent variablehavemeasuredts effects on a numberof propertiesrelevantto coordination.As size increases: 1)group cohesiveness decreases and sub-groupformation increases(Miller, 1952; Jennings,1960); (2) member participation decreasesmore mechanicalmethods are used to intro-duce information and more direct attemptsare made to control the behaviorsof partici-pants in reachinga solution(Hare,1962:240);(3) face-to-face techniques of leadershipbe-havior give way to more impersonal tech-niques of coordination(Van de Ven, 1975);(4) demands on the leaders become morecomplex and numerous,and group membersbecome more tolerant of highly structuredand directive leadership (Hemphill, 1950;Maas, 1950). These research findings suggestthe followinghypotheses:

C. An increasein work unit size is associ-ated with1. a decreasein use of groupcoordina-tion2. an increasein use of personalcoordi-nation3. a significantincrease n use of imper-sonal coordinationmechanisms.

The directionof the relationshipsbetweenwork unit size and the three coordination

modes is thereforehypothesized to be in anopposite direction from that of task uncer-tainty and task interdependence.As task un-certainty and interdependenceincrease, theuse of personaland groupmodes of coordina-tion will increase.Theinverseof this directionof relationships is predicted for work unitsize.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

ResearchDesignThe data reported here to test the hy-

potheseswere collected in 1972 in 16 districtoffices and the administrative eadquarters fa large state employment security (ES)agency.' The sampleconsisted of 197 formalwork units (officially designated n the organi-zation chart) from the local and administra-tive levels of the ES agency.For researchpur-poses, a formalwork unit wasdefined as con-sistingof a supervisorand all non-supervisorypersonnel mmediatelyreportingto the super-visor. Only stable and establishedwork unitswere includedin the sample.Workunits in thetransitionary stage (due to supervisoryturn-over, major changes in working operations,etc.) were excluded. The datawere collectedby on-site administrationof questionnaires othe supervisors ndallmembers or each workunit. Questionnaireswere completed by 197unit supervisorsand 880 unit personnel.Ad-ditionally, a standardized ollow-up interviewwasconductedwith each unit supervisor.Measurement

Multiple-item ndices as well as parallel n-dices were constructedto measure askuncer-tainty, task interdependence and unit size.Operationalmeasuresand proceduresused totest the reliabilityandvalidityof the measuresarepresented n aMeasurementAppendix.

1A detailed description of the composition ofstate employment security agencies and of the workunits within such an organization is available in Blauand Schoenherr (1971) and therefore needs no re-statement here.


7/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 327The use of impersonal,personal and group

modes of coordination was measuredby ask-ing respondents to indicate the extent towhich each of the following mechanismswereused to coordinate the work among unit per-sonnelwithin the unit:2I. ImpersonalCoordinationMode1. Through formally or informally un-

derstood policies and proceduresforcoordinating the work within theunit

(X = 7.3; cr= 2.0; Range= 2-10;spv-mbr esponser = .50)2. Through predeterminedwork plans

or work schedules for coordinating heworkwithin the unit(X = 6.8; a = 2.0; Range 1-10;spv-mbr responser = .50)II. PersonalCoordinationModeA. Vertical Channels3. Throughthe unit supervisoras a co-ordinatorof workwithin the unit

(X = 7.1; a = 1.8; Range= 2-10;spv-mbr esponser = .61)4. Throughan assistant unit supervisorwho is responsible for coordinatingthe workwithin the unit(X = 3.0; a = 2.3; Range = 1-9;spv-mbr esponser = .53)B. HorizontalChannels

5. Througha formally designatedworkcoordinator(ratherthana line super-visor)

(X = 2.2; a = 1.9; Range 1-10;spv-mbr esponser = .58)6. Through informal communicationchannels (simply contacting anotherunit member who is likely to havethe desired nformation)(X = 6.9; or= 2.2; Range= 1-10;spv-mbr esponser= .59)III. GroupCoordinationModesA. ScheduledGroupMeetings7. Through a standingcommittee that

2 Below each item is listed the mean, standarddeviation and response range for all units as well asthe zero-order correlation between the response ofthe unit supervisor and the average responses of theunit members.

meets regularlyto plan and coordi-nate the workwithin the unit

(X = 1.9; a = 1.6; Range = 1-9;spv-mbr esponser = .61)8. Throughstaff meetings that areheldto coordinate the work within the

unit_(X = 4.4; a = 2.7; Range = 1-10;spv-mbr esponser = .73)B. UnscheduledGroupMeetings9. Through a group brought togetherfor problem solving on particular s-

sues relatingto the work within theunit_

(X = 4.4; a = 2.5; Range= 1-10;spv-mbr esponser = .64)Respondentsansweredeach of the nine ques-tions on a ten-intervalscale rangingfrom (1)"used to no extent" to (10) "used to a greatextent." Thesequestionswere answeredby re-spondents only after each coordinationmech-anism was defined and clearly described.Inaddition, the unit supervisorswere asked toqualitatively indicate the specific circum-stances when each coordination mechanismwas used. Composite indices of impersonal,personal and group coordination modes thenwere constructedby averaginghe itemsunderthe heading listed above. Organizationalunitscores were obtained by assigning equalweights to responsesof unit supervisors 1/2)and unit members(1/2) as discussedby Hageand Aiken(1967:76-7).

RESEARCHRESULTSTable 1 presentsthe zero-ordercorrelation

matrix among the independentvariables andthe coordination modes and mechanisms,while Table 2 shows the results of multipleregressionanalyses of task uncertainty,inter-dependenceandsize on eachof the dependentcoordinationmechanisms.TaskUncertaintyandCoordination

Looking just at the relationshipbetweenperceived task uncertainty and coordinationmodes in Table 2, we see that as the uncer-tainty of the tasks undertakenby a work unitincreases,the use of impersonalcoordination


8/18

328 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICAL EVIEWTable 1. Zero-OrderCorrelationsamong Independent Variables and Coordination Modes(N=197 OrganizationalUnits)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111. Perceived Task Uncertainty2. Task Interdependence .373. Unit Size -.14 -.1 24. Impersonal Coordination Mode -.49 -.26 .29

5. Rules and Procedures -.46 -.22 .16 .786. Plans and Schedules -.36 -.23 .25 .75 .49?. Personal Coordination Mode .35 .20 .03 .00 -.05 -.048. Vertical-Channels .04 .06 .11 .31 .27 .23 .749. Horizontal Channels .52 .23 -.06 -.30 -.34 -.28 .75 .13

10. Group Coordination Mode .64 .41 -.15 -.32 -.32 -.26 .42 .11 .521 1. Scheduled Meetings .59 .41 -.08 -.22 -.27 -.22 .36 .17 .37 .8812. Unscheduled Meetings .64 .32 -.16 -.32 -.33 -.28 .35 .02 .51 .89 .66

decreases significantly, while the use of per-sonal and group coordination increases sig-nificantly. A closer examination of the per-sonal coordination mechanisms, however,shows that as task uncertainty increases,theuse of vertical communication channels re-mains invariant;while the use of horizontalchannels increasessignificantly.These resultssuppport he theoreticalconclusionsdrawnbyMarch and Simon (1958), Thompson (1967)and Perrow (1970) that as the task encoun-tered by a unit becomes less analyzable andmore variable,a greaternumberof mutualad-

justments are required among unit members.A clearer llustrationof these relationshipsis presented in Figure 1 which shows a profile

of the mean uses of the coordination mecha-nisms for the units that were classified intolow, medium and high levels of task uncer-tainty (as describedin the Appendix). Figure1 shows that as task uncertainty increasesfrom low to high there are substantial de-creases in the use of impersonal rules andplans for work coordination, arge ncreases nthe use of horizontalcommunicationchannelsand both scheduled and unscheduled group

Table 2. MultipleRegressionAnalysesof IndependentVariableson CoordinationPerceived Work FlowDependent Coordination Task Interdependence Work Unit Size R

Modes and Mechanisms UncertaintyStd. Std. Std. Std. Std. Std.Beta Error Beta Error Beta Error

A. Impersonal Mode -.44* .06 -.07 .06 .22* .06 30%1. Rules and Procedures -.43 .07 -.05 .07 .10 .06 23%2. Plans and Schedules -.20* .07 -.09 .07 .20* .06 8%

B. Personal Mode -.33* .06 .08 .06 .07 .06 14%1. Vertical Channels .03 .08 .07 .08 .13 .07 2%2. Horizontal Channels .51* .07 .04 .06 .01 .06 28%

C. Group Mode .57* .06 .19* .05 -.05 .06 45%1. Scheduled Meetings .48* .06 .23* .06 -.03 .05 39%2. Unscheduled Meetings .60* .06 .08 .06 -.07 .06 43%

* Significant beyond the .01 level.


9/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 329= To Great 9Extent

a To Much 7__Extent6

C To Some S.- Vertical Channelso Extent

0~~~~~~~ ~LASFEoS LittleAIN3ExeTasnetit

0

Too 1itl 31Extent

r~~~~~o NCASIIDoAS NCRAIT+j Extetas netit

meetings. However, the use of vertical hier-archy remainsquite stableoverthe taskuncer-tainty range. By definition, each of the unitsincluded in the sample had a supervisor,andthe extent to which the supervisor s used tocoordinate work activities within the unitdoes not appear o vary much with taskuncer-tainty.

The graphin Figure 1 suggeststhat as taskuncertainty increases,horizontal channelsandgroup meetings are substitutedfor, or increas-ingly replace, the impersonal mode of coor-dination. A substitutionor tradeoff effect im-plies that the significant negative zero-ordercorrelationsbetween impersonalcoordinationand group meeting (r= -.32) and between im-personal coordination and horizontal com-munications (r- -.30) are explained by vari-ations in task uncertainty. One indicator ofthis "substitution effect" of task uncertaintyis that the partial correlationsbetweenimper-sonal coordination and the other horizontaland group mechanisms should vanish whencontrolling for task uncertainty. When par-tialling out the effects of taskuncertainty,the

relationship between the impersonal andgroup coordination modes is -.01, and be-tween impersonalcoordinationand horizontalcommunications is -.06. Indeed, the partialcorrelations between rules, plans and theother coordination mechanisms(except ver-tical channels) were all found to be near .00when controllingfor taskuncertainty.The in-terestedreadercan compute these partialcor-relationsdirectlyfrom Table 1.

These interestingfindingsindicate (but donot demonstrate)that the tradeoffs or nega-tive relationshpsbetween impersonalcoordi-nation and horizontaland groupmechanismsare "explained"by task uncertainty. Thesecross-sectionalndicationsof a substitutionef-fect of task uncertaintyon the use of alterna-tive coordinationmechanismswarrant urther,morecontrolled aboratoryresearch.Task nterdependenceandCoordination

As work flow interdependenceamongunitmembers ncreases romindependent(pooled)to team, Table 2 shows that the use of imper-


10/18

330 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEW, To Great 9

X Extent8-

D To Much 7(u Extent," To L 6U)U)C To Some G4 Extent

0(To Little 3 eaExtentSceud

o 2--0

au Extent4-JX INDEPENDENT SEQUENTIAL RECIPROCAL TEAM(Pooled)N=114 Nt:20 N=26 N=21

WORK FLOW INTERDEPENDENCEFigure 2. Profile of Coordination Mechanisms on Types of Work FlowInterdependence

sonal and personalcoordinationmechanismsremain nvariant;while therearesignificant n-creases n groupcoordination,particularlyheuse of scheduledmeetings.These results pro-vide little support for the hypotheses. Theprofile of the averageuses of the coordinationmechanismson task interdependence shownin Figure 2, however,suggest hat the relation-shipsmay not be linear.3Figure 2 shows that as task interdepen-dence increases, here is an overallgreateruseof all coordinationmechanisms ombined(thegrandmean). Further,the graph shows thereare substantial ncreases n the use of all coor-

3 These data raise more questions than they cananswer. Over Thompson's range of pooled, sequen-tial and reciprocal work flows are the relationshipswith coordination mechanisms concave or convex?Alternatively, do pooled, sequential, reciprocal andteam work flows, in that order, assume a Guttman-like scale of increasing interdependence as Thomp-son suggests? Clearly, further research is needed totest for curvilinearity of the relationships and theGuttman-like characteristics of the work flow inter-dependence scale.

dination mechanismsexcept impersonalrulesand plans over the range from pooled to se-quential to reciprocalwork flows. Thus, theonly significantexception to Thompson's"ad-ditive"hypothesisin this study is the decreasein impersonal coordination mechanismsbe-tween sequential and reciprocalwork flows.

Our extension of Thompson'swork flowswith the team arrangement rovidesa clue onthe range over which the additive effect ofinterdependenceholds. Whenmovingfrom re-ciprocal to team work flows, there are in-creases n the averageusesof all the coordina-tion mechanisms except for plans and hier-archy. Overall, therefore, with minor excep-tions, Thompson'sadditivehypothesisappearsto hold up quite well at intensive levels ofinterdependence.

Equally important is the hierarchicalpat-tern in the use of coordinationmechanismsthat is apparentwith variations n task uncer-tainty (Figure 1), interdependence Figure2)and unit size (Figure3). One of Thompson's(1967:57) key propositions is that undernorms of rationality,organizationswill struc-


11/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 331= To Great 9d Extent

8_(UI

To Much 7-0 ExtentU)i 6_Cd To Some S. Atlca_ Extent Horizonta,0~ ~ ~ . Unsch duleg _ __l0.HBe To Little Scheduled Mleeti sx Extent

00

To No 1>< Extent 2-4 5-7 8-10 11-21

N=81 N=76 N=23 N=17NUMBEROF UNIT PERSONNEL

Figure 3. Profile of Coordination Mechanisms on Unit Size

ture themselves so as to minimize coordina-tion costs. Although Thompsonwas referringto aggregate rganizationdesign,the dataheresuggest support for the same proposition atthe work unit level. Impersonal,personalandgroupmechanismsare increasinglymorecost-ly forms of coordination. Figures 1-3 showthat impersonal rules and plans, being theleast costly mechanismsto operate, are usedthe most. Horizontal channels and groupmeetings,being classicallyviewed as the mostinefficient and costly mechanisms for coor-dination are used the least overall; and asMarchand Simon (1958) suggest, heir use in-creases significantly only at higher levels oftask uncertainty and interdependencewheremutual adjustmentsto task situationscannotbe predetermined r programmed.Finally, theuse of hierarchy, relative to other mecha-nisms, remainsconstant throughoutasa coor-dination mechanism for dealing with excep-tions.WorkUnitSize and Coordination

The directionof the relationshipsbetween

work unit size and coordinationmechanismsare all in the hypothesized direction. Table 2shows that as unit size increases, the use ofimpersonalcoordinationincreasessignificant-ly; the use of hierarchy increases, but to asmaller degree; while the use of horizontalchannelsand groupmeetingsremains nvariantwith workunit size.Figure3 shows that over the rangeof unitsize from 2-10 people, the findingsareconsis-tent with small group studies indicatingthatas size increases,more mechanicaltechniquesare used to introduceinformation,and moredirect leader attemptsare madeto control thebehaviors of participants through hierarchy(Hare, 1962:240). However,beyond size 10,the use of hierarchydecreasesand even great-er use is made of rules, policies and pro-ceduresto coordinatework activities. Beyond10 people, an impersonalizing ffect of largeunit size appearsto become prominent.Thisfinding within work units at the micro-levelparallelsnicely with the macro-levelfindingsby Blau (1970) and Hicksonet al. (1969) thatwith increasingorganizationsize, relianceonhierarchy decreases and formalization in-creases.


12/18

332 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWCONCLUDINGISCUSSION

Thisresearch uggests hat not only is therea differencein degreeof influenceof taskun-certainty,task interdependenceandworkunitsize on the use of coordinationmechanismsnorganizationalunits, therealso appears o be adifferencein kind of influence of each factoron the mechanismsof coordinationused.

As tasks increase in uncertainty, mutualwork adjustments through horizontal com-municationchannels and group meetings areused in lieu of coordination hroughhierarchyand impersonalprogramming.This substitu-tion between alternativecoordinationmecha-nisms appearsto be the major effect associ-atedwith taskuncertainty.Associatedwith increases n work flow in-terdependenceamongunit personnelis anad-ditive use of all coordinationmechanisms,ex-cept for impersonalrules and plans over thesequential-reciprocalwork flow range.An in-creased use in all coordination mechanismscombinedis also observedas interdependenceincreases.At intensivelevels of work flow in-terdependence (the team arrangement),Thompson'sadditivehypothesis continues tohold up quite well with the exception of aslight decreasein the use of hierarchyand alarge decreasein the use of plans for coordi-natingactivitieswithinorganizationalunits.Unit size, on the other hand, appearstohave an impersonalizingeffect on coordina-tion. As unit size increases, here is a greateruse of impersonalcoordination and of hier-archy.It is important o note that increases nsize are not directly associatedwith a corres-pondingdecreasinguse of groupcoordinationmechanisms as was hypothesized and thensuggestedby the zero-ordercorrelations.Theregressioncoefficients in Table 2 show thatthe use of horizontalcommunicationchannelsand groupmeetingsare invariantwith respectto size. Further,as unit size increasesbeyond10 people, the use of hierarchydecreases.Itappears,therefore,that size has an imperson-alizing effect on the kind of coordinationmechanismsusedwithina work unit.It must be recognizedthat the datado notwarrantproof or disproof of the cause and

effect relationships mplied in the above dis-cussion. Future studies need to examine notonly the degree of impact but also the dif-ferent kinds of impact of task uncertainty,task interdependenceand work unit size onalternative oordinationmechanisms.Finally, we evaluate the comparativestrengthsof the threeindependentvariablesnexplaining variations in the coordinationmechanisms. When comparing the relativeweights of the standardized egressioncoeffi-cients across the columns in Table 2, one isstruckby the strengthof the contributionsoftaskuncertainty n explainingvariations n theuse of the coordination mechanismswithinthe work units and the overallinsignificanceof size. This findingis contrary o the conclu-sion drawn by Mohr (1971:452) that "4thetechnological imperative has not been sup-ported" at the work unit level and supportsthe suggestions made by Hickson et al.(1969:395), Fullan (1970) and Aldrich(1972) that technologyhas a greater nfluencethan size at the work unit or "shop-floor"level.The coefficients of determination(R2) inthe far right column of Table 2 suggests hat,while there is much room for improvement,the three situational factors are quite goodpredictors.Taskuncertainty, nterdependenceand size, as a group, account for substantialvariations in the use of all coordinationmechanisms,except hierarchy.The use of ver-tical channelsis not significantlyexplainedbyany of the independentvariables.At the unit,level, hierarchyis structurallypre-establishedand it remainsas the only stable mechanismof coordination while the use of all othermechanismsvary under different unit condi-tions.Of course, the findingspresentedhere arelimited to the workunit or departmentalevelwithin a large state employment securityagency. To generalizethe findings,future re-search is requiredto replicate this study inother organizations. To extend and makemore complete our understandingof coordi-nation within organizations,future researchshould also examine the managerialevel(Par-sons, 1962) as the unit of analysisandinvesti-


13/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 333gate the use of alternativemechanisms or co-ordinationacrosswork units and levels withinorganizations.

APPENDIXMEASUREMENTF INDEPENDENT ARIABLESI. Index of Task UncertaintyTaskuncertainty s definedas the difficulty

and variabilityof the work that is under-taken by an organizationalunit. In orderto test for validity, two approacheswereused to measure ask uncertainty:a percep-tual questionnaire approach and a stan-dardizedclassificationof tasks.A. PerceptualQuestionnaireApproachPerceived task uncertaintywas measur-

ed in the questionnaireas the averageresponseof allunit personnelto the fol-lowing eight questions:1. To what extent is there a clearlyde-

fined body of knowledge or subjectmatter which can guide you in doingyour work? (Unit X = 4.2; o = 2.4;Range= 1-10; Spv-MbrResponser =.50)

2. Duringthe course of your work,howoften do you come across specificbut difficultproblems hat you don'tknow how to solve, and you have totake some time to think through byyourself or with others before youcan take any action?(Unit X = 5.3; o= 2.0; Range = 1-10; Spv-MbrRe-sponser = .55)3. In general,how much actual "think-ing" time do you usually spend try-ing to solve such specific problems?(Unit X = 3.5; o = 2.3; Range= 1-10;Spv-MbrResponser= .56)4. In some jobs things are fairly pre-dictable. In others, you areoften notsure what the outcome will be. Whatpercent of the time would you saythat you aregenerallysure what theresultsof your efforts will be? (UnitX = 3.8; o = 2.0; Range = 1-10;Spv-MbrResponser = .55)

5. In terms of the major tasks you areassigned,on the averagehow long isit before you know whether yourwork effort is successful?(Unit X =5.1; o = 1.7; Range = 1-9; Spv-MbrResponser = .66)

6. How much variety in cases, claims,clients,or thingsdo you generallyen-counter in your normalworking day?(Unit X = 6.8; o = 2.0; Range= 1-10;SpvMbrResponser = .70)7. Regardless of the variety of cases,claims,or clients, to what extent arethe activitiesor methods you followin your work about the same fordealing with classes of categoriesofcases, claims, or clients? (Unit X =4.8; o = 2.3; Range= 1-10; Spv-MbrResponser= .64)

8. To what extent do people in this unitdo about the same job in the sameway most of the time? (Unit X= 4.6;o = 2.4; Range= 1-10; Spv-MbrRe-sponser = .71)

*Below each item is listed the mean, standarddeviation and response range for all units, as well asthe zero-order correlation between the response ofthe unit supervisor and the average responses of theunit members.

B. StandardizedClassification f TasksAp-proachIn order to test the validity of the per-ceptual measurementapproach,a classi-fication of tasks into levels of uncertain-ty (i.e., task difficulty and variability)was used to measure askuncertainty na standardized,non-perceptualway. Theproceduresfor classifyingthe work ofunitsinto levelswasa follows:1. All unit personnelwere askedin thequestionnaires to list the specific

tasks they performin a normal day,as well as the percentof time spenton each task.2. The population of tasks was editedfor duplication and classified intolevels of high, mediumand low taskdifficulty and taskvariability.


14/18

334 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICAL EVIEW3. The predominant task requiring themost time of personnel n each unit

was then scoredaccording o its levelof taskdifficulty andvariability.4. Individual scores on task difficultyand variability were then averagedfor each unit to obtain the unit taskuncertaintyscore. (Unit X = 2.0; o =.6; Range= 1-3)

C.Reliability and Validityof Task Uncer-tainty1. Using coefficient alpha, the reliabil-ity of the perceptual askuncertainty

measure s .92.2. The correlationbetween perceptualand classified indices of task uncer-tainty is .84.3. The correlationbetween the classi-fied taskdifficulty andclassifiedtaskvariabilityscore is .58.Overall,hen,thesefindingssuggestgoodreliability for the perceptual index oftask uncertainty,good content validitywhen comparing the perceptual andclassified indices and substantial dis-criminantvalidity to the sub-indicesoftask difficulty and task variabilitycon-tained within the composite taskuncer-tainty index.

[I. TaskInterdependence ndexTask interdependence is defined as thework flow interconnectednessof unit per-sonnel in performing heir individual obs.In order to test for validity, two ap-proacheswere used to measure task inter-dependence;one is anextension of Thomp-son's (1967) work flows, and the other isbased on Mohr's(1971) measuresof taskinterdependence.A. WorkFlow Interdependence ndexThompson(1967) presentedthreealter-native ways work can flow betweenunits: pooled (which we call indepen-dent), sequential and reciprocal. Weadded a fourth possible strategy, teamwork flow, in order to measurethe al-ternative possible flows of work be-

tween unit personnel. In the 197 inter-views with unit supervisors, he follow-ing questions were asked to measurework flow interdependence.Please indicatewhat percent of the totalwork within your unit flows in each ofthe ways as shown by this figure(showwork flow figureto supervisor),and as Iwill now describe.1. Independent WorkFlow Case,wherework and activities areperformedbyyour immediate subordinates in-dependently and do not flow be-tween them.

Work Enters Unit

- I11Work Leaves Unit

(Unit X = 64.2; o = 30.5; Range=0-99)2. Sequential WorkFlow Case, wherework and activities flow between

your immediate subordinates, butonly in one direction.Work Enters

Work Leaves

(Unit X = 12.2; o = 20.7; Range =0-99)3. Reciprocal WorkFlow Case, wherework and activities flow betweenyour immediatesubordinates n a re-ciprocal "back and forth" mannerover a periodof time.


15/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 335Work Enters

Work Leaves

(Unit X = 17.7; o = 22.5; Range =0-99)4. Team WorkFlow Case, where workand activities come into your unitand your immediate subordinates

diagnose,problem-solveand collabo-rate as a groupat the SAMETIME odeal with the work.Work Enters

Work Leaves

(Unit X= 6.0; o = 9.1; Range = 0-99)

For each work flow case that the unit super-visor said represented30 percentof the workflow within the unit, a series of six questionswas asked to validatethe supervisor's esponseas well as to obtain qualitativeunderstandingof unit processes n eachworkflow case.Following Thompson's(1967) suggestion,weassume that independent,sequential, recipro-cal and team work flows, in order,imply in-creasing evels of task interdependencen theform of a Guttman scale. Ideally, therefore,the responsesof unit supervisor o each workflow case could be weighted to arrive at anoverall measureof task interdependence.Un-fortunately, we cannot test the Guttman-likecharacteristics f such a scaledirectlybecauseresponseswere forced to add up to 100 per-

cent, which forces substitutions rather thanadditiveresponses.A more rudimentarymeasure of work flowinterdependence is therefore being reportedhere. Independent,sequential,reciprocalandteam work flow cases were assignedvalues of0, 3, 6, 9, respectively. The scaled value cor-responding to the most predominantworkflow casein each unit is being usedhere as themeasurementof taskinterdependence.

B. Mohr Task nterdependence ndexIn orderto test the validity of the Work-flow InterdependenceIndex, two ques-tions, which arebasedon Mohr's 1971)index, were asked of all unit personnelto measure task interdependencein adifferent way. The two questions wereincluded in the questionnaire and an-sweredalonga ten-pointscale:1. To what extent do the people in thisunit have one-person obs: that is, inorder to get the work out to what

extent do unit members indepen-dently accomplish heir own assignedtasks?(Unit X = 3.6; o = 2.4; Range= 1-10;Spv-MbrResponser = .35)2. To what extent do all the unit mem-bers meet together to discuss howeach task, case, or claim should beperformedor treated in order to dothe work in this unit? (Unit X = 3.3;o = 2.7; Range= 1-10; Spv-MbrRe-sponser = .65)C.Reliability and Validityof TaskInter-dependence1. The correlation between the twoitemsin the Mohr ndex is .72.2. The correlation between the workflow and Mohrindependenceindicesis .59.

3. In order to present some insightonthe characteristicsof the work flowindex, listed below arethe meansandstandarddeviations of the Mohr in-dex on the four work flow cases.


16/18

336 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWWORKFLOW NTERDEPENDENCECALE

MohrInterdependence Independent Sequential Reciprocal TeamScale 1 3 5 9

- Means 2.8 2.5 4.4 7.1-StandardDeviation 1.6 1.5 2.7 2.3If the two indices sample the samedomain, then the .59 correlationbe-tween the work flow and Mohr in-dices is an appropriate ndicator ofconstructvalidity of taskinterdepen-dence. Further, if the two indicesmeasurethe sameconstruct,then thediagramabovesuggests hat the workflow index violates the propertiesofa Guttmanscalefor independentandsequentialwork flow cases.A reverseof the two work flow cases wouldresult in a systematicincrease n themeans of the Mohr scale from 2.5(sequential), 2.8 (independent), 4.4(reciprocal), to 7.1 (team workflow). This, however, is not an ade-quate test of the Guttman-likecharacteristicsof the work flow in-dex. Clearly,furtherresearchon themeasurementof interdependenceisneeded.

III.Measurement f Unit SizeTwo approaches were also used tomeasure unit size: from organizationchartsandfromorganizationrecords.

A. Measureof Unit Size from OrganizationChartsThe most conventionalapproach(e.g.,Blau and Schoenherr,1971; Hicksonetal., 1969; Hall, 1972) is a count of thenumberof people in the organization-usually from organization charts. Tomeasurework unit size, we first con-structed up-to-date organizationchartsfor each unit and verified them in theinterviews with unit supervisors.Theunit charts included, but distinguishedbetween, full-time and part-time em-ployees. Workunit size was then mea-

suredby addingeach full-timeemployeeas 1 and each part-timeemployee as '/2in arrivingat the total unit size. (Unit X= 5.8; o = 3.7; Range= 1-21)

B. Measureof Unit Size from OrganizationFiscalRecordsTo test the validity of the above ap-proach, data were obtained from theBudgetand Fiscal Bureauof the agencyon the numberof equivalentpositionssalariedduring the fiscal year in eachunit.

C. Validityof UnitSize MeasureThe correlation between the organiza-tion chartand fiscalrecordsmeasuresofsize is .97, which is very good. However,if one only counts the numberof full-time employees from the organizationcharts and does not include part-timeemployees, the correlationdropsto .81,suggestingthat it was important to in-clude and weigh by 1/2 part-timeem-ployees in a measurementof unit sizefrom organization harts n this employ-ment securityagency.

QuestionnaireAdministrationThe questionnaires were personally ad-ministeredto all membersof each work unitpresent at the time of the site visit by theresearch team. In all cases, the work unitsupervisorscompleted the questionnaire.Re-spondentsfilled out the questionnaireonly af-ter a member of researchteam verballyex-plained the nature of the researchstudy, themeaning of the questionnaireitems and an-swered all questions respondentsmight have.A standardizedformat was used by the re-searchers to make the verbal introductorypresentation of the questionnaire to all re-


17/18

MODESOF COORDINATIONN ORGANIZATIONS 337spondents.An availableconference or testingroom was used in order that respondentscould leave their work stations and not be in-terrupted while completing the question-naires. A member of the researchteam wasavailableat all times to answerquestionswhilerespondentscompletedthe questionnaires.

REFERENCESAldrich,HowardE.1972 "Technologyandorganizationaltructure:a reexamination f the findingsof the As-ton Group." Administrative ScienceQuarterly17:26-43.Bavelas,A.1950 "Communication atterns n task-orientedgroups."Journalof AcousticalSociety ofAmerica22:725-30.Blau,PeterM.1968 "The hierarchyof authorityin organiza-tions." American Journal of Sociology73:453-67.1970 "Decentralizationn bureaucracies."h.4in MayerN. Zald(ed.), Power n Organiza-tion.Nashville,Tn.:Vanderbilt.1971 "A formaltheory of differentiationn or-ganizations."AmericanSociological Re-view 35:201-18.Blau,PeterM. andRichardH. Schoenherr1971 The Structure of Organizations.NewYork:BasicBooks.Burns,ThomasandG. M.Stalker1961 The Management f Innovation.London:Tavistock.Carzo,Rocco, Jr.andJohn N. Yanouzas1969 "Effects of flat and tall organizationalstructures."AdministrativeScience Quar-

terly 14:178-91.Child,John1973 "Predicting and understandingorganiza-tion structure." AdministrativeScienceQuarterly18:168-85.Fayol,H.1949 Generaland IndustrialManagement.Lon-don: Sir IsaacPitman.Fullan,Michael1970 "Industrialechnologyandworker ntegra-tion in the organization."AmericanSoci-ologicalReview35:1028-89.Galbraith, ay1970 "Environmentaland technologicaldeter-minants of organizationdesign." Pp.113-39 in J. Lorsch and P. Lawrence(eds.), Studies in OrganizationDesign.Homewood,Il.: Richard rwin.1973 Designing Complex Organizations.Read-ing, Ma.:Addison-Wesley.

Hage,Jerald1974 Communicationand OrganizationalCon-trol.NewYork:Wiley.Hage,JeraldandMichaelAiken1967 "Relationship of centralizationto otherstructural properties." AdministrativeScienceQuarterly 2:72-92.Hage,Jerald,MichaelAikenandCoraBogleyMarrett1971 "Organizationtructureand communica-tions." American Sociological Review36:860-71.Hall,RichardH.1972 Organizations, tructureand Process.En-glewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.Hare,A.P.1962 Handbookof SmallGroupResearch.NewYork: FreePress.

Hemphill,J. K.1950 "Relationsbetween the size of the groupand the behavior of superior leaders."Journalof SocialPsychology32:11-22.Heydebrand, Wolf V.1973 Hospital Bureaucracy: A ComparativeStudyof Organizations. ewYork: Dunel-len.Hickson,DavidJ., D. S. PughandDianaC. Pheysey1969 "Operationsechnologyandorganization-al structure: nempirical eappraisal." d-ministrativeScienceQuarterly14:370-97.Jennings,H.1960 "Sociometricchoice processes n personal-ity and groupformation."Pp. 87-112 inJ.L. Moreno ed.), The Sociometry Reader.New York:FreePress.Lawrence,PaulR. andJay W. Lorsch1967 "Differentiationand integrationin com-plex organizations."AdministrativeSci-enceQuarterly12:1-47.Lefton, MarkandWilliamR. Rosengren1966 "Organizationsndclients: ateraland lon-

gitudinal dimensions." American Soci-ologicalReview31:802-10.Litwak,Eugene1961 "Models of organizationswhich permitconflict." AmericanJournalof Sociology67: 177-84.Maas,H. S.1950 "Personaland group factors in leaders''socialperception.'" Journalof AbnormalandSocialPsychology45:54-63.March, amesG. andHerbertA. Simon1958 Organization. ew York:Wiley.Meyer,MarshallW.1972 Bureaucratic Structure and Authority.New York:Harper ndRow.Miller,H. S.1952 "The effects of group size on decision-making discussions." Dissertation Ab-stracts12:229.Mohr,LawrenceB.


18/18

338 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEW1971 "Organizational technology and organiza-

tional structure." Administrative ScienceQuarterly 16:444-59.

Parsons, Talcott1962 Toward a General Theory of Action. New

York: Free Press.Pennings, Johannes1974 "Interdependence and complementarity."Paper presented at American Sociological

Association Annual Conference, Montreal.Perrow, Charles1967 "A framework for the comparative analy-sis of organizations." American Sociologi-cal Review 32:194-208.1970 Organizational Analysis: A SociologicalView. Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth.

Rosengren, William1964 "Communication, organization, and con-duct." Administrative Science Quarterly

9:70-90.Shaw, M. E.

1964 "Communication network and distribu-tion of 'weight' of group members as de-terminants of group effectiveness." Jour-nal of Experimental Social Psychology4:302-14.

Simpson, Richard L.1962 "Vertical and horizontal communications

in formal organizations." AdministrativeScience Quarterly 4:188-96.

Tannenbaum, Arnold1974 Hierarchy in Organization. New York:Wiley.

Thompson, James D.1967 Organization in Action. Chicago: McGraw-

Hill.Urwick, L.

1943 The Elements of Administration. NewYork: Wiley.

Van de Ven, Andrew H.1975 "Group decision making and effective-

ness." Organization and AdministrativeSciences 6:1-108.Van de Ven, Andrew H. and Andre L. Delbecq

1974 "A task contingent model of work unitstructure." Administrative Science Quar-terly 19: 183-97.

Weber, Max1947 The Theory of Social and Economic Or-ganizations. Tr. by A.M. Henderson andTalcott Parsons. New York: Free Press.

REWARDS,RESOURCES,AND THERATE OF MOBILITY:A NONSTATIONARYMULTIVARIATETOCHASTICMODEL*

NANCY BRANDON TUMAStanfordUniversity

American Sociological Review 1976, Vol. 41 (April): 338-360Most researchon social mobility has concentratedeitheron identifyingthe causesof statusattainment or on describinga population'smovement over time by meansof a stochastic(usuallyMarkov)model. Viewingmobilityas a semi-Markovrocesssuggeststhat therate ofmobilityis a properobjectof explanation, ndthe statusattainmentiterature uggests ubstan-tive determinants.n particular, argue that the rate at whicha person leaves ajob declineswith duration n thejob anddependson initial levelsof job rewards, tationaryand changingindividualresources,and on the distributionof rewardsand resources n the social system.Resultsfrom testingthe proposed model with dataon 1609 jobs of 456 differentChicanomensupportmostpointsof theargument.

The sociological study of social mobilityhas had two major traditions. One traditioninquiresinto the causesof social attainment;* I am grateful to Thomas Cdnnor, Michael Han-nan, Neil Henry and Alice Young for research sugges-tions; to Harvey Choldin and Grafton Trout for sup-plying the data; to MargaretWright for programmingaid; to Stanford University for computer funds; andto Michael Hannan, Anne McMahon,Carolyn Mullinsand Alice Young for editorial comments.

it seeks to identify the characteristics f indi-viduals, social positions and the social systemthat affect the allocation of scarce values ikeprestige and wealth (see, e.g., Rogoff, 1953;BlauandDuncan,1967). The secondtraditionexamines the form of the socialmobility pro-cess;it tries to describethe way in whichthemovementof a populationamong social posi-tions unfolds over time (see, e.g., Prais,1955a;1955b; Blumenet al., 1955). These traditions

Documents

ASR 1976 Van de Ven Delbeq Determinants of Coordination