ORGANISATIONAL ANALYSIS - Lesley Prince Analysis Notes and Essays.pdf · Organisational Analysis: Notes and Essays Page i ORGANISATIONAL ANALYSIS: Notes and essays for the workshop

Organisational Analysis: Notes and Essays Page i

ORGANISATIONALANALYSIS:Notes and essaysfor the workshop to be held on 15 - 16 Novemeber 2007th th

atThe Marriot HotelSloughBerkshireSL3 8PT

Dr. Lesley Prince, C.Psychol., AFBPsSUniversity of Birmingham

November 2007

© Dr. Lesley Prince 2007.

Page ii Please do not attempt to eat these notes.

Organisational Analysis: Notes and Essays Page iii

CONTENTS

Introduction to the Workshop 1Topics And Themes 2The Nature and Scope of Organisation Theory 3Levels of Analysis 3The Metaphorical Approach 3Organising Processes 4Understanding Change 4Conflict, Negotiation, and the Politics of Change 4Group and Team Working 4'Cultures' and 'Leaders' as Cultural Agents 5Trust 5

Linking the Themes 5

Introductory Notes on Organisational Analysis 7Understanding Organisations 10The Limits of Rationalism 10Levels of Analysis: The SOGI Model 13Limitations of the SOGI Model 13The Individual Level 14The Group Level 15The Organisation Level 16The Society Level 16Interactions between the Levels 17Morgan’s Metaphors 18The Metaphors in Brief 20

The Machine Metaphor 20The Organic Metaphor 20The Brain Metaphor 21Cultural (Anthropological) Metaphor 21The Political Metaphor 21The Psychic Prison Metaphor 22Flux and Transformation 22The Dominance Metaphor 23

Using the Metaphors 23References and bibliography 24Workshop Aims 28Workshop Objectives 28

Reading Lists 30Core Texts 30

Page iv Please do not attempt to eat these notes.

Supplementary Texts 31Extended Reading List 32Directed Readings 48

Frameworks of Reality: Prediction & Control, and theSOGI Model 48

Making Sense of Organisations: Metaphoricalknowledge. 49

Traditional Management: Mechanism, Rationality andBureaucracy. 49

Modified Bureaucracy: The Human Relations Movementand Job Design. 50

Organisational Culture: Real and imagined. 51Why Work?: The motivation to get out of bed in the

morning. 52The Politics of Organising: Goals? Whose Goals? 53Power and Conflict in Organisations: Pathology or

Normality? 54Leadership and Management: The gentle art of being in

charge? 57Negotiation and Influence: What does it take to work

together? 58Technological Imperatives: IT, the politics of

transformation and futures. 59

Notes on Writing a Case Analysis 60Structuring a Case Analysis 60General notes on the Medical Model 61The Organisation is not well 61Structure of the Medical Model 62Description 62Analysis/Diagnosis 63Options 64Prescription/Recommendation 64Action 65Concluding theoretical commentaries 65Abstract 66References 66Presenting a Case Report 66

Important Notes for Writing Your Own Case Study 68

Space for Doodles, Marginal Notes, Aimless Scribblings, Love Letters andShopping Lists 69

Organisational Analysis: Notes and Essays Page v

A recent example is Chaos Theory, taken from mathematics and physics and1

simply grafted into organizational theory, often uncritically and frequently withoutany real understanding of what the theory is about.

Organisational Analysis: Notes and Essays Page 1

Organisational Theory

Introduction to the Workshop

This workshop is not primarily about management of organisations, but aboutorganisations and people. There is actually no such thing as ‘managementtheory’ in terms of a separable area of study, and what normally goes under thatrubric is really an ideological stance vis-à-vis more general consideration oforganisational and human phenomena. Most of the main elements are takenfrom the field called ‘Organisation Theory’, which, despite its name, is not asingle unified body of knowledge, but a ‘secondary’ subject area built onmaterial taken from other more distinct disciplines. This is both its strength andits weakness - conferring considerable breadth to the subject, but in general nota lot of depth. It is, by its nature, a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinarysubject area, and this allows for a broad analysis of organisational phenomena,but unfortunately in-depth analysis is more difficult, because it is subject toconsiderable influence from local conditions and knowledge that nearly alwaysmodify the force of generalised prediction. Furthermore, many of its key ideasare simply borrowed from other areas and applied to organisations .1

Nevertheless, Organisation Theory has its main roots in the social sciences -specifically psychology and sociology, with some elements taken more broadlyfrom areas such as anthropology and ethnography, as well as occasionalincursions from economics, political ‘science’, and industrial relations. Thereare also some elements taken from the arts and humanities such as philosophy,history and (very controversially) literary and art criticism.

It is, then, a broad field which, to add to the confusion, also goes underseveral different names, some of which you will encounter when reading textson the subject. The two main areas are generally called Human ResourceManagement (HRM) and Organisational Behaviour (OB), but the field is alsosometimes called Organisational Analysis (OA), Behaviour in Organisations(BinO), Organisation Studies (OS), and a host of other names, including thepractitioner area called Organisational Development (OD). There are, in fact,subtle nuances and variations in emphasis denoted by the different labels. OBand HRM, for example, are both concerned generally with "people at work",although they focus on different levels of analysis. Roughly speaking, HRM ismostly concerned with individual and group issues, drawing principally, but notexclusively, from psychology, whereas OB tends to focus on organisationalfactors such as structure, design and culture, having its main theoretical base in

Page 2 Please do not attempt to eat these notes.

sociology and social psychology. A further distinction is that HRM on thewhole deals with ‘techniques’ - for recruitment, evaluation, negotiation etc -whereas OB tends to be more concerned with a broad understanding oforganisations as complex systems or constructions. Nevertheless, there is asubstantial overlap between the two areas, and in practice it is impossible tomaintain a clear distinction between them. And the same is true for the otherareas mentioned as well. Theoretically, and in terms of the issues raised andexamined by the different areas, there is considerable complementarity; OB andHRM in particular complement one another, and should therefore be regardedas examining interrelated themes. This workshop is mainly focussed on OB, butsome material specifically related to HRM is also considered where this seemsto illuminate specific issues, especially those related to individuals and groups.For your purposes you simply need to be aware that these differences interminology exist so that they don’t confuse you when you come across them.In practice, in the context of this workshop, the differences between HRM andOB (and OA, BinO, and the rest) will largely be ignored.

The aim of this workshop is to generate understanding aboutorganisations and the part that people play in them, by building bridgesbetween theory and practice. The session(s) will take the form of an interactive‘lecture’; that is participants will be encouraged to enter into debate andcomment as the session(s) proceed. An important component throughout is thatyou will be encouraged wherever possible to consider the material coveredduring the sessions in the light of your own experiences to ground the theory inpractice. There will be considerable, although not exclusive, emphasis on thepractical implications of theory.

Topics And ThemesAs the workshop progresses it will cover a number of themes which link andrelate to different topics. The difference between themes and topics isimportant, and is best understood through an example. Leadership is a topiccovered in the workshop. But in considering different theories of leadership,several themes are implicit. These include, for example, issues of structure,culture, influence, power, trust, politics, and so on. There are other themes aswell, which you should try to identify for yourself. To get the most out of theworkshop you should realise that you really need to try from the outset to linkacross topics by identifying the underlying themes. This will give you a goodbasis to understand the complexity of organisation theory and how the differenttopics complement, contribute to and modify each other.

You should also appreciate that while Organisation Theory is, broadlyspeaking, a social science, it does not have the advantages of (some of) thenatural sciences because its objects of study are complex, ‘living’, self aware,and legally and morally protected. One is seldom able to conduct experimentswith all the dependent and independent variables neatly controlled for repeatmeasures. Apart from fundamental epistemic considerations there are alsoethical restrictions on what social scientists can and cannot do (and for this you

The same is also true of some areas of the biological sciences, but, rightly or2

wrongly, society has deemed it acceptable to do things to, say, rats, that it does notcondone when done to people. For example, unless you work for a very shadowygovernment organisation you will not be allowed to wire someone up to the mains andthrow the switch ‘just to see what happens’.


should be extremely grateful!) .2

Below is a broad outline of the main themes underlying the workshop. Itdoes not represent a any kind of timetable but is intended purely as a guideto help direct your thinking and reading. On page 48 there are also some‘structured readings’ related to the broad topic areas of the workshop whichshould help you to identify those areas to which you need, or want, to directmore concentrated effort.

The Nature and Scope of Organisation TheoryThis is the background to the entire workshop covering inter alia the tensionsbetween Prediction and Control versus Understanding; the Nature andStatus of 'Facts'; the importance of Analytical Frameworks for developingsystematic approaches to organisational phenomena; the Problem ofKnowledge in the Social Sciences; the Nature of Social Processes, theirrelation to Emergent Properties and the implications these have for predictionand control.

Levels of AnalysisThe most fundamental of the frameworks used in the workshop shows the fourmajor levels at which organisational analysis operates, and how they interrelate.By identifying distinct themes relevant to Society, Organisations, Groups andIndividuals (SOGI) this model highlights the importance of recognising thedistinct contributions of Psychology, Social Psychology and Sociology, andhow these different approaches complement one another. Furthermore, byconsidering how the different levels interact in practice, the SOGI model can beused to illustrate and categorise complexity within organisations. This linksdirectly to the next topic area.

The Metaphorical ApproachThis approach, derived from the work of Gareth Morgan, highlights themetaphorical nature of knowledge about people and organisations, and theimplications of adopting different metaphors about people, organisations andorganisational change. This relates to the importance of understanding the

nature of diversity within organisations, how this impacts on expectations, andtherefore on individual, group and organisational performance. In particular thistheme highlights the important practical impact of assumptions which arelargely taken for granted and therefore seldom questioned.

Below, on page 7, there are some notes explaining how the SOGI model


coupled with the metaphorical approach of Morgan underlie, and can helpsystematise, our understandings about organisations.

Organising ProcessesThis is a central theme of the workshop, contrasting the kind of knowledgedeveloped through sensitivity to social and social psychological processes withstatic structurally focussed organisational analyses. It highlights the importanceof cognitive, social, political and emotional processes, in conjunction withinsights developed through phenomenological approaches to humaninteractions, and contrasts the ‘organisation-of-production’ with the ‘produc-tion-of-organisation’, emphasising the importance of understanding howorganisations are created and maintained through organising processes whichare fundamentally related to the expectations, values and interests of allorganisation members. Related to this, as a major theme of the workshop, is aconsideration of the importance of understanding organisational politics andits role in maintaining organisations.

Understanding ChangeChange and change processes are fundamental to many aspects oforganisations, and, indeed, life itself. We will consider the appearance ofchange; social psychological approaches to change; macro models of changeprocesses; strategies of change; and associated Models of the Human Actor.

Conflict, Negotiation, and the Politics of

ChangeConflict is an important topic and theme in organisational analysis. Someargue, from a ‘rationalist’ perspective, that it is a pathological condition thatmust be ‘cured’. But viewed through the perspective of organisational

dynamics and political process, which highlight the diversity of aims andobjectives, values and interests, within organisations conflict is seen to be notonly structurally and socially endemic and inevitable, and therefore a necessaryconcomitant of organisational life, but also as an important aspect of otherprocesses such as creativity and development. Here we address the question byconsidering the importance of the analysis of points-of-view; actor-issueanalysis; contextual factors; social power analysis; and the processesunderlying mutiny, dissent and resistance to change.

Group and Team WorkingGroups are an important aspect of all organisations, and whether as formalaspects of structure or as part of the processes within organisations, groupprocesses are implicit and explicit in almost all organisational dynamics. Thisaspect of the workshop will consider analyses of psychological and socialpsychological dimensions of groups, including role analysis, and factors


affecting 'effective' team performance such as skills development andsensitivity to structural emergence.

'Cultures' and 'Leaders' as Cultural AgentsCulture was identified in the 1980s as an important feature of organisations,and a developed theme was the attempt to ‘manage’ culture as an aspect ofmanagement prerogative. This is best known through the work of those thatThompson & McHugh (1990) called ‘the culture merchants’ such as TomPeters and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Although the work of these so-called ‘gurus’will not be examined directly, their continuing influence will be addressedcritically through consideration of this and the other themes. For example, theenduring temptation of the culture management approach, with its promise ofeasy answers, continues today with a renewed interest in leadership, as well asinfamous (and ill-conceived) systems such as ‘business process re-engineering’.These issues will be examined through the following themes: Cultures and theirappreciation; cultural emergence; cultural 'management' and the role of'leaders'; static versus dynamic views of leadership; leadership contrasted withformal position; emergent leadership; leadership and motivation, and trust.

TrustTrust is not addressed directly as a single topic in the workshop, but as afundamental theme uniting many of the other topics. When considering changeprocesses, for example, or leadership, trust is implicit, although seldomexamined directly in the literatures. If you are looking for a good handle tounite the whole workshop this theme is probably one of the best. Considerationof what generates or undermines trust can help you to generate your owncritiques of the literatures and theories of organisation. If taken seriously, anunderstanding of trust, what underlies it, its nature, and, most importantly, whatundermines it, can help generate important insights and understanding of othertopics, and the limitations of their conceptualisation in the literatures, especiallychange, motivation, power, leadership, and control.

Linking the ThemesAlthough for practical reasons many of the themes identified above will beconsidered as separate topics, or as implicit aspects of other topics, it isimportant for you to realise that they interrelate and interact in many, oftencomplex and unpredictable, ways. To get the most out of the subject matter youreally need to engage actively with the material, developing your own analysesand critiques, and, above all, making links between the topics as they appear toyou. For example, although ‘motivation’ will be treated as a topic, it will reallymake very little sense in real-world terms unless you are able to link it withother topics such as ‘leadership’, ‘organisational politics’ or ‘organisationalculture’. Some of these links will be identified for you, but you will also need todo a lot of this work for yourself. This is not the kind of subject in which


understanding can be achieved simply by learning ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ parrotfashion. You will be expected to provide evidence of having thought about thematerial, of which cross-linking is the most obvious.

The rationale for this is that to understand organisational phenomenafully, it is necessary to appreciate that separate topics cannot be considered inisolation, but need to be seen as integrated elements in a broad pattern - anapproach sometimes referred to as ‘holism’. Considerable emphasis, therefore,will be placed on the integration of material, both in the workshop itself and (ifappropriate) for assessment.

While this might imply considerable extra effort on your part, in practiceit will have the ironic effect of making the subject easier to assimilate. It isimportant to realise that OB is a subject which is, or ought to be, directedtowards real practice, and we do not, generally, experience the world as discretebits and pieces.

It is my hope that as you progress through the material, you will seeways in which it relates to your own experiences, and that you will begin to seeways of exploring it that will allow you to investigate issues and topics ofparticular interest to you. To this end I have tried to build in sufficientflexibility to give you ample scope for personal exploration and development ofthe material into topics that interest you personally.

The subject matter is not easy, but it can be interesting, it can be useful,and it can even (sometimes) be fun. I also believe that it is fundamentally usefulif approached in the right way and used with sensitivity and imagination. As theprogramme develops I hope you can discover this for yourself.

Dr. Lesley PrinceUniversity of Birmingham

12 November 2007


Introductory Notes onOrganisational Analysis

Dr. Lesley Prince

Organisational analysis is about organisations and people. This covers issues ofstructure and formality. But it also encompasses issues of process and, in a veryfundamental way, change. The subject matter can be very abstract, and is drawnfrom literatures concerned with organisations in general rather than any specificsector. That said, much of the material is based on a private sector model, althoughat its most general the issues it covers, especially those underlying change andorganisational dynamics, are common, to a great degree, to all organisationswhatever sector they occupy.

Local government has been fond, in recent years, of complaining that thenature and context of their work is changing, creating, so it is claimed, specificdifficulties. But the same is true for all organisations, whatever sector they arelocated in. More generally the nature of work and working life is also changing.All organisations have been subject to fundamental pressures over the past 20 or soyears, and the situation is unlikely to alter for the foreseeable future. Much of this,of course, has been stimulated by continuing developments in informationtechnology, and the increasing globalization that has resulted. These developmentsare challenging ‘traditional’ ways of working and organising. Indeed, pressuresfrom this quarter affect every aspect of life both at work and home, and the jury isstill out on the eventual direction that this will take us all. But informationtechnology is only one aspect of the changes we all face. Changes in legislationand political priorities, whilst obviously important in public sector organisations,also impact on the private sector. Changing social values and priorities, perhapsbest exemplified in the West by concerns about the roles of men and women andenvironmental issues, affect everyone fundamentally, and have certainly changedthe shape of work, and, importantly, expectations.

At another level, it has been argued that all of organisational life, indeed allof life, can, in one way or another, be characterised in terms of perpetual change -that it is endemic, whether recognised or not. As the Presocratic philosopherHeraclitus of Ephesus (circa 480 BCE) observed, everything is in a state of flux -‘even the unchanging hills change, but more slowly than most other things’(Speake, 1979: 135. See also Honderich, 1995; Hussey, 1982; Kahn, 1979; Kirk,1962).

Thus, large scale social and political changes are affecting all organisationswithout exception. Within organisations this has resulted in changes in the ways

Keegan (1993) gives a useful, although controversial, discussion of the3

nature of warfare, drawing attention to the sometimes ironic co-operative aspects. Clausewitz is the classic Western source on thesubject (Rapoport, 1968; Howard & Paret, 1993), but it is alsoilluminating to read what Machiavelli has to say (Wood, 1965). It iscurrently somewhat fashionable to talk about Sun Tsu, who wrote the


Figure 1: A cavalry cornet carried by Captaine

Brown’s Parliamentarian Troop of Horse during

the English Civil War, 1642 - 49. The sentiments

expressed by the images are possibly appropriate

for a military unit engaged in active combat, but

are they really appropriate for civilian

organisations in peacetime?

Source: Turmile MS, f 54.

that people work, staffing levels, the breakdown of specialisms, moves towards‘flexible working’, and so on. Generally this situation has been conceptualised as aproblem of strategic management - the problem of how management canimplement or impose the changes it wants in relation to the objectives that it itselfhas set, whether in response to outside pressures or opportunistically for othermotives. As a result change has been seen simply as a technical problem formanagement, with the expectation that once the dynamics of change have beenunderstood, effecting any change within an organisation will be a straightforwardmatter of making the appropriate technical arrangements. But the pressures ofchange also generate considerable anxieties as well, even amongst those whoadvocate change, and as established patterns change so people becomeapprehensive, and often cynical, about the future (Adams, 1996; Bales, 1958;Blackwell & Seabrook, 1993; Moore, 1997; Selbourne, 1996).

In keeping with the military metaphor encompassed by the phrase ‘strategicmanagement’, indeed driven by it to some extent, there has been a generalexpectation that what management wants it ought to get, regardless of the

consequences (“management’s right tomanage”). ‘The organisation’ isconceived as being in a state of war withits competitors (and the environmentgenerally) - hence the exhortations toachieve ‘competitive advantage’ or‘competitive edge’, the pressure tofocus on ‘aims’ and ‘objectives’, tomount ‘strategic offensives’, and so on.The stakes are, within this metaphor, noless than complete victory over the‘enemy’ or personal annihilation(Victory or Death!). The result hasbeen, in many organisations, theimposition of a ‘wartime austerity’mentality, with the further expectationthat ‘everyone ought to pull together’ asthey would in wartime. But the wholething is based on a metaphor, and apartial one at that, although it isfrequently described as ‘realism’ as ifthat is the inevitable state of the world.

First it is based on a false and shallow understanding of warfare, indeed ofcompetition in general , ignoring, inter alia, the indisputable co-operative basis of3

classic Eastern texts on warfare, and there are some interesting editionsof his major work (Cleary, 1996; Griffith, 1963; Wing, 1988). It is alsoworthwhile having a look at the work of the Japanese writersMiyamoto Musashi and Yagyu Munerori (Cleary, 1993). Lao Tsu’sclassic the Tao Te Ching, sometimes called a ‘manual of leadership’(although this description rather misses the point) is worth a look,although don’t expect a ‘how to do it’ manual (Feng & English, 1973;Le Guin, 1997; Wu, 1990). On competition, Burnstein (1969), Deutsch(1968), and Gibb (1969, a, & b), although quite old are all worthlooking at for their comments. Handy (1985) is also worth a look,although he does get his conceptual knickers in a bit of a twist inplaces. Recent work on trust also covers important ground in thediscussion of competition and co-operation (Coulson, 1997, 1998;Gambetta, 1988; Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Misztal, 1996), as does thework on co-operation itself (Axelrod, 1984; Baker, 1996; Nowak, May& Sigmund, 1995).

Although intended to be funny, Scott Adams (1996) The Dilbert4

Principle is also worth a look for its acute observations about theexperience of change at low levels in an organisational hierarchy.


social endeavours. It is also based on a false, and somewhat envious, belief thatwithin the military whatever those in command order to happen does happen,without question (see Ereira, 1981, for at least one dramatic example showing thelatter to be mistaken).

The focus on management prerogative, to the exclusion of other issues, hasled to the characterisation of resistance to change, and other impediments toachieving the ‘objective’, as something that necessarily must be overcome.Resistance to change, in other words, becomes simply another technical problemto be solved rationally. Yet it requires no formal research or expertise to realisethat changes at work pose a threat, real or imagined, to everyone involved. At thevery least change increases uncertainty, and therefore generates as well ashighlighting fundamental insecurity.

The threat of change, obviously, undermines the status quo, and people’ssense of place. It also generates fears for the future (Toffler, 1971; 1981; 1991),threatening power bases, established expertise, and so on. In other words, far frombeing simply a technical matter, amenable to simple solutions, the threat of changeis also a social and political issue, with considerable emotional undertones. It is inthis arena that so-called ‘wounds of change’ are inflicted, and these ‘wounds’ havea corrosive tendency to undermine trust. It is for this reason that there has been agrowing cynicism about change - ‘jokes’ about ‘delayering’, ‘alternative careeropportunities’, ‘restructuring’, etc - and some reluctance to take proposals forchange at their face value (see, for examples, Mangham, 1979, 1985; Moore,1997; Thomson & McHugh, 1990 ).4

At the heart of many problems associated with change is the precisely theinsistence on regarding the matter as a purely technical one, to the exclusion ofimportant emotional factors. This relates to ideas about what organisations are, andwhat can or cannot be said about them, particularly in relation to concepts of

The ‘quick fix’ summarised in five bullet points.5

Or Soggy Model, if you prefer. The name itself should alert you to the6

dangers of taking it as the final word on organisations.


prediction and control, and, by implication, the ability of social science to deliversimple messages about complex issues .5

In other words, when change is viewed as a technical problem, there is anexpectation that, like all technical problems, it can be brought into a framework inwhich prediction and control is possible. Because organisations fall within theremit of social science, this therefore translates into the expectation that socialscience can supply the necessary tools. Unfortunately it is a false expectation -although one perhaps encouraged by the ‘Heathrow Airport’ School ofManagement texts.

Understanding OrganisationsIt is conventional to regard organisations as ‘things’, as given objects much likeany other object, such as a table . That is, as independent, morally and politicallyneutral, objects in the social environment, that can be treated apart from the peoplewithin it, and, to some extent, apart from the environment without. Objects withtheir own dynamics, goals, and so on. This is, of course, very convenient for thoserunning organisations, because it lets them off the ethical hook. Such a view, called an ‘entitative model’ (because it treats organisations as ‘things’) tends tofoster the rationalistic approach mentioned above and discussed below - anapproach that leaves little room for the messier aspects of organisational life. But itis not a view that is sustainable. Organisations are social and political phenomenaof extreme complexity. They are the products of human action, which in turn alsohelp shape human action. When viewed dispassionately, they can appear to becomplex, paradoxical, and frequently contradictory (Morgan, 1997). Whenexperienced from within, they can appear to be messy, disorganised, directionless,and frustrating, and managing them can seem at times to be mere ‘muddlingthrough’ (Lindblom, 1959). In short, organisations are not easy to understand.

One response to such situations is to simplify. But the problem is tosimplify without making simplistic. To this end it is essential to use models whichcan help describe without hijacking the process of understanding. One such model,describing the levels or ‘layers’ of organisations is the SOGI model (see figure 16

below). But before considering this model in some detail, it is important to explainwhy rationalistic models can be misleading.

The Limits of RationalismRationality is seldom defined by those who write or talk about organisations. Ittends to be used in the vaguest possible sense to mean something like ‘sensible’, or‘scientific’ or ‘reasonable’ or ‘grown up’ or ‘objective’ or ‘systematic’ In factthere are at least three different models of rationality alluded to, but often muddledand confused with one another: logical rationality; statistical rationality and, verycontroversially, economic rationality. Logical rationality is based on the


application of ‘rules of inference’ and is intended to allow valid inference fromassumptions to conclusions. Statistical rationality is based on the premiss that(speaking crudely) with accurate information and probability estimates one candraw valid inferences from empirical data. Economic rationality is based on theincorrect (and quite risible) suggestion that all people operate at all times tomaximise their ‘utilities’ (usually conceived in terms of money or advantage). Atleast in the first two the aim is to arrive at a set of rules and procedures whichallow for the exclusion of avoidable bias in decision making (crudely speaking).That is to say they are attempts at ‘pure’ objectivity (a project for which there isconsiderable well founded scepticism as to its eventual achievement).

The ideal rational model is one that is simple, complete and internallyconsistent. As a rule such models aspire to be both descriptive (explaining theworld as it is) and prescriptive (detailing how the world ought to be). The latteraspect is, however, frequently disguised, although it is important to emphasise thatthis is not really as a result of dishonesty - it is actually rather difficult sometimesto distinguish the two. Nevertheless the distinction is fundamentally important -whether models are viewed one way or the other can have a major impact onevents and people, both positive and negative.

It should be noted that rationalism per se is not being criticised here. On thecontrary, rational thought is as fundamental to the social scientific enterprise asother programmes for understanding our world. The problem is, however, thatrational models are both very seductive - and ultimately misleading. They areseductive because of their simplicity. In general if it is possible to view a complexphenomenon through the lens of a rationally constructed model, it gives theimpression that the complexity is merely an illusion. It also encourages theexpectation that all complex issues can be resolved into simple technical matters.Both responses are mistaken - complexity is sometimes precisely what we arefaced with.

The real problem is that ‘rational’ models all assume perfect or perfectibleknowledge, information and understanding. But as psychologists and others havedemonstrated, human cognitive ability is severely limited, what Simon calls‘bounded rationality’ (Newall & Simon, 1972). More seriously, by their verynature rational models exclude important, but non-rational, aspects of life, such asemotional factors. That this is an important omission has been argued by, amongstothers, neurologist Antonio Damasio (1994, 1995). Damasio, who might havebeen expected to argue otherwise, asserted that, in his view emotionality, althoughitself non-rational (or even, by some views, irrational) contributes importantly towhat we recognise as human rationality:

Emotion may well be the support system without which the edifice ofreason cannot function properly and may even collapse.

In general, however, ‘rational’ models applied to organisational analysisleave no room whatsoever for the irrational and non-rational - emotionality isnever considered except as an impediment (Burrell, 1997; Burrell & Hearn, 1989).Unfortunately, the success of the ultimate rational model - mathematics - continuesto fuel the belief that such models are possible for all phenomena, and that oncethey are established prediction and control will be possible for all complex social

And that social scientists are merely being evasive, or lazy, or both, in7

denying the possibility.


situations . In some ways this, coupled with the limitations on human information7

processing ability, is what has fuelled the growth of information technology basedsystems for decision-making - expert systems and the like.

Consideration of mathematics itself, however, undermines theseexpectations. For those who are interested, the mathematician Kurt Gödeldemonstrated that even mathematics does not completely fulfill the expectations ofa rational system - while being internally consistent it is not complete (Nagel &Newman, 1958; Sokal & Bricmont, 1997; Speake, 1979). In other words, there areproblems that can be posed within a particular system of mathematics but cannotbe solved within that system.

A similar problem attends that other model of rationality - formal logic.Indeed in this case it has been shown that the basis for logic is not itself logical butintuitive - quite the antithesis of logic, in fact (Haack, 1978).

More recently the advent of ‘Chaos Theory’ has lent weight to argumentsabout the difficulties of prediction and control, even in simple rational systems(Cohen & Stewart, 1994; Gleik, 1987; Stewart, 1990; Stewart & Golubitsky,1992).

Many people are now aware of the so-called ‘butterfly effect’ in which asmall event becomes amplified through a series of intervening effects until theoutcome is catastrophic. This is a bit of a parody, but it is a useful thoughtexperiment. Imagine that the beat of a butterfly’s wing, in creating a very slightdisturbance in air currents, begins a chain of events, each increasing the effects ofthe preceding one until it results in a hurricane somewhere else in the world. Thishas two primary features, for our purposes: the unpredictability of systems onceminute changes are introduced into the starting parameters; and a different, butclearly related, phenomenon, of amplifying systems. Such amplifying systems arewell known, and have received extensive discussion (e.g. Waddington, 1977). Interms of organisational analysis, the implications of an amplifying system are clear- small changes in one aspect of an organisation (such as changing the technology)can have far reaching and unpredictable results elsewhere (e.g. staff turnover). Inaddition, each change will interact with other features of the organisation, orsystem, whether already existing or brought about by the change itself. Theseinteractions can cancel out effects - much like the interference caused by out ofphase radio waves; additive, which means that the separate effects simplyaccumulate; or synergistic - effects joined together out of which emergentproperties, not inherent in the parts, begin to appear Cadbury, 1997). This last typeof interaction is very important because consideration of the parts does not giveany basis for predicting what will emerge from the interaction. More significantfor present purposes, however, is what Chaos Theory has shown in relation to theunpredictability of simple systems.

Mathematicians have studied what happens when a system based on verysimple rules is run through many thousands of iterations (Poundstone, 1985;Stewart, 1990). They conclude that even very simple systems behaveunpredictably - that the outcome of the iterations cannot be predicted in advance


unless the system has been run through previously. Furthermore, if the system isrerun with even tiny variations in the initial values, the resultant behaviour may becompletely different from previous runs.

Of course Chaos Theory is a formal mathematical model of deterministicchaos. No-one really knows if organisations are truly chaotic systems in this sense,because no-one has ever derived the necessary equations. It is not even clear ifsuch equations are possible, even in principle, but what has emerged from ChaosTheory is certainly very suggestive, and the implications for very complexsystems, such as organisations, are quite profound - demolishing the expectationthat prediction and control is easily achievable. This conclusion is reinforced whenone considers the different (interactive) levels of analysis involved inorganisational theory - the SOGI Model.

Levels of Analysis: The SOGI ModelThis SOGI model is perhaps one of the simplest descriptions of what is involved intrying to understand organisations. In essence all it does is describe the differentlevels which need to be taken into account to get a detailed picture of anorganisation: Society; Organisation; Group; Individual. But, simple though it is,the model summarises some of the complexity of organisations, and can also beused analytically to conceptualise organisational issues.

At the individual level, organisational analysis encompasses psychology;the societal level is clearly sociological. But, for completeness, it would benecessary to draw from all the social sciences, including anthropology andpolitical science. The problem for anyone trying to understand organisations is totry and integrate these levels, which is clearly impossible in any definitive waybecause there is simply too much to take into account. Furthermore, each of thelevels presents its own complexity, and each is the subject of specialistunderstanding. Before discussing these, however, some consideration of thelimitations of the model is necessary.

Limitations of the SOGI ModelThe SOGI Model only deals with the political and social world - the world ofhuman interactions. What it does not include is the physical world, whichnevertheless might be important. The weather, for example, can have a majorimpact on people and their activities - Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD);temperatures that are too high or too low; levels of ozone; light levels; wind. If oneis to believe some of the theories being propounded, a supernova in the remotestcorner of the galaxy will, sooner or, probably, later have an effect on people livingon Earth (I suppose you could call this the cosmic level of analysis). Closer to home, it has often been claimed that the phases of the Moon can have an impact onpeople’s behaviour, and it is well known that Sunspot activity plays havoc withelectronic equipment.

A more obvious limitation, from the point of view of social science, is thatthe SOGI Model begins arbitrarily with whole individual human beings, and endswith a vague catch-all category called ‘Society’. The latter is discussed below, butthe former is worth considering here.

Or would it?8


Figure 1 The SOGI Model: This simple

model details the different levels of

analysis used within Organisation

Theory, and also their interrelations.

Starting with whole human beings isvery convenient, and the model has to stopsomewhere simply for practicality, but forsome purposes it might be important to takeinto account factors below this level.Physiological and even genetic processes, forexample, are often implicated in cases of stressand depression (see, for example, Nemeroff,1998) - both issues of concern for someorganisations, not least because of their relationto human motivation. These can be affected bythe physical conditions in which people work,both positively and negatively (light levels, forexample), and, medically at least, interventionsmight be made at this level (the ‘happy pill’,Prozac, is a good example).

Issues at this level are already becoming important for some organisations,and are likely to become more so. For example, the defence industry in the UnitedStates is currently facing a crisis because of a shortage of experienced and skilledsoftware engineers. Unfortunately for the organisations concerned these peopletend, for some reason, to be ‘acid heads’ - a category of people specifically bannedfrom working on defence projects, and who, in general, are not very sympatheticto defence work anyway (Rushkoff, 1994). Their creativity and LSD habits,however, seem to be inextricably linked (see for example Schaef & Fassel, 1988).

Another aspect which is likely to generate further interest in the near futureis the advent of ‘smart drugs’. These substances are said to enhance cognitiveabilities, such as memory and mental performance. They work by introducing intothe body precursors for various brain chemicals such as endorphin. At the momenttheir use is restricted to the fringes (allegedly), and they are not yet illegal. But, ithas been confidently predicted that in the next few years if the pace of changekeeps up, they will become a necessity for anyone wanting to survive in theworkplace (Dean & Morgenthaler, 1991; Pelton, 1998; Rushkoff, 1994).

Of course one could move the levels of analysis further down, until perhapswe are forced to examine the behaviour of subatomic particles in order tounderstand organisations, but that would be silly . For most purposes starting with8

whole individuals is both convenient and sufficient, but it is important to note thatsome issues cannot be fully understood at this level.

The Individual LevelThat organisations are composed of people is obvious, although perhaps too oftenoverlooked. Therefore, at a very fundamental level to understand organisations weneed to understand people - all people, not just managers - a very complex matter,as anyone who is a person will agree.

The issue of predictability is immediately thrown into high relief when it is

For example, if one were to pull out a gun in a public place, the9

reaction of others is likely to be fairly predictable - although not withany precision.


considered how difficult it is to predict human behaviour. Mike Harding used tosay of his father that he had a problem with his legs: ‘They wouldn’t walk pastpubs’, and most of us are familiar with people who say they find it difficult toresist their particular vice (such as chocolate) even when they have resolved to doso. This perhaps captures something of the issues involved.

We have, in the philosophers’ jargon, some measure of privileged access toour own mental states, motives and behaviour, but how many are in a position topredict even their own behaviour with any accuracy? One suspects very few, ifany. This rather makes the predictability of other people’s behaviour seem a littleunrealistic, except perhaps in the very crudest sense .9

An individual’s behaviour will be the result of a complex series ofprocesses involving emotions, knowledge, perceptions, values, interests, mood,and so on. In addition it will be affected, perhaps effected, by the circumstancessurrounding that individual, including particular incidents and events, thebehaviour of other people, the weather, and so forth.

The Group LevelThe situation is further complicated when people form groups. There are aspects togroups which only appear as group phenomena, such as power relations,affectional ties and group norms. In addition, people change their behaviour ingroups, sometimes very subtly, sometimes dramatically. This is an aspect ofexperience that is easily recognisable: the hell-raising youth, swearing anddrinking in the company of peers, but very prim and proper at home; the shyretiring individual who becomes the model of urbane wit in the right company; thecompany accountant who is also a member of a swingers’ club.

An excellent account of this process appears in the introduction to theScience Fiction novel Speaker for the Dead (Orson Scott Card, 1986):

Most novels get by with showing the relationships between two or,at the most, three characters. This is because the difficulty ofcreating a character increases with each new major character thatis added to the tale. Characters, as most writers understand, aretruly developed through their relationships with others. If there areonly two then there is only one relationship to be explored. If thereare three characters, ... there are four relationships: Between A ndB, between B and C, between C and A, and finally the relationshipwhen all three are together. ... So when a storyteller has to createthree characters, each different relationship requires that eachcharacter in it must be transformed, however subtly, depending onhow the relationship is shaping his or her present identity. Thus, ina three-character story, a storyteller who wishes to convince us ofthe reality of these characters really has to come up with a dozen


different personas, four for each of them (pp xix - xxi).

As a description of the subtleties that occur when people congregate ingroups this is very good. Of course it does not cover every aspect of group life thatmay be important, such as group cohesiveness, conformity, the emergence ofstructure in interactions, and other group phenomena, but it does neverthelessshow why prediction and control in a group setting is likely to be very difficult,and certainly impossible with precision. It also illustrates the principle that one cannever fully know or understand another person, especially if that person’srelationships are ignored.

The Organisation LevelAt the organisational level of analysis, factors such as organisational size, age,and structure need to be taken into account. So much is familiar from much of themanagement literature. But other, more sociological and anthropological aspectsare also important - issues such as organisational culture, internal politicalprocesses, alliances, interest groups, co-operation and conflict between specialistdepartments, the available technology, and so on. Such factors interact in complexways with those already highlighted under the other levels of analysis, and furtherreduce the likelihood of accurate prediction and control in anything other than afairly superficial way.

The Society LevelIn broad terms, ‘Society’ is a label that refers to anything and everything ‘outside’the organisation. It is a bucket category, which perhaps is better labelled‘environment’ (but EOGI doesn’t make the joke quite as well as SOGI).

The point is that organisations are not independent entities sitting in statelyisolation from the rest of the world; to paraphrase John Donne: ‘No organisation isan island’. Quite clearly they are embedded within, and part of, society at large. Insome ways this is little more than a platitude, but the activities of some largeorganisations in catapulting large numbers of their workforces onto the job marketwould suggest that it is not, perhaps, platitudinous enough. Writers such as TomPeters blithely talk about ‘downsizing’ (or other euphemisms for sacking people),with no consideration whatsoever for the burden that this potentially causeselsewhere. Certainly one does not get the impression from authors like Peters thatthose who are ‘downsized’ matter in any important way to the organisation that isgetting rid of them (see Moore, 1997; Peters, 1992).

Nevertheless, the societal level is important when trying to understandorganisations and how they work. For the public sector in Great Britain this hasbeen painfully obvious in recent years - changing legislation; the impact ofchanging social and political values, pressures to become more ‘businesslike’, andso on, not to mention the impact of unemployment on the economic and socialfabric of society at large.

But the impact of ‘outside’ is further reaching than simply the influence ofa domestic social context. It includes, for example, other organisations, whethercompetitors, suppliers, clients, or simply other organisations. Their activities can,


obviously, have an impact on the affairs of any organisation. To take an extremeexample, the efforts of a terrorist group can quite clearly disrupt the smoothfunctioning of a merchant bank if it becomes involved, even accidentally. And, atthe end of the twentieth century, the span of influence may well be global. Theadvent of easy worldwide communications, and the growth of supranationalcorporations, means that organisations, and the people who work in them, are nowsubject to pressures and influences from some very remote sources indeed. Whathappens in Europe, the United States or Far East can now have a direct and non-trivial impact on all organisations, whatever their size. And, it must beemphasised, the activities of organisations also have a major impact on the outside.What happens inside organisations impinges on others outside the organisation;there are no purely technical matters that affect the organisation internally alone.

Interactions between the LevelsThe levels of analysis identified within the SOGI Model are not, of course,discrete and mutually exclusive. Nor are they independent of one another. On thecontrary they can and do interact. For example, when considering groups ofpeople, some of the issues are to do with the impact of individuals on the group. Aparticularly talkative or imaginative individual can have a pronounced effect ongroup dynamics. On the other hand, a group can, and usually does, have an impacton those that comprise it. Group norms, for instance, can affect people’s behavioursignificantly, even to the extent of publicly denying the evidence of their ownperceptions (Asch, 1951, 1958; Milgram, 1974).

Similarly, groups within organisations can and do have an impact on thoseorganisations. For example small oligarchies - especially those Child (1984) callsthe dominant coalition - can often have a direct and disproportionate effect on theactivities of an organisation directed to their own ends rather than those recognisedas legitimately those of the organisation. In turn, organisations can have aprofound impact on the behaviour of groups within it - for example the

modification of professional standards infavour of those enforced by theorganisation.

Interactions of these kinds can betracked through all the levels ofanalysis, and are shown in figure 1 bythe arrows on the diagram. As should beapparent by now, however, predictingthe direction and form of theseinteractions is not possible withprecision, and will require considerablelocal detail even to allow crudepredictions.

All told then, the chance ofdeveloping easy methods for preciseprediction and control withinorganisations, and therefore for themanagement of change, is unlikely, to

Figure 2 Prof. Igor Schadenfreude’sPatent Motivation Machine


say the least. The sheer complexity of the dynamics involved, from individualsthrough to the impact of society, make it a project with a high implausibilityquotient.

This, of course, might not sound a particularly positive conclusion, andindeed it is not if one’s sole intention is simply to control the behaviour of otherpeople. But it takes only a moment’s reflection to realise that the impossibility ofsuch precise control is actually very positive - if one can learn how to manipulateothers, then they can learn to manipulate you - a dystopian nightmare subvertingcreativity, democracy, and all the other things that we tend to value most aboutlife. Only a thoroughgoing authoritarian despot could find any comfort in such afantasy. Thankfully it is a very remote possibility indeed - one hopes animpossibility. But this begs the question of what social science can contribute toour knowledge about organisations. The answer is understanding of the issuesinvolved. How this can be achieved is discussed below.

Morgan’s MetaphorsWhat we assume, what we take for granted, constrains and directs what we see,and therefore what we conclude. The answer to a problem is constrained by thequestions we ask and the tools we use to derive the answer. As noted above, whenconfronted by complex and paradoxical phenomena, we need models to aidunderstanding. But whatever models we use can become a problem, rather than anaid, if we forget they are simply models and start regarding them as ‘The Truth’(complete with capital letters). Unfortunately this is all too easy to do.

When considering organisations we generally have such a model in mind,but too frequently one that is taken for granted, and seldom questioned. And yet,whichever model we use has important implications for what we see, and don’tsee, in an organisation. For example, if we view organisations as machines, thenwe tend to see the machinelike qualities and ignore other aspects. Management,when organisations are seen as machines, then becomes analogous to machineminding.

A machine minder has responsibility for turning the machine on, and off,for ensuring that it is properly lubricated, that the motive force (electricity orwhatever) is available as necessary, that the parts are properly calibrated and ingood working order. When things go wrong it is the machine minder’sresponsibility to set them right - replacing old, worn out or damaged parts,recalibrating parts that have become misaligned, and so on.

It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how this model becomestranslated into management practice. Indeed it is a good description of one of themost dominant and pervasive models of management practice, summarised byKoontz & O’Donnell (1955) as:

v PLANv ORGANISEv MOTIVATEv CONTROL

In other words, by this view it is management’s task to take on responsibility forall aspects of other people’s work, including their motivation. In the final analysis,if the machine breaks down and no other response works, there is always recourse


to what has been called a Birmingham Screwdriver (a hammer), which translatesinto human terms as the ‘Kick In The Pants’ (KITA) model of motivation (Wilson& Rosenfeld, 1990). If that doesn’t work, and the machine part is irretrievablybroken, the final line of action is always replacement - the Fit In or Go SomewhereElse (FioFO) model.

There are, however, other ways of ‘seeing’ an organisation. It is possible,for example, to see it as a growing thing, perhaps a plant or tree, or even a wholegarden. This is not as fatuous as it might appear. When viewed this way,management becomes analogous to gardening. Gardeners do not, of course, turntheir plants on and off. Indeed a good gardener will not intervene too much withthe plants at all. Instead the focus is on the environment in which the plants grow,and the gardener’s attention will be focussed on the provision of compost andmanure to ensure that the soil is fertile, will make sure the plants are situated in acongenial place in the garden, without too much or too little light, and will ensurethat the plants are properly fed and watered. Of course gardeners also pleach andprune upon occasion, in the right season, but essentially they are concerned withthe provision of the right environment for the plants to grow.

This is a quite different model from the machine metaphor of how to viewan organisation, and it generates a quite different model of management. Incontrast to the controller of the machine model, this one presents more an image ofa custodian.

The point here is not to argue that one of these images is correct and theother mistaken. It is to draw attention to the principle that each is a different wayof ‘seeing’ organisations - and is simultaneously a way of not seeing. That is, themodels we use direct our attention towards some aspects of organisations andblind us to other sometimes more important aspects.

Both of these images can be regarded as ‘correct’ to some extent. They arealso both misleading. Organisations are clearly not neither machines nor gardens.But, in order to understand them at all, because they are complex, we tend to thinkin terms of analogy or metaphor - we think of organisations as if they were amachine or a garden. In either case we are thereby able to generate insights to helpus understand what we see or experience. But the cost of this is that the metaphorswe use also blind us to other, equally important, features of organisations that arenot encompassed by the metaphor.

This is the basis for the approach to organisational analysis developed byMorgan (1997). He points out that if we use only limited metaphors in trying tounderstand organisations, then our insights are correspondingly limited, and so,therefore, is our ability to deal with problems that we may encounter. His book isan elaboration of this theme.

Morgan identifies eight different metaphors current within organisationalanalysis. It is unlikely that this list is exhaustive, but his analysis is neverthelessinteresting, and his exploration of the different metaphors highlights the ways inwhich they generate different insights into organisational dynamics, thus makingwhat he writes useful as well as interesting. Taking the list from the contents pageof Images of Organization, the metaphors identified by Morgan are:

v Organizations as Machinesv Organizations as Organisms


v Organizations as Brainsv Organizations as Culturesv Organizations as Political Systemsv Organizations as Psychic Prisonsv Organization as Flux and Transformationv Organizations as Instruments of Domination

Each of these different metaphors generates it own way of seeing, and not seeing,organisations. They draw attention to different aspects of organisational dynamics,and therefore highlight different issues, problems, and solutions. Each alsohighlights different ideologies of organisation and organising, and thereforeimmediately links organisational analysis to areas such as political theory.

One particularly important aspect of the metaphors is the way in which theygenerate different conceptualisations of a ‘problem’. For example, a ‘problememployee’ who regularly refuses to do overtime, would be conceptualised within amechanistic model as a ‘broken or misaligned part’ of the machine, and thereforeneeding replacement or recalibration. Viewed within a political model, however,which takes into account people’s values and interests apart from those enacted (orimposed) at work, such a person may be regarded as someone who is exercisingtheir ability to pursue life beyond the work place - perhaps it is a parent wanting toensure adequate time with his or her children.

The Metaphors in BriefTaking each metaphor very briefly, they highlight the following aspects oforganisations.

The Machine Metaphor, which is the dominant mode of thinking aboutorganisations, highlights the formal, structured aspects of organisations.This is the metaphor that highlights those bureaucratic elements of anorganisation, the rules, procedures, roles, hierarchies, and so on.Management initiatives, such as ‘Performance Related Pay’, ‘Managementby Objectives’, and so on, are based on this way of thinking.

The Organic Metaphor, which is also very popular, highlights the organic or‘living’ aspects of organisations, such as ‘environmental fit’ and ‘lifecycle’. In some ways this last feature has generated some surprises. Forexample, most of us tend to think of the organisations we know about asfixed and relatively permanent features of the environment. But, viewed interms of life cycles - birth, growth, development, decay, and death - whichare natural aspects of living systems, draws attention to the similar aspectsof organisations. When looked at this way, changes imposed uponorganisations which might be viewed as a threat to the very rationale of theorganisation (e.g. the assault on ‘public service values’), - itself a responsedrawn from the cultural, or political, metaphor - it might be concluded thatthe changes are simply part of the evolution of the organisation, itsenvironment, or even part of the evolution of the species to which theorganisation belongs.


The Brain Metaphor is a complex one, simply because the brain itself is socomplex that we can only understand it metaphorically. No-one reallyunderstands how the brain works, and the general approach is to takemetaphors from the dominant technology of the day (steam engine;telephone exchange; computer CPU, and so on). Thus, as a metaphor fororganisations it is really a metaphor nested within a metaphor.Nevertheless, there are aspects of the metaphor which are useful andinteresting. In one sense it is a reiteration of the machine metaphor (whenthe dominant technology is steam), and draws attention to the hierarchicalrelations of brain to other parts of the body (especially the peripheralnervous system). However, there are aspects of the brain which do not fitthis model, such as its marvellous ability for self organisation, and thisfeature is beginning to find its way into organisational thought.

One other aspect which may possibly find new emphasis inorganisational thought is the way in which the brain encompasses massiveredundancy. Much of the brain is not used. Until recently this was acomplete puzzle, but some now argue that it is the redundancy that allowsthe brain to function for a lifetime. Brain cells die throughout life, and theyare not replaced. A ‘store’ of unused brain cells therefore allows the brainto continue functioning despite its degrading architecture. Furthermore, ifthe brain suffers a massive insult, particularly in youth, it is now knownthat the functions carried out in that part of the brain may be transferred toanother part.

In organisational terms, this raises all sorts of questions about‘appropriate staffing levels’. While an auditor may argue, for example, thata health service ought to be run ‘efficiently’ with ‘just enough staff’ for itsfunctions, one may counter that on the contrary it ought to be ‘over’ staffedto some extent, to allow it to continue functioning in the event of crisis - asrecent experiences in the National Health Service have demonstrated.

Cultural (Anthropological) Metaphor. There has been much talk since the early1980s about organisational culture. This has generally been of the ‘we mustimpose a can-do culture’ kind of talk, with culture viewed simply as yetanother resource at the disposal of management. But, when viewedanthropologically culture is not a tool of management, but an importantaspect of social life, emerging and being shaped by those who areembedded within it. This metaphor draws attention to aspects oforganisational life coded in rituals, values, norms, beliefs, and so on.Culture by this view is something of a lens through which people evaluatethe world, and a ‘blueprint’ by which they guide and evaluate their own andother people’s behaviour. Viewed from the outside, cultural ‘artefacts’ canappear bizarre - such as some of the formal rituals enacted by the military -but they function importantly as part of the ‘metaphysical glue’ whichbinds the organisation together. Tradition, in this sense, becomes somethingto be understood as an aspect to organisational functioning that allows it tofunction at all, and not necessarily as an impediment to ‘progress’.

The Political Metaphor. This metaphor draws attention to issues surrounding

Perhaps I should use the term ‘rationalistic’ here. I am not referring to10

rational models in any formal sense, but to the ideological use of quasi- or‘seemingly’ rational models, using flow diagrams, statistical analysis, and so on, thatimply some form of ‘objectivity’. These are ‘rationalistic’ but not rational, and formpart of an overarching set of political managerialist tools that serve simply to reinforcethe ascendency of ‘those in charge’ without imparting any true rationality toorganisational functioning at all.


people’s values and interests. In a mechanistic model of organisation therereally is no place for ‘politics’, which is viewed simply as ‘illegitimatepoliticking’ - an aspect of organisation which is part of the ‘irrational’, andtherefore excluded from ‘rational’ models, and generally regarded as10

somehow pathological - a disease to be cured. When taken seriously,however, organisational politics is really about those features oforganisational life which are affected and effected by important elements ofhuman life. For example, within a mechanistic model, ‘organisational’goals are the only legitimate focus of attention within the organisation;within a political model, it can be countered that there are other, andperhaps more important, goals pursued by the people within theorganisation. A good example is the question of why particular people dothey job they do. Quite clearly they may be committed to the job as an endin itself (as, perhaps, with some doctors or lawyers or printers). They may,however, be enacting some broader values, of which the job is merely apart. Or, they may simply see the job as a means to an end - paying themortgage and ensuring their family is well fed, well housed, and able topay the bills.

This metaphor takes such issues seriously, and highlights aspects oforganisational life such as power, competition and conflict, but notnecessarily as pathological conditions to be cured - often simply as endemicfeatures of organisational life.

The Psychic Prison Metaphor. One aspect of the socialisation or acculturationprocess is that as individuals become fully part of an organisation, they alsointernalise the favoured ways of doing and thinking within thatorganisation: ‘It’s the way we do things around here’. This metaphor drawsattention to this feature of organisational life, and highlights the point thatfrequently the ‘favoured’ ways of doing and thinking are overlyconstraining and perhaps detrimental. In other words the ‘psychic prison’which constrains and restrains what can be done within an organisation.Clearly this metaphor has something to say about the conditions for‘creativity’ within organisations.

Beyond that, the metaphor can become a little exotic for sometastes, highlighting such issues as ‘repressed sexuality’ as enacted withinorganisational life, and the ways in which fears and anxieties about life anddeath can influence behaviour.

Flux and Transformation. This is a metaphor that emphasises process issues


within organisations. This is definitely a metaphor basedon Heraclitus’s observation quoted earlier - aninsight that everything is, to a greater or lesserextent, in a process of changing. Importantly forthis metaphor is the conceptualisation of changeitself, and Morgan identifies four different‘logics of change’: self reproducing systems;flow and negative feedback (informationprocessing systems); dialectical or cyclic change;and chaotic change.

This metaphor raises important issuesabout contradictions within organisational life -drawing attention to some of the paradoxes that are embedded within. It alsohighlights some of the processes in which, while organisations change individuals,individuals also change organisations (logic of mutual causality). This last aspectis very important. When the focus is purely on what the ‘organisation’ (or, moreprecisely, the management) demands, expects or does to the people within it,attention is shifted away from the interdependence at the heart of organisationallife, and what the individual demands, expects, or does to the organisation. Insome ways this aspect of the change metaphor links directly with the cultural andpolitical metaphors, because it is dealing with issues also dealt with, in a differentway, in those metaphors.

The Dominance Metaphor. This, Morgan’s final metaphor, draws attention tosome of the nastier aspects of organisational life - exploitation, control, andmanipulation. It highlights issues such as enforced overwork, stress, and the‘workaholic’, occupational health and safety issues, and so on. Theimportance of this metaphor is that it also draws attention to ethical issuesin organisational life - in a way it is the servant that sweeps the dirt fromunder the carpet, and leaves it on the floor for people to see and examine.

Using the MetaphorsMorgan did not intend his examination of organisational metaphors to be a purelyacademic exercise. His intention was to develop a set of intellectual tools for theexamination of organisations and organisational problems, with a practical focus.In other words, the metaphors are not simply there as clever ideas, but are intendedto be used for analysis, both by practitioners as well as academics.

He talks about the process of ‘Imaginization’, a diagnostic approach usingthe metaphors as a basis for generating insights. To reiterate a point made earlier,if we view organisations through a narrow lens of only one metaphor, then we areconstrained in the scope of our understanding, and also our ability to act. Morgan’sargument is that the more metaphors we can deploy in the process ofunderstanding, then the broader our scope for action. Thus, to emphasise animportant point also made earlier, the metaphors should not be considered ascompeting models of organisation, in which one is correct and the others thereforeincorrect, but as different ways of seeing the same thing, each providing a differentset of insights, and therefore different spins on appropriate actions. In other words,

Not to be confused with snooping, sneaking, spying, or invading11

people’s privacy. That’s not the same thing at all.


Morgan argues that the metaphors are best regarded as intellectual resources thatcan help in the diagnostic process.

As a corollary to this, it is necessary to cultivate a diagnostic, or analytical,turn of mind. The very basis of this approach is that the ‘quick fix summarised infive bullet points’ is unrealistic and unhelpful, and that precise prediction andcontrol is highly unlikely to be achievable. Instead, the approach emphasises theinherent complexity and uncertainty of organisational life, recognising that it isoften contradictory and paradoxical. But, although this stance could lead to variousforms of panic stricken paralysis and twittering doubt, Morgan argues that skilfuluse of the metaphors will not only allow actions to be undertaken, but that thoseactions will be based on a firm foundation of reflection and knowledge interwovenwith sophisticated analysis.

One other important aspect of this approach is that it places the onus onthose wanting to use it to ensure that they are informed about the people they workwith and the context within which they work. This requires some measure ofresearch skill, and a willingness to value, almost for its own sake, the‘spirit ofenquiry’ .11

In the final analysis no-one can guarantee certainty, and no method canensure perfect accuracy and error free decisions. But, although mistakes may stillbe made, decisions that are based on a relatively broad and detailed analysis are,one hopes, less likely to lead to really stupid mistakes.

References and bibliography

Adams, S. (1996) The Dilbert Principle. London: Boxtree.Asch, S. E. (1951) ‘Effects of group pressure upon modification and distortion of

judgements.’ In, H. Guetzkow (ed) Groups, Leadership and Men.Pittsburgh: Carnegie.

Asch, S. E. (1958) ‘ Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortionof judgements.’ In, E. E. Maccoby & E. L. Hartley (eds) Readings in SocialPsychology, 3e. London: Methuen.

Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Baker, N. (1996) Building a Relational Society. Ashgate Publishing.Bales, R. F. (1958) ‘Adaptive and integrative changes as sources of strain in social

systems’. In, A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, and R. F. Bales (eds) SmallGroups: Studies in social interaction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Blackwell, T. & Seabrook, J. (1993) The Revolt Against Change. London:Vintage.

Burnstein, E. (1969)’Interdependence in groups’. In, J. Mills (ed.) ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 307 - 406. London: Collier Macmillan.

Burrell, G. (1997) Pandemonium. London: Sage.Burrell, G. & Hearn, J. (1989) ‘The sexuality of organization’. In, J. Hearn, D. L.


Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff, & G. Burrell (eds.) Sexuality ofOrganization, 1 - 28. London: Sage.

Cadbury, D. (1997) The Feminization of Nature: Our future at risk.Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Card, O. S. (1986) Speaker for the Dead. London: Legend (Random House).Cleary, T. (1993), trans. The Book of Five Rings. Boston & London: Shambhala.Cleary, T. (1996) trans. The Lost Art of War: Sun Tzu II. New York:

HarperSanFrancisco.Cohen, J. & Stewart, I. (1994) The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering simplicity in a

complex world. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Coulson, A. (1997) ‘Trust and contract in public service management’. School of

Public Policy Occasional Paper No. 10. Birmingham: University ofBirmingham.

Coulson, A. (1998) ed., Trust and Contracts: Relationships in local government,health and public services. Bristol: Policy Press.

Damasio, A. R. (1994) ‘Descartes’ error and the future of human life’. ScientificAmerican, October, 116.

Damasio, A. R. (1995) Descarte’s Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain.London: Macmillan.

Dean, W., & Morgenthaler, J. (1991) Smart Drugs and Nutrients: How to improveyour memory and increase your intelligence using the latest discoveries inneuroscience. New York: B & J Publishing.

Deutsch, M. (1968) ‘The effects of co-operation and competition upon groupprocess’. In, D. Cartwright & A. Zander (eds.) Group Dynamics: Researchand Theory, 3e. London: Tavistock.

Ereira, A. (1981) The Invergordon Mutiny. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Feng, G-F., & English, J. (1973) trans., Lao Tsu: The Tao Te Ching. London:

Wildwood House.Gambetta, D. (1988) ed., Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Gibb, C. A. (1969a) ed., Leadership. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Gibb, C. A. (1969b) ‘Leadership’. In, G. Lindzey & E, Aronson (eds.) Handbook

of Social Psychology, 2e, vol. 4, 205 - 282. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Gleik, J. (1987) Chaos: Making a new science. London: Cardinal.Griffith, S. B. (1963) trans., Sun Tzu: The Art of War. London: Oxford University

Press.Haack, S. (1978) Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Handy, C. (1985) Understanding Organizations. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Honderich, T. (1995) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: The Oxford

University Press.Howard, M. & Paret, P. (1993) ed., & trans., Carl von Clausewitz: On War.

London: Everyman (David Campbell Publishers).Hussey, E. (1982) ‘Epistemology and meaning in Heraclitus’. In, M. Schofield &

M. Nussbaum (eds) Language and Logics: Studies in Ancient GreekPhilosophy presented to G. E. L. Owen. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kahn, C. H. (1979) The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. Cambridge: Cambridge


University Press.Keegan, J. (1993) A History of Warfare. London: Hutchinson.Kirk, G. S. (1962) Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Koontz, H. & O’Donnell, C. (1955) Principles of Management. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Kramer, R. M. & Tyler, T. R. (1996) eds., Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of

Theory and Research. London: Sage.Le Guin, U. (1997) ed., & trans., Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching - A book about the Way

and the Power of the Way. Boston & London: Shambhala.Lindblom, C. E. (1959) ‘The science of muddling through’. Public Administration

Review, 19, 78 - 88.Mangham, I. L. (1979) The Politics of Organisational Change. London:

Associated Business Press.Mangham, I. L. (1985) Power and Performance in Organisations. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: An experimental view. New York:

Harper Colophon.Misztal, B. (1996) Trust in Modern Societies. London: Polity Press.Moore, M. (1997) Downsize This! London: Boxtree.Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organization. London: Sage.Nagel, E., & Newman, J. R. (1958) Gödel’s Proof. New York: New York

University Press. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Nemeroff, C. B. (1998) “The neurobiology of depression”. Scientific American,

June, 28 - 35.Newall, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs,

N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Nowak, M. A., May, R. M. & Sigmund, K. (1995) ‘The arithmetics of mutual

help’. Scientific American, June, 50 - 55.Pelton, R. (1988) Mind Foods and Smart Pills. San Francisco: Newton Books.Peters, T. (1992) Liberation Management. London: Macmillan.Poundstone, W. (1985) The Recursive Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rapoport, A. (1968) ed., Clausewitz: On War. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Rushkoff, D. (1994) Cyberia. London: Flamingo.Schaef, A. W., & Fassel, D. (1988) The Addictive Organisation. New York:

Harper & Row.Selbourne, D. (1994) The Principle of Duty. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1997) Intellectual Impostures. London: Profile Books.Speake, J. (1979) ed., A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan.Stewart, I. (1990) Does God Play Dice?: The new mathematics of chaos.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Stewart, I. & Golubitsky, M. (1992) Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Thompson, P. & McHugh, D. (1991) Work Organisation: A critical introduction.

London: Macmillan.Toffler, A. (1971) Future Shock. London: Pan.Toffler, A. (1976) The Third Wave. London: Pan.Toffler, A. (1983) Power Shift. London: Pan.


Waddington, C. H. (1977) Tools for Thought. St. Albans: Paladin.Wilson, D. & Rosenfeld, R. (1990) Managing Organizations: Text, Readings and

Cases. London: McGraw-Hill.Wing, R. L. (1988) trans., The Art of Strategy. London: Thorson’s.Wood, N. (1965) ed., Niccolò Machiavelli: The Art of War. New York: Da Capo

Press.Wu, J. C. H. (1990) trans., Lao Tzu: Tao The Ching. Boston & London:

Shambhala.


Workshop Aims

� To provide participants with a body of knowledge relating to organisationsand their management, giving a historical and developmental view to theway organisations are viewed, and some indication of how ideas becomerecycled over time.

� To give the basis for, and help develop, a critical awareness of issuessurrounding organisations and their management.

� To show how different topics and themes relating to organisations areinterrelated, and thus provide some basis for understanding the complexityof organisational issues.

� To highlight the contingent nature of knowledge about the social world,emphasising how assumptions about the world, and people in particular,directly effect the ways in which organisations are managed.

� To use this information and knowledge to underline the ideological natureof management theories, and encourage students to develop their owncritiques.

� To enable participants to understand some important aspects of organisingprocesses.

� To provide participants with some basis of understanding for working intheir own organisations when they leave the workshop.

Workshop Objectives

As a result of attending this workshop, students should:

� Have a clear understanding of the development of organisation andmanagement theory over time.

� Be able to outline the main theories and approaches to organisations andassess them critically.

� Have a clear understanding of, and be able to outline, some of the mainproblems which characterise organisations.

� Be able to develop reasoned, critical, and, so far as is possible, originalarguments on organisational and management issues.


� Appreciate the complexity of organisational issues, but be able to developreasoned and coherent accounts of organisational problems.

� Understand the importance of organisational processes for criticallyassessing rational models of organisation.


Reading Lists

Reading lists often cause anxiety and confusion among students, especiallywhen they’re long. As it is often pointed out, time is limited, and no-one hastime to read everything, so, some explanation is in order. You are not expectedto read everything on these lists. They are provided as a resource and to offersome guidance. Like most subjects, the literatures on organisations and relatedareas are vast, complex and confusing, and to try and get some purchase onthem without any advice is difficult and bewildering. These lists are thereforeintended to help you to navigate the area; don't think of them as an outline ofall the texts and papers that you must read. To try and tackle everything herewould take several years. Instead, use them aid to your studies, to give someelement of guidance to areas that it would be fruitful to explore if you have theneed and inclination.

Core TextsThis workshop has been constructed around two core texts, within which youwill find most of the arguments and themes addressed during the teachingperiods. It would be in your interests to have access to both these books on aregular basis. If you can’t afford to buy your own, then consider a jointpurchase with other participants.

David Wilson & Robert Rosenfeld (1990) Managing Organizations: Text,Readings and Cases. London: McGraw-Hill.This book covers the main themes and references to general organisation theory. It is broadrather than deep, and provides short summaries of the topics which comprise the core ofOB and HRM as academic disciplines. It is most useful for getting a quick overview of asubject, and for supplementing what can be derived from lectures. It is also a useful sourceof references to be followed up on a given topic. It also has the undoubted advantage, fromour point of view, of taking a substantially European view point, and therefore goes someway towards redressing the, sometimes inappropriate, emphasis on the Americanexperience of organisations generally found in OB texts. It is not, however, appropriate forpursuing a subject in depth, for which further reading will definitely be necessary.

Gareth Morgan (1997) Images of Organization. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.Morgan is a respected writers on organisations on both sides of the Atlantic, although hisreputation really rests (deservedly) on this one book. This text, while being theoreticallysophisticated, is written in an accessible style, and covers one of the most usefulapproaches to organisational analysis. As with Wilson & Rosenfeld, this book covers mostof the main themes and references used in the workshop. The difference is that Morganconcentrates on depth, rather than breadth, and provides detailed and consideredexpositions of his themes, integrated through his own model of organisational metaphors.The real beauty of this book is that it addresses its subject matter in a way that makes itrelevant for both theoreticians and practitioners, thus making it the ideal text for thisworkshop.


Supplementary TextsThese are texts which cover some of the main themes addressed in theworkshop, or those which, while being general, give a slightly different view ofsome themes. These are recommended as further reading especially when (ifappropriate) preparing for essays, especially in the early stages.

Charles Handy (1985) Understanding Organizations. Harmondsworth:Penguin.This is a perennial, and venerable, text which has the undoubted advantage of being bothcheap and accessible. Its strength is breadth, plus Handy's explicit attempt to integrate thematerial (unlike most texts which simply present a recipe list). It does have disadvantages,however. First it is now looking rather dated and some of the material is old fashioned.Second, Handy sometimes gets himself into conceptual muddles, and readers are, therefore,advised to approach it carefully and critically. Nevertheless it is still a good all round textwhich covers most of the major themes in organisational analysis, and also provides someuseful references.

Paul Thompson & David McHugh (1990) Work Organisation: A criticalintroduction. London: Macmillan.This is a more up to date text than Handy, with a new edition published relatively recently.In some ways it would have made a good core text for the workshop, and would have beenselected had it been fully accessible to complete beginners. But it makes some assumptionsabout prior knowledge, and is, therefore better placed as a supplementary to the main texts.Its main advantage lies in the contemporary critiques it presents of some of the major, andmost influential, theories of organisations, including Tom Peter's so-called Excellenceapproach. It is also unusual in Organisational texts in that it draws substantially from theIndustrial Relations literatures. Its detailed and sustained use of the political model oforganising makes it an excellent text for anyone wanting to study the topics oforganisational politics and power in depth.

Robert Lee & Peter Lawrence (1991) Politics at Work. Cheltenham: StanleyThornes.This is a revised edition of the authors' earlier text Organisational Behaviour: Politics atWork. It was the earliest systematic study of the 'Political Model', although in places it israther Machiavellian, and occasionally addresses organisational politics and power simplyas managerial tools for manipulation and control. Despite this blemish, the text marks theemergence of a distinctively European perspective on organisations which is critical of therational-scientific approaches of North American theory. It is also one of the earliestsustained examinations of organisational politics as something more than mere‘politicking’, and therefore provides essential material for understanding the issuesinvolved.

Dian-Marie Hosking & Ian Morley (1991) A Social Psychology ofOrganising. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.This text also focuses on European trends in organisational thought, especially thoseaspects drawn from social psychology. Specifically it is an elaboration of the PoliticalMetaphor, and presents a systematic and thorough discussion of the main themes of OBand HRM from that perspective. It is, however, rather hard going, and readers are advisedthat they will have to concentrate to use this text. Nevertheless, what this book has to say isvery important for a thorough understanding of organisations and organisational dynamics.


Extended Reading List.The following texts contain material which can help to extend the overallanalysis of organizations, particularly the political model. They all havesomething of relevant interest, including elements of the philosophicalbackground of much of the organizational literature, and from which much ofthe current thinking comes, albeit often obliquely. In addition there are alsotexts which are related to specific themes or topics which you can use for yourassignments (if appropriate).

Many of these readings appear as brief references in the guided readingssection below, but not all of them. It would therefore be a useful exercise foryou to browse this list from time to time for useful titles.

Abrahamson, A. (1993) The Logic of Organisations. London: Sage.Abrahamson, B. (1977) Bureaucracy as a Paradigm. London: Sage.Adams, A. (1992) Bullying at Work: How to confront and overcome it. London:

Virago Press.An interesting, although journalistic, account of an important problem. Thisbook stimulated several pieces of research, and a new field, which was longoverdue given the stridency of the culture merchants rhetoric about‘management’s right to manage’ - the right to do what they liked.

Adams, S. (1996) The Dilbert Principle. London: Boxtree.Not one of the most scholarly critiques of organisational life, but it makes some veryimportant points nevertheless. Read it for pleasure rather than information - it won’tprovide you with much help writing essays, but it will make you laugh!

Anthony, P. D. (1994) Managing Culture. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Aronson, E. (1988) The Social Animal. New York: Freeman.

This is a standard text on social psychology which is regularly updated in neweditions. The importance of this text for the workshop is that it focusses a lot ofattention on issues of influence between people, and covers basic theoreticaland empirical work in the area. Much of this is very important fororganisational analysis, although it is not very well covered in the mainstreamOB literatures.

Armstrong, M. (1996) A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice.London: Kogan Page.

Arrighi, B. A. (2001) ed., Understanding Inequality. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962) “The two faces of power”. American Political

Science Review, 56, 947 - 952.Bacharach, S. B. & E. J. Lawler (1980) Power and Politics in Organisations. Jossey

Bass.Bales, R. F. (1958) “Adaptive and integrative changes as sources of strain in social

systems”. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, & R. F. Bales, eds., Small Groups:Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Bannister, D. & Fransella, F. (1986) Inquiring Man: The Psychology of PersonalConstructs. London: Croom Helm.

Barclay, H. (1982) People Without Government. London & Over-the-Water, Orkney:Kahn & Averill and Cienfuegos Press.

An important corrective to the dominant models which take hierarchy and stratificationas necessary and inevitable features of social and political life. Although Barclay is notnaive enough to suggest that status differentiation is simply an artifact of entrenchedinterests, he does provide some interesting and useful arguments for suspecting that they


might not be as inevitable as is sometimes suggested.

Baron, P. A. (1983) Behaviour in Organisations. London: Allyn & Bacon.Barnard, C. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.Bass, B. M. (1981) Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

One for the dedicated leadership researcher, although less useful for the general reader.Stogdill’s text, and Bass’s update, is the primary source on leadership, providing themost extensive list of references on the topic, and some very good commentary as well.

Bateson, G. (1979) Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. London: Fontana.This is an extremely important text for anyone who wants to understand the issuesunderlying our attempts to make sense of the social and political world. It emphasisesthe point that of our categories for understanding are fundamentally arbitrary, in thesense that we could choose a different way of classifying the phenomena we areexamining (and perhaps get different answers), while also emphasising the point that itis, nevertheless, essential to categorise in order to say anything sensible about the worldat all. This book is usefully read in conjunction with Morgan (1997), and Zerubavel(1993), both of whom examine similar issues from slightly different angles. Theperspective they all elaborate develops a critical theme which will be developedthroughout the workshop.

Beetham, D. (1987) Bureaucracy. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Belbin, R. M. (2000) Beyond the Team. Oxford: Butterworth: Heinemann.Bennett, D. (1998) ed., Multicultural States. London: Routledge.Bennet, R. (1997) Organisational Behaviour. London: Pitman.Bennis, W. G. (1959) “Leadership theory and administrative behaviour: The problems

of authority”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259 - 301.Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1976) The Social Construction of Reality.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Bernard, L. L. (1927) “Leadership and Propaganda”. In J. Davis & H. E. Barnes, eds.,

An Introduction to Sociology. New York: Heath.Berry, A., et. al. (1995) Management Control: Theories, Issues and Practices.

London: Macmillan.Bies, R. J. & Tripp, T. M. (1996) ‘Beyond distrust: “Getting Even” and the need for

revenge’. In, R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations.London: Sage.

Birchell, J. (1997) The International Co-Operative Movement. Manchester:Manchester University Press.

Blau, P. M., & Meyer, M. W. (1987) Bureaucracy in Modern Society, 3e. New York:Random House.

Blauner, R. (1964) Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Boyne, G. A. (1998) “Public services under New Labour: Back to bureaucracy?”

Public Money and Management, 18, 3, Jul. - Sept.Braverman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capitalism. New York: Monthly

Review Press.Briggs, J. & F. D. Peat, (1990) The Turbulent Mirror: An illustrated guide to Chaos

Theory and the Science of Wholeness. New York: Harper & Row.Brown, D. (1997) Cybertrends: Chaos, power and accountability in the information

age. London: Viking.Brown, J. A. C. (1963) Techniques of Persuasion: From Propaganda to

Brainwashing. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Brown, M. & Hosking, D-M. (1984) “Distributed leadership and skilled performance

as successful organisation in social movements”. Human Relations, 39, 65 -79.


Bryman, A. (1986) Leadership and Organisations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Burchell, G., C. Gordon & P. Miller (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in

Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Butler, R. (1991) Designing Organizations: A Decision-Making Perspective. London:

Routledge.Butler, R. J., & D. Wilson (1990) Managing Voluntary and Non-Profit Organizations.

London: Routledge.Callinicos, A. (1989) Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. Cambridge: Polity.Campbell, J. & Pritchard, R. (1983) ‘Motivational theory in industrial and

organisational psychology’. In, Dunnette, M. (ed) Handbook ofOrganisational Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

Cartwright, D. (1959) “A field theoretical concept of power”. In D. Cartwright, ed.,Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968) “Leadership: An introduction”. In, D. Cartwright& A. Zander, eds., Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 3e. London:Tavistock.

Cacti, J. L. (1991) Searching for Certainty: What can science know about the future?London: Abacus.

Chambers, G., & C. Horton (1990) Promoting Sex Equality. London: Policy StudiesInstitute.

Chapman, A. J., & Jones, D. M. (1980) Models of Man. Leicester: The BritishPsychological Society.

Chell, E. (1987) The Psychology of Behaviour in Organisations. London: Macmillan.Child, J. (1984) Organisation. London: Harper & Row.Chmiel, N (2000) ed., Introduction to Work and Organisational Psychology: A

European Perspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Churchman, D. (1995) Negotiation, Process, Tactics, Theory, 2e. Lanham: UPA.Clegg, C., et al., (1985) Case Studies in Organizational Behaviour. London: Harper &

Row.Clegg, S. (1990) Modern Organisations. London: Sage.Clement, P., & Spinks, T. (2000) The Equal Opportunities Handbook: How to deal

with everyday issues of fairness. London: Kogan Page.Clinard, M. B. (1990) Corporate Corruption: The abuse of power. New York:

Praeger.Clinard is a law professor who has made his reputation examining ethicalissues surrounding organisations and their activities. He concentrates on theprivate sector, and mainly American examples, but the issues he raises arerelevant to organisations in all sectors. This book is a useful corrective totreatments of organisations that ignore their social and political impact on theenvironment and society at large. It is usefully read in conjunction with Punch(1997), Punchard (1989) and Moore (1997), as well as texts covering issues ofpower and politics.

Cockerton, P. & A. Whyatt (1986) The Workers' Co-operative Handbook. London:ICOM.

Code, L. (1995) Rhetorical Spaces: Essays on gendered locations. London & NewYork: Routledge.

Codol, J-P. (1984) ‘Social differentiation and non-differentiation.’ In, Tajfel, H. (ed.),European Studies in Social Psychology: The Social Dimension, volume 1, 314- 337. Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de laMaison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Cohen, J., & Stewart, I. (1995) The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a


Complex World. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Cohen, S. & L. Taylor (1992) Escape Attempts: The theory and practice of resistance

to everyday life, 2e. London: Routledge.Much of the organisational and (especially) management literature treats theworkforce either as fundamentally passive, or, in some of the wilder flights offantasy, as being happy to be exploited. Most of this derives from a more orless exclusive focus on organisations and management projects, resulting in theimplicit (and ideological) characterisation of the workforce merely as a‘resource’ for the organisation’s use. As a result management theory oftenflounders in the face of real people behaving like real people. This book coverssome of the latter ground. It is interesting in its own right as an essay on theways in which people try to maintain some attachment to, and control of, theirown lives. When used in conjunction with a critical approach to organisationsthe implications of this study are quite dramatic. This is usefully read as anadjunct to studies of organisational politics. It is also interesting if you areinterested in questions of human motivation - you will never look at Maslowthe same way again.

Cole, G. (1995) Organisational Behaviour. London: DP Publications.Colwill, N. L. (1982) The New Partnership: Women and men in organisations.

Palo Alto: Mayfield.Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1988) Charismatic Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.Copeman, G. (1975) Employee Share Ownership and Industrial Stability. London:

Institute of Personnel Management.Corbett, J. M. (1994), ed., Critical Cases in Organisational Behaviour. London:

Macmillan.This is a collection of case studies designed to stimulate critical thinking aboutorganisations and how they are run. You might find some useful cases forassignments here, but also there are some very good references andcommentaries. Martin Corbett is a specialist in the problems associated withtechnology.

Cottingham, J. (1984) Rationalism. London: Paladin.Much of so-called critical organisational theory targets ‘rationalism’ and‘rationalistic models’. It is not always clear what this is supposed to mean. Ifyou want to explore the critique you will need to have some grounding in theterminology itself, and this book can help you. Note, however, that the book iswritten from a philosophical standpoint, and much of the content, therefore,addresses specifically philosophical questions. It is, nevertheless, veryinteresting.

Coulson, A. (1998) ed. Trust and Contracts: Relationships in local government,health and public services. Bristol: Policy Press.

This is a new text on an important topic. The scope of the book is broader thanthis workshop, covering, inter alia, formal contractual relations and regulation.Nevertheless, there is also much of relevance here as well, and you can get afrisson of pleasure from the knowledge that you have rubbed shoulders withsome of the authors. There’s also a cracking chapter on leadership from page95!

Coveney, P., & Highfield, R. (1995) Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Orderin a Chaotic World. London: Faber & Faber.

Crainer, S. (2000) The Management Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Cross, M., Brar, H. & Mcleod, M. (1991) Racial Equality and the Local State: An

evaluation of policy implementation in the London Borough of Brent. ESRCMonographs in Ethnic Relations no. 1. Coventry: CRER, University ofWarwick.

Crozier, M. (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: TavistockThis is a classic text on bureaucracy, and one well worth exploring for that reason.


Daft, R. L. (1995) Understanding Management. London: Dryden Press.Daft, R. & Steers, R. (1986) Organisations: A micro/macro approach. London: Scott

Foresman.Dale, E. (1970), ed. Readings in Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Damasio, A. R. (1994) “Descarte’s Error and the Future of Human Life”. Scientific

American, October, 116.Damasio, A. R. (1995) Descarte’s Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain.

London: Macmillan.Davidson, M. J., & C. L. Cooper (1992) Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Woman

Manager. London: Paul Chapman.Dawson, S. (1992) Analysing Organisations. Hong Kong: Macmillan.Denzin, N. K. & Y. S. Lincoln (1994) eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.Deschamps, J-C. (1984) ‘The social psychology of intergroup relations and

categorical differentiation.’ In, Tajfel, H. (ed.), European Studies in SocialPsychology: The Social Dimension, volume 2, 541 - 559. Cambridge & Paris:Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences del’Homme.

Dixon, N. F. (1979) On the Psychology of Military Incompetence. London: Futura.This is not an anti-military tract, but an examination of the ways in whichorganisational dynamics, processes and structures can subvert the effectiverunning of organisations - in this case military organisations. It has some veryimportant points to make, many of which are reiterated in a broader context inDixon (1987). Some of it is a bit Freudian for my taste, but the overall thrust ofthe book is extremely important.

Dixon, N. F. (1987) Our Own Worst Enemy. London: Futura.Dolgoff, S. (1971) Bakunin on Anarchy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Donaldson, L. (1985) In Defence of Organisational Theory. Cambridge: Economic

and Social Research Council.Downs, A. (1967) Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown.Dubin, R. (1961) Human Relations in Administration. London: Prentice-Hall.Dubrin, A. (1984) Foundations of Organizational Behaviour. London: Prentice-Hall.Duncan, B. (1976) Invergordon: How men of the RN struck and won. Southampton:

Duncan.Easthope, A. (1991) British Post-Structuralism Since 1968. London: Routledge.

If you want to know what some of the fuss is about concerning Postmodernism,try reading this. You will also need to look at some Foucault, and, for aconsidered counterblast also have a look at Callinicos (1989), and parts ofSokal & Bricmont (1998).

Edwards, J. (1995) When Race Counts: The morality of racial preference in Britainand America. New York: Routledge.

Eilon, S. (1977) Aspects of Management. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Eiser, J. R. & van der Pligt, J. (1988) Attitudes and Decisions. London & New York:

Routledge.Eisler, R. (1988) The Chalice and the Blade. San Francisco, Ca.: Harper Collins.Emerson, R. M. (1962) "Power-dependence relations", American Sociological

Review, 27, 31 - 41Ereira, A. (1981) The Invergordon Mutiny. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Great study of an important mutiny. This book gives some splendid first handmaterial about why the mutiny happened, how the sailors regarded theirofficers and how the mutiny was eventually settled. This is useful material ifyou want to examine issues of leadership, power and politics in organisations.

Etzioni, A. (1961) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisations. New York:


Free Press.Eyerman, R., & A. Jamison (1991) Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach.

Cambridge: Polity Press.Fayol, H. (1949) General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.Fayol, H. (1984) General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.Feynman, R. P. (1965) The Character of Physical Law. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Feynman, R. P. (1995) Six Easy Pieces: The fundamentals of physics explained.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Fiedler, F. E. (1964) “A contingency model of leadership effectiveness”. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149 - 190.Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Fiedler, F. E. (1978) “Recent developments in research on the contingency model”. In

L. Berkowitz, ed., Group Processes, 209 - 225. New York: McGraw-Hill.Fincham, R. & Rhodes, P. S. (1988) The Individual, Work and Organisation. London:

Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1987) Getting to Yes. London: Arrow.Flynn, N. (1993) Public Sector Management. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester

Wheatsheaf.Fort, C. (1974) The Complete Books of Charles Fort. New York: Dover.

This is not an organisational text, but it is important for its approach toknowledge and knowledge making. Fort was at one time unfairly called ‘theArch Enemy of Science’ because of his unremitting application of scepticismto matters of science and epistemology. In the context of this workshop Fort’swork has some application as an example of the difficulties encountered whenwe try to make sense of the complexity surrounding us. Those of you with anexotic twist to your nature will enjoy the topics treated by Fort - falls of strangeobjects, UFOs, spontaneous human combustion, etc. You might also beinterested to see where Chris Carter gets his ideas for the X-Files. This book isa compendium of the books of Charles Fort (The Book of the Damned, NewLands, Lo!, Wild Talents) which have also recently been reissued by JohnBrown Publishing.

Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Fraser, C., & Foster, D. (1984) ‘ Social groups, nonsense groups and group

polarization.’ In, Tajfel, H. (ed.), European Studies in Social Psychology: TheSocial Dimension, volume 2, 473 - 497. Cambridge & Paris: CambridgeUniversity Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Freeman, J. (1970) The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Hull: Anarchist WorkersAssociation.

French, J. R. P. (1956) “A formal theory of social power”. Psychological Review, 63,181 - 194.

French, J. R. P. & B. Raven (1959) "The bases of social power"." In D. Cartwright(ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan

French, W. L., & C. H. Bell Organization Development: Behavioural ScienceInterventions for Organizational Improvement, 4e. Englewood Cliffs, Ca.:Simon & Shuster.

Frese, M. (2000) ‘The changing nature of work’. In, N. Chmiel (ed) Introduction toWork and Organisational Psychology: A European Perspective. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.

Fricker, M. (1998) “Rational authority and social power: Towards a truly socialepistemology”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, XCVIII,2, 159 - 177.

Friedman, A. L. (1977) Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly


Capitalism. London: Macmillan.Gauld, A., & Shotter, J. (1977) Human Action and its Psychological Investigation.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Gemmill, G. & Oakley, J. (1992) “Leadership: An alienating social myth”. Human

Relations, 45, 2, 113 - 127.Gibb, C. A. (1954) ‘Leadership’. In, G. Lindzey, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology.

Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Gibb, C. A. (1958) ‘An interactional view of the emergence of leadership’. In, C. A.

Gibb (1969), ed., Leadership. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Gibb, C. A. (1969) Leadership. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Gibson, W. (1993) Neuromancer. London: HarperCollins.

Science fiction dystopia about the future and how it may be shaped by informationtechnology. Written by the man who coined the term ‘Cyberspace’. Although fictional(and a cracking good read) this book is a useful corrective to some of the triumphalismsurrounding technology. Read it in conjunction with Toffler (1971; 1981; 1991), Zerzan& Carnes (1988) and Zuboff (1989).

Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way. London: Polity Press.Gilbreth, F. B. (1911) Motion Study. New York: Van Nostrand.Gleik, J. (1987) Chaos. London: Cardinal.Goffman, I. (1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth:

Penguin.Gold, B. A. (1994) Exploring Organisational Behaviour. Orlando, Fa.: Dryden Press.Gordon, J. (1987) Organisational Behaviour: A diagnostic approach. New York:

Allyn & Bacon.Gould, S. J. (1988) Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and metaphor in the discovery

of geological time. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Graumann, C. F., & Moscovici, S. (1986) eds., Changing Conceptions of Leadership.

New York: Springer-Verlag.Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (1996) Metaphor and Organisations. London: Sage.Greenley, G. (1989) Strategic Management. London: Prentice-Hall.Grint, K. (1997) Leadership: Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Grint, K. (2000) The Arts of Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gullick, & Urwick, L. (1937) Papers on the Science of Administration. London:

Institute of Public Administration.Hafner, K. & Markoff, J. (1993) Cyberpunk. London: Corgi.Hales, C. (1993) Managing Through Organisations. London: Routledge.Hall, N. (1992), ed., The New Scientist Guide to Chaos. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Hall, R. H. (1991) Organisational Structures: Processes and Outcomes. London:

Prentice-Hall.Handy, C. (1988) Understanding Voluntary Organizations. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

This text can usefully be read in conjunction with Butler & Wilson (1990) Handy, C. (1985) The Future of Work. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Handy, C. (1990) The Age of Unreason. London: Arrow.Handy, C. (1994) The Empty Raincoat. London: Arrow.Hare, A. P. (1976) Handbook of Small Group Research, 2e. New York: Free Press.Harrison, M. I. (1987) Diagnosing Organisations: Methods, Models, Processes.

London: Sage.Hatch, M. J. (1997) Organisation Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Heery, E. & Salmon, J. (2000) eds., The Insecure Workforce. London: Routledge.Hemphill, J. K. (1949) Situational Factors in Leadership. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio


State University.Henry, J. (1991) Creative Management. London: Sage.Herzberg, F. (1968) Work and the Nature of Man. London: Staples Press.Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. (1959) The Motivation to Work. London:

Wiley.Herzog, D. (1989) Happy Slaves: A critique of Consent Theory. Chicago & London:

University of Chicago Press.Hewitt, J. P. (1984) Self and Society, 3rd edition. Allyn & BaconHickson, D. J., C. R. Hinings, C. A. Lee, R. E. Schneck, & J. M. Pennings (1971) "A

strategic contingencies theory of intraorganisational power". AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 16, 216 - 229.

Hill, M. (1997) The Policy Process in the Modern State. London: Prentice-Hall.Hinings, C. R., D. J. Hickson, J. M. Pennings, R. E. Schneck (1974) "Structural

conditions of intraorganisational power", Administrative Science Quarterly,19: 22-44

Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organisations: Intercultural cooperation and itsimportance for survival. London: HarperCollins.

Hollander, E. P. (1958) Conformity, status and idiosyncrasy credit”. PsychologicalReview, 65, 117 - 127.

Hollander, E. P. (1964) Leaders, Groups and Influence. New York & London: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. (1955) “Leadership, followership, and friendship:An analysis of peer nominations”. In E., E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley, eds., Readings in Social Psychology, 3e. London: Methuen.

Holloway, W. (1991) Work Psychology and Organisational Behaviour. London:Sage.

Hoxie, R. (1915) Scientific Management and Labour. New York: Appleton.Hughes, O. (1998) Public Sector Management and Administration. London:

Macmillan.Hunt, J., & Palmer, S. (1999) Further Guidance for Local Authorities on the Stephen

Lawrence Enquiry. London: Local Government Association.Hunt, J. G. (1991) Leadership: A new synthesis. London: Sage.Hunt, J. H. (1979) Managing People at Work. London: Pan.Jackson, S., Koke, J., Pearcy, D., & Hartsock, A. (1994) eds., Principia Discordia. Or

How I Found Goddess, and What I Did to Her When I Found Her: Wherein isexplained absolutely everything worth knowing about absolutely anything.Austin, TX.: Steve Jackson Games.

Don’t expect a standard organisational studies text here - or even a standardwork of scholarship. This one’s just for interest, although if you are in any wayfascinated by the balance and tension between order and chaos this book does,ironically given its intention, contain some interesting stuff.

Jacques, E. (1976) A General Theory of Bureaucracy. London: Heinemann.Jacques, E. (1993) A General Theory of Bureaucracy. Aldershot: Ashgate.Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977) Decision Making. New York: Free Press.Jewson, N., & Mason, D. (1994) ‘The theory and practice of equal opportunities

policies: Liberal and radical.’ Sociological Review, 34, 307 - 334.Johnson, P., & Gill, J. (1993) Management Control and Organisational Behaviour.

London: Paul Chapman.Johnson, R., & Redmond, D. (2000) Diversity Incorporated: Managing People for

Success in a Diverse World. London: Financial Times, Prentice-Hall.Jones, G. R. (1998) Organisational Theory: Text and Cases, 2e. New York: Addison-


Wesley.Kakabadse, A. & Parker, C. (1984) Power Politics and Organisations. Bath: Pitman.Kandola, R., & Fullerton, J. (1998) Diversity in Action: Managing the Mosaic.

London: CIPD.Katzell, R. A. & Thompson, D. E. (1990) ‘Work motivation: Theory and Practice’,

American Psychologist, 45 (2) 144 - 153.Kellerman, B. (1984) Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives. London: Prentice-

Hall.Kelly, R-M. (1991) The Gendered Economy. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.Kipnis, D (1996) ‘Trust and technology’. In, R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust

in Organizations. London: Sage.Kipnis, D., Castell, P., Gergen, M., & Mauch, D. (1976) “Metamorphic effects of

power”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, Kipnis, D., S. Schmidt, I. Wilkinson (1980) "Interorganisational influence tactics:

explorations in getting one's way". Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 440-452.

Kirton, G., & Greene, A-M., (2000) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A CriticalApproach. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Knippenburg, Ad F. M. (1984) ‘Intergroup differences in group perceptions.’ In,Tajfel, H. (ed.), European Studies in Social Psychology: The SocialDimension, volume 2, 560 - 578. Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge UniversityPress and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Korda, M. (1975) Power. London: Ballantine Books.Kramer, R. M. (1996) ‘Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the

hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work’. In, R. M. Kramer& T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations. London: Sage.

Kramer, R. M, & Tyler, T. R. (1996), eds., Trust in Organizations. London: Sage.Kropotkin, P. (1974), ed., C. Ward, Fields, Factories and Workshops. London:

George Allen & Unwin.Lathom, R. (1999) ‘Against all odds: Managing Diversity.’ In, Chmiel, N. (ed.),

Introduction to Work and Organisational Psychology. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.

Lawthom, R. (2000) ‘Against all odds: Managing diversity’. In, N. Chmiel (ed)Introduction to Work and Organisational Psychology: A EuropeanPerspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Leavitt, H. (1973) The Organisational World. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Leavitt, H., Dill, W. R., & Eyring, H. B. (1973) The Organisational World: A

systematic view of managers and management. New York: Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich.

Leavitt, H. J., Pondy, L. R., & Boje, D. M. (1989) eds., Readings in ManagerialPsychology (4e). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lee, R., & Lawrence, P. (1985) Organisational Behaviour: Politics at Work. London:Hutchinson.

Le Guin, U. (1975) The Dispossessed. London: Grafton.A wonderful science fiction novel addressing questions of hierarchy and power in anaccessible form. It’s also a good read. As with Gibson (1993) this book raises importantissues, albeit in a fictional context. In this case Le Guin examines issues of power anddependency, and some of her insights are actually quite profound.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996) ‘Developing and maintaining trust in workrelationships’. In, R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations.London: Sage.


Lewin, R. (1993) Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. London: Dent.Popular text presenting information about recent developments in themathematics of complexity. It is a reasonably straightforward account in non-technical language, laying out the main features of the area. This is useful andimportant material for issues of certainty and control in real world systems.Although this is not specifically geared towards organisational theory, much ofthe content of this book is highly suggestive for organisational analysis.

Levine, C. (1974) “Tyranny of tyranny”. Black Rose, 1.Liff, S. (1996) ‘Two routes to managing diversity: Individual differences or social

groups.’ Employee Relations, 19, 11 - 26.Locke, E. (1992) “The ideas of Frederick Taylor: An evaluation”. Academy of

ManagementReview,Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.

A well known (and very short) study of social power by a specialist in thesubject. Well worth looking at for most aspects of the workshop.

Lukes, S. (1986) ed., Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Luthans, F. (1989) Organisational Behaviour. London: McGraw-Hill.Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Enquiry, Command Paper 4262-1.

London: HMSO.Makin, P., Cooper, C., & Cox, C. (1989) Managing People at Work. Leicester: The

British Psychological Society and Macmillan.Mangham, I. L. (1979) The Politics of Organisational Change. Associated Business

Press.Mangham, I. L. (1985) Power and Performance in Organisations. Oxford: BlackwellMant, A. (1983) Leaders We Deserve. Oxford: Martin Robertson.March, J. & Simon, H. (1958) Organisation. New York: Wiley.March, J. & Simon, H. (1993) Organisations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.March, J., & Simon, H. (1971) “Dysfunctional bureaucracy”. In, D. Pugh, ed.,

Organisation Theory. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Marcouse, I. (1996) Understanding Industry. London: Hodder & Stoughton.McLean, I. (1987) Public Choice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Mechanic, D. (1962) "Sources of power of lower participants in complex

organisations". Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364Mellor, M., J. Hannah, J. Stirling (1988) Worker Co-operatives in Theory and

Practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Merton, R. K. (1969) “The social nature of leadership”. American Journal of Nursing,

69, 2614 - 2618.Merton, R. K. (1971) “Bureaucratic structure and personality”. Social Forces, 18, 560

- 568.Merton, R. K. (1971) “Bureaucratic structure and personality”. In, A. Etzioni, ed.,

Complex Organisations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996) ‘Swift trust and temporary

groups’. In, R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations.London: Sage.

Meyerson, D. E. & Fletcher, J. K. (2000) ‘A modest manifesto for shattering the glassceiling.’ Harvard Business Review, January - February.

Miller, D. (1984) Anarchism. London: Dent.Milner, D. (1984) ‘The development of ethnic attitudes.’ In, Tajfel, H. (ed.), European

Studies in Social Psychology: The Social Dimension, volume 1, 89 - 110.Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison


des Sciences de l’Homme.Mintzberg, H. (1983) Power in and around Organisations. Prentice-HallMoore, M. (1997) Downsize This! London: Boxtree.

Michael Moore is well known for his television productions, and his criticism of bigbusiness and its treatment of those who work for it. This book is an extended essayoutlining his criticisms and the reasons for his outrage. In some places it is a bit patchy,and some of the material is not directly relevant to the workshop, but there is sufficientwithin it to make it an important adjunct, and corrective, to those texts which blandlytalk about ‘restructuring’ or those which are frankly triumphalist about ‘downsizing’ (orwhatever the current euphemism is for sacking people). This book has some significantmaterial in it for advancing the political analysis of organisations. Written by someonewho has no need (or desire) to flatter management, this book provides a lot ofillumination on the reactions of the powerless to the power of organisations.

Moorehead, G., & Griffin, R. (1992) Organisational Behaviour. Boston, Ma.:Houghton-Mifflin.

Moorehead, G., & Griffin, R. (1995) Organisational Behaviour: Managing Peopleand Organisations. Boston, Ma.: Houghton-Mifflin.

Mohrman, A. M., et al., (1989) Large Scale Organizational Change. London: Jossey-Bass.

Boring but useful. This book consists of a series of separate essays eachdealing with a different aspect of organizational change. You should be aware,however, that the chapters are only loosely integrated, and there is considerabledisagreement amongst the authors on key aspects and issues.

Morgan, S. (2003) Equality and Diversity in Local Government in England: Aliterature review. London: ODPM.

Morley, I. E., & Stephemson, G. (1977) The Social Psychology of Bargaining.London: George Allen & Unwin.

Mowday, R. T. (1978) "The exercise of upward influence in organisations".Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 137-156

Mowday, R. T. (1987) ‘Equity theory: Predications of behaviour in organisations’. In,Steers, R. & Porter, L. (eds) Motivation and Work Behaviour. London:McGraw-Hill.

Mulholland, J. (1991) The Language of Negotiation. London: Routledge.Mullins, L. J. (1999) Management and Organisational Behaviour, 5e. London:

Pearson Education.Neale, J. (1985) The Cutlass and the Lash: Mutiny and discipline in Nelson's Navy.

London and Sidney: Pluto Press.Nelson, D. (1980) Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management.

Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.Newall, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:

Prentice-Hall.Newman, J. (1978) Management Applications of Decision Theory. New York: Harper

& Row.Nicholson, J. (1984) Men and Women: How different are they? Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Nolan, J., Wichert, I., & Burchell, B. (2000) ‘Job insecurity, psychological well-being

and family life’. In, Heery, E. & Salmon, J. (eds) The Insecure Workforce.London: Routledge.

Northouse, P. (1997) Leadership. London: Sage.Osborne, D. & T. Gaebler (1993) Reinventing Government. New York: Plume.

Private sector version of In Search of Excellence. The book is complete junk,but influential nevertheless, not least with Bill Clinton and our own esteemedgovernment.


Packard, V. (1978) The People Shapers. London: Futura.Packard, V. (1981) The Hidden Persuaders. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Packard’s books are now quite old, but what they say is still relevant. For somereason issues of influence within and between people has been neglected withinorganisational theory, certainly since the 1970s, and as a consequence there is akind of naivete running through some areas of the literature. Packard’sexamination of issues of power and influence fills some of the gaps, and can beusefully read in conjunction with more specialised texts such as Aronson(1988).

Parsons, W. (1997) Public Policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policyanalysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Patchen, M. (1974) "The locus and basis of influence on organisational decisions".Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 11, 192-221

Paton, R. (1978) “Some problems of cooperative organisation”. CooperativesResearch Monograph, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Paton, R. (1983) "Powers visible and invisible". In, R. Paton, S. Brown, R. Spear, J.Chapman, M. Floyd, & J. Hamwee (eds., 1984) Organisations: Cases, Issues,Concepts. London: Harper & Row and the Open University

This is a splendid examination of social power in the mould of French & Raven(1959). This is usefully read in conjunction with French & Raven’s originalstudy, and with Mowday (1978) and Mechanic (1962).

Peters, T. (1992) Liberation Management. London: Macmillan.A useful book for sources and information. Its moral stance, however, isdubious, and Peters' analysis is, as ever, superficial, platitudinous andpatronising. Since writing this Peters has moved on to other topics. Although Iam no fan of Peters, this book is usefully read in conjunction with Toffler(1971, 1981, 1991), as well as Zerzan & Carnes (1988), Zuboff (1989), andHandy (1985, 1990, 1994).

Pettigrew, A. (1973) The Politics of Management Decision Making. London:Tavistock.

Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in Organisations. London: PitmanPfeffer, J. (1981) Power in Organisations. New York: Harper Collins.Pfeffer, J. (1983) ‘The Ambiguity of Leadership’. In, J. Hackman et al., Perspectives

on Behaviour in Organisations. New York: McGraw-Hill.Pheysey D. C. (1993) Organisational Cultures: Types and Transformations. London:

Routledge.Plant, R. (1987) Managing Change and Making it Stick. London: Fontana.Prasad, P., & Mills, A. (1997) From Showcase to Shadow: Understanding the

Dilemmas of Managing Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.Prasad, P., Mills, A. S., Elmes, M., & Prasad, A. (1997), eds., Managing the

Organisational Melting Pot. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.Pratchett, T. (1989) Truckers. London: Corgi.Pratchett, T. (1990) Diggers. London: Corgi.Pratchett, T. (1990) Wings. London: Corgi.Pratchett, T. (1992) Lords and Ladies. London: Victor Gollancz.

Pratchett is not noted for his contribution to organisation theory, but like theother fiction authors included in this list he does, nevertheless, offer someintriguing and important insights. The three ‘nomes’ books (Truckers, Diggers,Wings) are actually an extended discussion of the difficulties of institutingchange, although Pratchett naturally didn’t write them for the instruction ofmanagers and would-be managers. Lords and Ladies is an interestingexamination of power - real and imagined - recapitulating some of the moreformal insights of French & Raven (1959) and Paton (1983).

Prigogine, I., & I. Stengers (1984) Order Out of Chaos. London: Fontana.Pugh, D. (1971) Organisation Theory. Harmondsworth: Penguin.


Extracts from some of the more influential organisation theorists. This book providesaccess to some of the work of the founders of modern management theory, in their ownwords, without having to do extensive library work. Reading an author’s own words canbe quite a surprise when compared to the commentaries offered in other text books.

Pugh, D. & Hickson, D. (1983) Writers on Organisations. Harmondsworth: Penguin.This provides potted summaries of some of the main (historical) organisation theorists,and is invaluable as a guide to further reading as well as a summary of the whole field.

Punch, M. (1997) Dirty Business: Exploring corporate misconduct. London: Sage.A relatively new book exploring aspects of organisations which, frankly, seldom appearin the mainstream texts. An important contribution to the political analysis oforganisations, which develops a theme likely to become much more important in thenear future - organisational ethics. This book is usefully read in conjunction with Clinard(1990).

Punchard, E. (1989) Piper Alpha: A Survivor's Story. London: Star.Quarter, J. & G. Melnyk (1989) Partners in Enterprise. Montreal: Black Rose.

A book about the operation of collectives and co-operatives. Useful as acorrective to the presumption that hierarchical organisations are somehowinescapably ‘natural’.

Quinn, R. (1984) Beyond Rational Management. New York: Jossey-Bass.Ribeaux, P., & Poppleton, S. (1983) Psychology and Work: An Introduction. London:

Macmillan.Richards, V. (1983) Why Work?. London: Freedom Press.Robinson, W. P. (1996) ed., Social Groups and Identities: Developing the legacy of

Henri Tajfel. Oxford: Butterwoth-Heinemann.Robson, M. (1995) Quality Circles. Hants.: Gower.Roetter, C. (1974) Psychological Warfare. London: Batsford.Rollinson, D., Broadfield, A., & Edwards, D. J. (1998) Organisational Behaviour

and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. New York & London: Addison-Wesley & Longman’s.

Ross, R., & Schneider, R. (1992) From Diversity to Equality: A Business Case forEqual Opportunities. London: Pitman.

Rothstein, A. (1980) The Soldiers' Strikes of 1919. London: Macmillan.Rowbottom, R., & Billis, D. (1987) Organisation Design. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Rushkoff, D. (1994) Cyberia. London: Flamingo.

Interesting piece by a journalist on the IT underground. Rushkoff covers issuessuch as smart drugs, hacking, techno-shamanism, and other exotica related tothe information revolution. He has some important insights into the future aswell, so this book is usefully read in conjunction with the work of Toffler,Zerzan & Carnes and Zuboff.

Salaman, G. (1979) Work Organisation, Resistance and Control. London: Longman.Salancik, G. R., & J. Pfeffer (1977) "Who gets the power - and how they hold on to it:

a strategic-contingency model of power", Organisational Dynamics, 5, 3-21Scarce, R. (1990) Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental

Movement. Chicago: Nobel Press.Schein, E. (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.Selznick, P. (1943) ‘An approach to a theory of organisation’. Sociological Review, 8,

47 - 54.Shackleton, V., & Wale, P. (2000) ‘Leadership and management’. In, N. Chmiel (ed)

Introduction to Work and Organisational Psychology: A EuropeanPerspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sheldrake, J. (1996) Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japanization. London:Thompson International Business Press.


Simon, H. (1977) The New Science of Management Decisions. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.

Simon, H. (1982) The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Sims, D., Fineman, S., & Gabriel, Y. (1994) Organising and Organisations. London:

Sage.Sitkin, S. B., & Stickel, D. (1996) ‘The road to hell: The dynamics of trust in an era of

quality’. In, R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations.London: Sage.

Sofer, C. (1972) Organisations in Theory and Practice. London: Heinemann.Sokal, A. & Bricmont, J. (1998) Intellectual Impostures. London: Profile Books.

Recent book addressing (attacking) the scientific borrowings of certain highprofile French postmodernist ‘philosophers’. If ever you were in any doubtabout the scholarly foundations of some of the more incomprehensible worksin social science, this book should help assuage those doubts. The book is alsointeresting for what it has to say about the foundations of scientific knowledge,and therefore contributes to the basis of this workshop.

Somerville, P., Steele, A., & Sodhi, D., (2002) ‘Black and minority ethnicemployment in housing organisations.’ In, Somerville, P., & Steele, A. (eds.),Race, Housing and Social Exclusion. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Smither, R. (1988) The Psychology of Work and Human Performance. New York:Harper & Row.

Spinelli, E. (1989) The Interpreted World: An introduction to PhenomenologicalPsychology. London: Sage.

Stagner, R. (1956) The Psychology of Industrial Conflict. London: Chapman & Hall.Starratt, R. (1993) The Drama of Leadership. London: Farmer Press.Steers, R. & Mowday, R. (1987) ‘Employee turnover in organisations’. In, Steers, R.

& Porter, L. (eds) Motivation and Work Behaviour. London: McGraw-Hill.Steers, R. & Porter, L. (1987), eds., Motivation and Work Behaviour. London:

McGraw-Hill.Stewart, I. (1990) Does God Play Dice?: The New Mathematics of Chaos.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Stewart, I., & Golubitsky, M. (1992) Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Stogdill, R. M. (1950) “Leadership, membership and organization”. Psychological

Bulletin, 47, 1 - 14.Stogdill, R. M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: A survey of research and theory.

New York: Free Press.Strauss, A. (1978) Negotiations.: Varieties, Contexts, Processes and Social Order.

San Francisco: Jossey-BassSyrett, M., & Hogg, C. (1992) Frontiers of Leadership. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Tajfel, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Tajfel, H. (1984) ‘Intergroup relations, social myths and social justice in social

psychology.’ In, Tajfel, H. (ed.), European Studies in Social Psychology: TheSocial Dimension, volume 2, 695 - 715. Cambridge & Paris: CambridgeUniversity Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Tannenbaum, A. (1968) Control in Organisations. London: McGraw-Hill.Tanner-Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1986) The Art of Japanese Management.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.Taska, L. (1992) “Scientific Management: Technique or Cultural Ideology?” Journal

of Industrial Relations,


Taylor, F. W. (1903) Shopfloor Management. New York: Harper & Row,Thomas, A. & J. Thornley (1989) Co-ops to the Rescue. London: ICOM.Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996) ‘Making difference matter: A new paradigm for

managing diversity.’ Harvard Business Review, September - October.Thomas, R. R. (1990) ‘From affirmative action to affirming diversity.’ Harvard

Business Review, March - April.Thompson, N., (1998) Promoting Equality. London: Macmillan.Thompson, G., et al. (1991), eds. Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. London: Sage.

A ‘band wagon text’, this is a particularly boring examination of an oldphilosophical debate set within an organisational context. The debate is aboutthe tensions between order (hierarchy) and creative chaos (markets). Its themestill has some contemporary relevance, and is therefore worth examining, butbecause of the terms in which it is couched here this book will rapidly becomeof only minor historical interest. If you can get hold of a copy PrincipiaDiscordia (Jackson, Koke, Pearcy & Hartsock, 1994) treats a similar thememore amusingly (although perhaps less helpfully for your studies!)

Tichy, N. M., M. l. Tushman, C. Fombrun (1979) "Social network analysis fororganisations". Academy of Management Review, 4: 507-519.

Tinker, T. (1986) Metaphor or Reification. London: Sage.Toffler, A. (1971) Future Shock. London: Pan.Toffler, A. (1981) The Third Wave. London: Pan.Toffler, A. (1983) Previews and Premises. Montréal: Black Rose.Toffler, A. (1991) Power Shift. New York: Bantam.

It has always intrigued me how an old Marxist could become the darling ofmanagement without changing his initial stance very much. But it happened toToffler, much to his own bemusement. Toffler is an important source on issuesof information technology and the future of work. If you want to pursue thesetopics you will have to read at least some of his writings.

Tropenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding cultural diversityin business. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Tullock, G. (1965) The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, DC.: Public AffairsPress.

Turner, J. C. (1984) ‘ Social identification and psychological group formation.’ In,Tajfel, H. (ed.), European Studies in Social Psychology: The SocialDimension, volume 2, 518 - 540. Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge UniversityPress and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Turner, J. C. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A self-categorization theory.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996) ‘Trust in organisational authorities: The influenceof motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions’. In, R. M. Kramer &T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations. London: Sage.

Unsworth, K. L., & West, M. A. (2000) ‘Teams: The challenges of co-operativework’. In, N. Chmiel (ed) Introduction to Work and OrganisationalPsychology: A European Perspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Varey, R. (1995) ‘Back to basics: Herzberg’s theory of motivation at work’. BusinessStudies Magazine, October.

Vecchio, R. (1995) Organisational Behaviour, 3e. London: Dryden.Vince, R. (1996) Managing Change: Reflections on equality and management

learning. Bristol: Policy Press.Vonk, R. (1998) ‘The Slime Effect: Suspicions and dislike of likeable behaviour

towards superiors’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4) 849 -864.


Warr, P. (2000) ‘Job performance and the ageing workforce’. In, N. Chmiel (ed)Introduction to Work and Organisational Psychology: A EuropeanPerspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Watkins, W. P. (1986) Co-Operative Principles Today and Tomorrow. London:Holyoake Books.

Watson, P. (1980) War on the Mind: The Military Uses and Abuses of Psychology.Harmondsworth: Penguin.

This is an interesting and important examination of the ways in which insightsinto human behaviour can be used for negative ends. There is much elsebesides, of course, and the book is therefore usefully read as a general text inits own right.

Watts, J. F., & Evans, A. (1999) Enhancing Diversity Climate in CommunityOrganisations: Addressing Cultural Issues in Organisations. London: Sage.

Webb, J. (1997) ‘The politics of equal opportunity.’ Gender, Work and Organisation,4, 159 - 167.

Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York: FreePress.

Wilson, E. M., & Illes, P. A. (1999) ‘Managing diversity: An employment and servicedelivery challenge.’ International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12,1,

Woodcock, G. (1977) The Anarchist Reader. London: FontanaCollins.Wrong, D. H. (1979) Power: Its forms, bases and uses. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Zelaznik, A. (1977) “Managers and leaders: Are they the same?” Harvard Business

Review, May/June, 67 - 78.See also Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989) which reprints this paper.

Zerubavel, E. (1993) The Fine Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.The importance of abstract studies about categorisation, which this text is, isthat they highlight the problems both of knowledge and, in a practical sense,also raise issues of taken for granted assumptions and their impact on, amongstother things, practice, justice, fairness, ‘common sense’, and other verypractical themes related to everyday life. This text examines some of the verybasic themes of the workshop, but don’t suppose that it is just to do withfoundations. What Zerubavel has to say, like that of Bateson (1979), isextremely important for understanding the way organisations are run, especiallyin highlighting ideological aspects of ‘common sense’ and ‘truth’.

Zerzan, J. & A. Carnes (1988) eds., Questioning Technology. London: Freedom Press.This is a collection of writings on the theme of Information Technologyproviding an important counter balance to the triumphalism of those whochampion IT as the saviour of the future. If we were to believe some writerstechnology will finally bring about the democratic utopia of ancient dreams -this book gives the other side of the argument, and shows how IT also presentsthreats to individual liberty in society at large and at work.

Zuboff, S. (1989) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The future of work and power.Oxford: Heinemann.

This book and Zerzan & Carnes (1988) make excellent companion volumes.They examine broadly similar areas although from different perspectives. Aswith Zerzan & Carnes, this book raises some thought provoking questionsabout the role of technology and the future of work.

Dr. Lesley Prince12 November 2007


Directed Readings

What follows is a set of directed readings for the workshop. I may supply others as theworkshop progresses. This list should be used in conjunction with the reading listsimmediately above. Each reading given below relates to one or more of the topicscovered during the workshop, and all can be found in the reading lists above, or listedseparately below. As with the reading lists, I intend the following simply as a guidenot as a compulsory list of readings. It is not my intention to swamp you with toomuch to read, but each of the book chapters or papers listed below contains someinformation, whether important background, details, or both, which may help you toprogress your understanding of organisations.

As a general point, remember that Morgan (1997), Wilson & Rosenfeld (1990)and Handy (1985) contain material on most of the topics listed in the workshop.

Please note that all of the brief references given here are fully referenced inthe reading lists given earlier. However, not all of the references given inthe extended reading list above appear here (because it would take too longto sift through all of them carefully). So in addition to using these lists toguide your reading, you should also browse the extended reading lists fortitles that have a bearing on the topic. This will be especially important forpreparing essays.

Frameworks of Reality: Prediction & Control, andthe SOGI Model

Although the theme of this session is covered in most texts to some extent, discussionof the principal points is generally found in the more philosophical texts, and the useof the SOGI model as an analytical framework is unusual to this workshop.Nevertheless, the theme is an important one, and some expansion of the main points,with extra material drawn from other intellectual traditions, can be found in thefollowing (incidentally, I don’t necessarily agree with everything said in all or any ofthese books - the importance is in the debate):

Morgan (1997): Introduction; Chapter 1; Chapter 10.Wilson & Rosenfeld (1990): Introduction; Chapter 1.Hosking & Morley (1991): Introduction; Chapter 1; and further elements

throughout the book.Bannister & Fransella (1986)Bateson (1979): Introduction; Chapter 1; Chapter 2; and further material

throughout the rest of the book.Berger (1972): throughout.Berger & Luckmann (1976)Briggs & Peat (1990): throughout.Cacti (1991): Chapters 1, 2, 4, & 5; Summary.Chapman & Jones (1980)Child (1984)Cohen & Stewart (1994)


Cottingham (1984)Coveney & Highfield (1995): throughout, but especially chapters 7 & 8.Daft & Steers (1986), throughoutDawson (1992), throughoutFeynman (1965): Chapters 6 & 7.Feynman (1995): Chapter 3.Gleik (1987): throughout.Gould (1988): Chapters 1, 3, & 5.Hall (1992): Chapters 7, 12, 14, 17, & 18.Hughes (1998)Lewin (1993): throughout.March & Simon (1993), throughoutPrigogine & Stengers (1984): throughout.Selznick (1943), throughoutSims, et al. (1994)Sokal & Bricmont (1998) Chapters 4, 7 and 11 contains some interesting

material on general epistemic questions.Stewart (1989): Prologue; Chapters 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, &14; Epilogue.Stewart & Golubitsky (1992)Zerubavel (1993)

See also the notes in this book on page 7, above.

Making Sense of Organisations: Metaphoricalknowledge.

The readings for this topic are more or less identical to those for the last one,although, being based on Morgan’s work, his is the most important of thereferences given. But see also the following:

Grant & Oswick (1996), throughoutTinker (1986), throughout

Traditional Management: Mechanism, Rationalityand Bureaucracy.

Morgan (1997): Chapter 2.Abrahamson (1993)Abrahamson (1997)Beetham (1987)Blau & Meyer (1987)Blauner (1964)Boyne (1998)Clegg (1990)Cottingham (1984)Crozier (1964)Dale (1970): Chapter 6, sections by Taylor; Chapter 9 by Fayol.Damasio (1994)


Dixon (1987)Dolgoff (1971)Downs (1967)Fayol (1949, 1984)Gilbreth (1911)Gulick, & Urwick (1937)Hales (1993)Hosking & Morley (1991): Chapter 2.Hughes (1998)Jacques (1976, 1993)Johnson & Gill (1993)Lee & Lawrence (1985): Chapter 1.March & Simon (1958, 1993)Merton (1940)Mullins (1999)Pugh (1971): Chapters by Weber, March & Simon, Taylor, and Fayol.Rollinson et. al. (1998)Sofer (1972)Taylor (1903)Thompson et al. (1991): Chapters on hierarchy.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 1.Tullock (1965)Weber (1947)

Modified Bureaucracy: The Human RelationsMovement and Job Design.

Morgan (1997): Chapter 3.Pugh & Hickson (1983): entries on Mayo and the Hawthorne investigations,

Likert and McGregor.Lee & Lawrence (1985): Chapter 1.Lee & Lawrence (1991): Chapter 2.Child (1984): Chapter 2 on job design.Dale (1970): Chapter 7 and Chapter 8, by and on Mayo, and on Mayo versus

Taylor.Dubin (1961) This has chapters by Mayo and Roethlisberger.Dubin (1974)Hughes (1998)McGregor (1960): throughout.Pugh (1971): Chapters by Mayo, Likert, and Trist & Bamforth.Sofer (1972): Chapter 4Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 2.

Many of the references given above for traditional management theory also cover thistopic as well.


Contingency Theory: Horses for courses andorganisational structure.

Lee & Lawrence (1985): Chapter 2.Lee & Lawrence (1991): Chapter 5.Morgan(1997): Chapter 3.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 3.Pugh & Hickson (1983): Sections on Woodward, the Aston Group, Burns,

Lawrence & Lorsch.Pugh (1971): Chapters by Burns; and Woodward.Child (1984): Chapters 3, 4, 5, & 9.Wilson & Rosenfeld (1990): Chapters 12, 16, 17, 18, & 19; Case studies 8, 9

& 10; Readings, 10 & 11.

Most of the general text books listed in the extended reading list will have a sectionon this topic.

Organisational Culture: Real and imagined.

Morgan (1997): Chapter 5.Lee & Lawrence (1985 & 1991): Chapter 5.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 6.Wilson & Rosenfeld (1990): Chapter 13; Readings 8 & 13.

See also:

Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989) - Section 10 (pp 606 - 663) contains some veryinteresting and useful readings.

Organization Studies had a special issue on Organisational Symbolism in1985.

The Journal of Management Studies had a special issue on OrganisationalCulture in 1986.

Adams, S. (1996)Anthony (1994)Clegg, S. (1990)Cohen, S., & Taylor, L. (1992) Again, although not a direct examination of

organisational culture, Cohen & Taylor present an extended discussionof the tactics employed by people to escape what they find to berelatively intolerable circumstances in everyday life, including work.Their concepts of ‘Paramount Reality’ and ‘Consensual Reality’ areparticularly pertinent to ideas about organisations and their cultures.

Friedman (1977)Goffman, I. (1959)Handy, C. (1989)Harrison (1987)Hofstede (1994)Hughes (1998)Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 16


Moore, M. (1997) Although not a conventional examination of organisationalculture, Moore has much to say on the subject which is both interestingand important.

Pheysey (1993)Schein (1985)Tropenaars (1993)

To extend your analyses of organisational culture you will find discussions of powerand politics in organisations particularly useful.

Rationality revisited: Decision-making inorganisations

Morgan (1997): Chapter 4.Lee & Lawrence (1985): Chapters 4 & 9.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapters 4 & 6.Lee & Lawrence (1991): Chapter 9Newall & Simon (1972): throughout.Pugh & Hickson (1983): Sections on Simon, March and Lindblom.Wilson & Rosenfeld (1990): Chapter 10; Reading 7; Case Studies 3, 4, 5.Hosking & Morley (1991): Chapter 5.Pugh (1971): Chapters by Simon, March, Lindblom, and Vroom.Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989) some useful readings, including the original

paper by Lindblom (pp117 - 131).Leavitt (1973): especially Chapter 6.Janis & Mann (1977): throughout.March & Simon (1958) especially chapter 6.Churchman (1995)Mulholland (1991)Newall & Simon (1978)Newman (1978)Pettigrew (1973)Pettigrew (1973)Quinn (1984)Simon (1977)

Why Work?: The motivation to get out of bed in themorning.

Most general textbooks on organisations and management have sections or chapterson motivation. You might also find it useful to try and relate motivation to leadershipat some point.

Morgan (1997): Morgan doesn’t cover motivation as a specific topic, but doesdiscuss related themes. The best chapters to read for this are probablychapters 2, 3 and 4, which relate directly to the lectures so far, andchapters 5, 6, 7 and 9, which anticipate themes to be covered later,especially in Semester 2.


Wilson & Rosenfeld (1990): Chapter 4 gives some useful and importantbackground material. Motivation is specifically covered in chapter 5,and chapters 6 and 7 expand the theme to include Job Design andLearning. You might also find Case Study 2 useful for stimulating yourthinking on the topic.

Lee & Lawrence (1985 & 1991): Chapter 3.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 7.Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989) This has some excellent readings on motivation

by Nadler & Lawler (pp 3 - 19), Maslow (pp 20 - 35), Staw (onintrinsic and extrinsic motivation, pp 36 - 71), and Kerr (‘On the follyof rewarding A while hoping for B’, pp72 - 87).

Corbett (1994) This is a collection of case studies designed to stimulate criticalthinking about organisations and how they are run. Specific tomotivation, you might find cases 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 & 13 useful to lookat.

Armstrong (1996), sections on motivation.Campbell & Pritchard (1983)Chmiel (2000), elements throughout, but mainly section II.Friedman (1977)Goodman & Friedman (1971)Heery & Salmon (2000), especially the chapter by Nolan, Wichert & Burchell.Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959)Herzberg (1968)Holloway (1991), sections on motivation.Katzell & Thompson (1990)Mowday (1987)Steers & Mowday (1987)Varey (1995)Vernon (1983)Vonk (1998)

The Politics of Organising: Goals? Whose Goals?

Lee & Lawrence (1985): Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.Lee & Lawrence (1991): Chapters 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 4, plus other material throughout the

book.Hosking & Morley (1991): Chapter 5.Adams (1992)Dixon (1987)Fricker (1998)Friedman (1977)Heery & Salmon (2000)Hewitt (1984)Hughes (1998)Janis & Mann (1977) has some useful material in chapter 3.Kakabadse & Parker (1984)Kramer (1996)Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 16


Lawthom (2000)Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989): Section 6 (pp 345 - 407)Le Guin (1975)Patchen (1974)Punchard (1989)Salancik & Pfeffer (1977)Sims, et. al. (1994)

Power and Conflict in Organisations: Pathology orNormality?

Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989): Sections 6, 7, & 8, and the Chapter by DafnaIzraeli & Todd Jick (pp 253 - 275).

Morgan (1997): Chapters 6 & 9.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 4.Lee & Lawrence (1985 & 1991): Chapters 6, 7, & 8.Adams (1992)Bachrach & Baratz (1962)Bacharach & Lawler (1980)Barclay (1982)Brown (1963)Cartwright (1959)Clinard (1990)Cohen & Taylor (1992)Copeman (1975)Dixon (1987)Dolgoff (1971)Emerson (1962)Eyerman & Jamison (1991)French (1956)French & Raven (1959)Fricker (1998)Friedman (1977)Friedman (1977)Janis & Mann (1977): Chapters 3, 4, & 12.Heery & Salmon (2000)Herzog (1989)Hickson et. al., (1971)Hosking & Morley (1991): Chapter 5.Kakabadse & Parker (1984)Kipnis et. al., (1976, 1980)Korda (1975)Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 16Le Guin (1975)Lukes (1974, 1986)Mechanic (1962)Mintzberg (1983)Moore (1997)Mowday (1987)


Mowday (1978)Packard (1978, 1981)Patchen (1974)Paton (1978, 1983)Pfeffer (1981)Pratchett (1992)Toffler (1991)Vonk (1998)

Groups and Group Dynamics

Most organisational texts have something to say about groups, but mostly theyare not very good. Meanwhile, the following will be useful.

Aronson (1988). Note, this book is updated regularly. The reference is to thefifth edition, but it is likely that more recent editions are available.Bales (1958)Belbin (2000)Codol (1984)Deschamps (1984)Fraser & Foster (1984)Hare (1976)Hollander (1958, 1964)Hollander & Webb (1955)Knippenburg (1984)Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapter 9Meyerson et. al., (1996)Robinson (1996)Tajfel (1981)Tajfel (1984)Turner (1984)Unsworth & West (2000)Vonk (1998)

Conformity and Obedience to AuthorityAlmost all general texts on Social Psychology will have details of this theme.Conformity in particular is a standard social psychological subject, which is often alsolinked to power, stereotyping, and internal group dynamics.

Eiser & van der Pligt (1988)Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 16Milgram (1974)Vonk (1998)

Diversity: Vive la Differance?

Aronson (1988)Arrighi (2001)


Bennett (1998)Chambers & Horton (1990)Clement & Spinks (2000)Code (1995)Codol (1984)Colwill (1982)Cross et. al., (1991)Davidson & Cooper (1992)Deschamps (1984)Edwards (1995)Frese (2000)Hughes (1998)Hunt & Palmer (1999)Jewson & Mason (1994)Johnson & Redmond (2000)Kandola & Fullerton (1998)Knippenburg (1984)Kelly (1991)Kirton & Greene (2000)Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapter 11Lathom (1999)Lawthom (2000)Liff (1996)Macpherson (1999)Meyerson & Fletcher (2000)Milner (1984)Morgan (2003)Nicholson (1984)Prasad & Mills (1997)Prasad, Mills, Elmes, & Prasad (1997)Robinson (1996)Ross & Schneider (1992)Somerville, Steele, & Sodhi (2002)Tajfel (1981)Tajfel (1984)Thomas & Ely (1996)Thomas (1990)Thompson (1998)Turner (1984)Turner (1987)Vince (1996)Warr (2000)Watts & Evans (1999)Webb (1997)Wilson & Illes (1999)


Leadership and Management: The gentle art of beingin charge?

For this topic there is an embarrassment of riches. The literatures on leadership arevast, complex, frequently confusing and deeply frustrating. The readings below arethe merest scratch on the merest scratch on the surface. There are further relevantreferences listed in the reading lists above, and, just to make you feel even morecomforted, you could, and probably should, also read around the related topics power,influence, politics, motivation and trust.

Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989): Sections 5, 6, & 9, especially chapters byPondy (Leadership as a Language Game) and Zaleznick (Managers andLeaders: Are they the same?).

Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapters 4 & 10.Lee & Lawrence (1985 & 1991): Chapters 3 & 6.Morgan (1997): Parts of chapters 5 & 6.Hosking & Morley (1991): Chapters 8 & 9.Barclay (1982)Barnard (1938)Bass (1981)Bennis (1959)Bernard (1927)Bies & Tripp (1996)Brown (1963)Bryman (1986)Cartwright & Zander (1968)Cockerton & Whyatt (1986)Conger & Kanungo (1988)Copeman (1975)Fiedler (1964, 1967, 1978)Gemmill & Oakley (1992)Gibb (1954, 1958, 1969)Graumann & Moscovici (1986)Grint (1997, 2000)Hemphill (1949)Hewitt (1984)Hollander (1958, 1964)Hollander & Webb (1955)Hunt (1991)Kellerman (1984)Kipnis et. al., (1980)Kramer (1996)Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 16Le Guin (1975)Lewicki & Bunker (1996)Merton (1969)Pfeffer (1983)Prince (1998) (a splendid examination of the subject!).Quarter & Melnyk (1989)


Schein (1985)Shackleton & Wale (2000)Vonk (1998)Zelaznik (1977)

Check out the reading lists above as well. There are lots of references to works onleadership in there.

Negotiation and Influence: What does it take to worktogether?

Morgan (1997): Chapter 6.Lee & Lawrence (1985 & 1991): Chapters 6 & 9.Hosking & Morley (1991): Chapters 5 & 6.Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989): Section 7, especially the chapter by Janis (p

439).Janis & Mann (1977), throughout.Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 16Fisher & Ury (1987) a pot boiler useful for a practitioner’s viewpointChurchman (1995), throughout.Mulholland (1991), throughoutNewall & Simon (1978)Newman (1978)Pettigrew (1973)Strauss (1978), throughout.Vonk (1998)

Organisational Change: How to manage it and how toscrew it up.

Morgan (1997): Mainly chapter 8, but also look at chapters 6, 7, & 9 as well.Lee & Lawrence (1985 & 1991): Chapter 6.Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapters 4, 5, 6, 9, & 10.Leavitt, Pondy & Boje (1989): Sections 8 & 11.French & Bell (19)Hosking & Morley (1991): Chapters 5, 8, & 9.Kramer & Tyler (1996): Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 16Janis & Mann (1977): Chapter 13.Mangham (1979)Mohrman et. al., (1989)Plant (1987)Pratchett (1989, 1990 a, b)Vonk (1998)


Technological Imperatives: IT, the politics oftransformation and futures.

Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapters 3, 6, & 7.Toffler (1971, 1981 & 1991): throughout.Zuboff (1989): throughout.Zerzan & Carnes (1988): throughout.

Corbett (1994) has some very good case studies of technology andorganisations, and some excellent references (Corbett is a specialist inthe human machine interface).

Brown (1997) is also an interesting examination of the impact of technologyon life and society.

Frese (2000)Gibson (93)Hafner & Markoff (1993)Handy (1985, 1990, 1994)Heery & Salmon (2000)Kipnis (1996)Rushkoff (1994)Thompson & McHugh (1990): Chapter 10.Vonk (1998)Wilson & Rosenfeld (1990) also has a very good section on the future of work.


Notes on Writing aCase Analysis

Dr. Lesley Prince

The case study is one of the most versatile tools used in the social sciences, with avariety of different forms and a range of purposes. For example case studies are usedextensively as a research method, alongside better known methods such asexperimentation, surveys, participant observation, and so on. They are also usedwidely as teaching tools in, for example, psychology, sociology, political science,history, law and management studies (Yin, 1989).

The content of a case study, the analysis, similarly takes many forms,depending on the purpose of the study and its projected audience. Broadly speaking,however, there are three types relating to three distinct purposes: exploratory,descriptive and explanatory (see Yin, 1989: 15-16, et. seq.). The case studies forwhich you will be asked to prepare an analysis fall fairly neatly into the descriptiveand explanatory models.

By and large, as a teaching exercise, the purpose of case analysis is toencourage you to make explicit links between a set of situations and incidentsdescribed in a case study and the organisational literatures, both theoretical andempirical. The focus of the exercise will depend on whether the case describes a set ofproblems for which you must propose some solutions, or whether you are simplypresented with a description to which you are invited to supply a theoreticalcommentary. Nevertheless the process is very similar: make explicit links with theliterature in relation to an embedded argument or series of arguments from whichclear conclusions are drawn. To this extent case analysis has much in common withthe kind of formal reports that are very common in contemporary organisations.

Structuring a Case AnalysisLike so much in the social sciences there are many different ways to structure a caseanalysis. Unlike formal laboratory reports, for which it is possible to outline a specificand uniform set of stages covering well recognised items of key information, a casestudy can take a variety of forms depending, again, on the purposes for which it wasproduced and the proposed audience. Furthermore, case analyses are frequentlypresented in narrative form, rather than the more restricted formal language of'scientific' reportage, and consequently it is difficult to prescribe specific stagesthrough which they must pass. Nevertheless some sort of framework is essential if ananalysis is not to descend into an amorphous welter of disconnected observations withneither direction nor point. What follows, then, is a series of notes on one suchframework, which I call a medical model.


It should be emphasised that this model is being offered as an aid to thosewho are unfamiliar with case analysis. It is not the only framework that exists for

writing up cases, and neither is it necessarily the best for allpurposes. Furthermore it is not a compulsory model, and if youalready have a model for case analysis which you are happy with,then please use that.

General notes on the Medical ModelThis framework is called a medical model for several reasons, the

most obvious one being that it is focussed on organisational problems,and is therefore focussed on the attempt to find solutions of some sort. The focus onproblem solving is largely historical in that most cases used for teaching inorganisational analysis courses have an explicit orientation towards problems. And itshould be remarked that by and large such a focus has several distinct advantages, notleast of which is the way in which such cases generate the understanding thatorganisations are "complex, contradictory and frequently paradoxical" (Morgan,1997).

So, the Medical Model of case analysis has a distinct problem solvingorientation. In other words this approach views case analysis as a practical tooldesigned to derive practical solutions to practical problems. But here it must bestressed that the purpose is emphatically not to derive the one proper or correctsolution to a set of problems. Some organisational problems are practically insoluble.Others can only be resolved (not solved) over time. And even when it is possible tosuggest a simple solution, there are no known criteria by which the solution can beevaluated as 'correct', let alone 'the one best solution', simply because the complexityof the world generates, in practical terms, infinitely many solutions to one problem.Given that most problems within organisations are themselves complex, made up ofmany different smaller problems, all interlinked, the possibility of identifying thecorrect solution are remote to say the least. There are good solutions, and there arebad ones, but ultimately this evaluation must take into account the specific features ofthe case, including context, environment, dominant issues, persons, personalities andso on. A solution is 'good' if the positive implications of implementation outweigh thenegative ones, and this naturally raises questions about what criteria are used and howthey are justified.

The Organisation is not wellAt the heart of the medical model is a metaphor: that the organisation is not well, andneeds some treatment. As you proceed with your analysis it is, therefore, your job toprescribe what the medicine should be. It is, sometimes, useful to bear in mind theimage of a doctor's surgery, with you as the doctor, while conducting your analysis.

Another useful metaphor is the funnel. Initially you will be presented with arelatively unstructured set of descriptions about an organisation. It is your job as theanalyst to give these notes some structure, and meaning, by use of the organisationalliteratures. At each stage of the analysis, however, you will also reduce the amount ofmaterial in the case to those aspects which form the core of your analysis, until whatyou are left with is a simple series of statements which present your overallconclusions. In a sense this process involves the distillation of the important featuresof the case until you have only the necessary and sufficient details for makingrecommendations about action.


Structure of the Medical ModelThere are five main headings (sections) in the framework forming the case analysisproper, plus two others that are required in academic work. These are, respectively:

1. DESCRIPTION2. ANALYSIS/DIAGNOSIS3. OPTIONS4. PRESCRIPTION/RECOMMENDATION5. ACTION

Plus:ABSTRACTREFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

DescriptionThe starting point for any case analysis is a basic description of the situation presentedin the case notes. If the purpose of the case is theoretical commentary then thedescription will be a fairly straightforward repetition of the main points of the case asyou, the analyst, see them. Obviously this process is in some ways a matter ofarbitrary choice on your part, a factor which cannot be avoided (although see Miles &Huberman (1984) for an attempt to systematise the process). When the purpose of thecase is problem solving the process is similar, but with somewhat more focus. Theaim then should be to derive a description of all the main symptoms of difficulty thatare presented in the case notes. This is directly analogous to the process ofconsultation that takes place in the doctor's surgery.

When you enter the doctor's presence the first question you are likely to beasked is: "What seems to be the problem?". You are not being invited to give acomplete diagnosis. On the contrary, you are being asked for the immediate reason foryour visit. Let us say, for example, that you were experiencing severe stomachcramps, and thus your reply might be "It's my stomach doctor, it's causing me a bit ofpain". As far as you are concerned this pain is precisely what the problem is; it is thisthat you experience and which you want the doctor to cure. It is sufficient as a startingpoint, but as a medical diagnosis it obviously doesn't go far enough. From your pointof view the pain is the problem; from the doctor's point of view it is merely thesymptom of a problem, and it is his or her job to discover what underlies this, andpossibly other symptoms.

The initial job of a case analysis is to do the same thing. The case notes willdescribe some elements of the presenting problem or problems, but these should betreated as symptoms, and recorded as such.

This is only the first part of the job of this section, however, because you alsoneed to identify significant features of the case which, while not obviouslyproblematic, might have an important bearing on the case. Back to the doctor'ssurgery and your "stomach pain". After the initial question, you may very well beasked something like "Have you been eating any strong curries recently?" or "Haveyou been abroad recently?" or "Have you been eating a lot of fruit recently?" and soon. These factors are not problems in themselves, but, quite obviously, if you havebeen eating too much fruit, for example, then the underlying problem, that which hascaused your discomfort, can be easily identified.

In sum, the job of the first section of a case analysis is to:


� Give a description of what seems to be the problem� Identify the main symptoms� Describe other relevant factors

It should be noted that all the information required for this section will be foundin the case notes. At this stage it is neither necessary nor desirable to try andmake explicit links with the literature. Nor is it necessary to import any otherkind of information from outside the case at this stage. Undoubtedly you will feelthat there is insufficient information available on particular aspects, but this is usual.Most of the time we have to make decisions on the basis of incomplete information,and this is, therefore, one of the constraints within which you have to work. Do notinvent details to cover awkward gaps. Stick to the details presented in the casenotes. The appropriate slogan here is stick close to the data. Just think howuncomfortable you would feel if the doctor started to invent spurious details aboutyour medical complaint.

Analysis/DiagnosisThe second section is the place where you bring the literatures to bear. If section 1 hasbeen completed properly you should have described a set of factors which requireexplanation. The literature, therefore, becomes the principle tool by which you derivethis explanation or explanations. At bottom this is a process of giving meaning to thefeatures you have identified, possibly in relation to causes. This principle appliesequally to theoretical commentaries and problem solving cases. In the latter, however,like the doctor in the running example, you are trying to discover what the underlying"illness" is, and, if possible what has caused it.

Don't be surprised or alarmed if while you are bringing the literature to bearthere appear to be conflicting views about what is going on in the case, orcontradictory predictions. This sometimes happens, and if it does then it is the job ofthe case analyst, you, to arbitrate between rival accounts through comparison with thedetails presented in the case.

One principle is very important here. Too many students assume that thissection is a test of their ability to cite as much of the literature as possible, in themistaken belief that they are marked according to the number of names they can quote(and by implication according to the number of books and papers they can pretend tohave read). The result is often an unsatisfactory mishmash of unrelated citations -unrelated to each other and to the case under consideration. The result is inevitablytotal and inescapable coNF sI n. Far better to cite only one or two pieces of work0U

from the literature, but in such a way that they contribute something substantial to theanalysis or, in other words, your understanding of the case. As an acid test askyourself, before you include any theory or report of empirical enquiry "Does this addanything materially to my understanding of this case? Does this help me to drawsensible conclusions?" If the answer is no then don't include it.

One final point worth stressing is that you are likely to find that the details ofthe case relate to one or more Levels of Analysis (SOGI). You should be alive to this,and aware that theories are often only appropriate to specific levels. In other words,the level of analysis is going to have a considerable impact on which theories andempirical data sets are appropriate.


OptionsWhen identifying possible courses of action, you are presenting for consideration onlywhat kind of options there are in general. These should follow directly and obviouslyfrom your diagnosis in the previous section. When the diagnosis has been donethoroughly, and systematically, this section should almost write itself.

As an arbitrary number you should identify at least four different options. Tomake the job easier, however, remember that Doing Nothing is always an option, soin effect you have to identify only three.

Each option should be evaluated. Identify good aspects and bad aspects,including implications for other aspects of the organisation and the people thatcomprise it. For example, many organisational problems can be solved very simply bysacking the entire workforce. Problem solved; we can all go home. Well, not quite. Inmost circumstances such a solution would create problems more severe than theoriginal one. So perhaps it's not the best solution after all. Let's go back to theinterview with your GP. Having decided that the cause of your discomfort is to befound in the excessively spicy diet that you have been indulging in recently, yourdoctor announces the following options: a course of antacid tablets; the completesurgical removal of your gastro-intestinal tract; a complete change of diet; regulardoses of Milk of Magnesia; a holiday in the Algarve. He or she then decides, for quiteinscrutable reasons, that surgery is the one to go for. You would most certainly beentitled to ask what possible advantages could be derived from such a course of actionand if the negative implications had been properly assessed. Most likely you would beanxious to point out the severe implications of this option, preferring, no doubt, any ofthe other options - no doubt the last one especially.

The point is serious. Options which on the face of it will solve the immediateproblems faced by an organisation may have such difficult and undesirableconsequences that they are best put aside. But you can only know this if you evaluateall aspects of the option in question, that is, identify its advantages and disadvantages.And this requires the engagement of your experience, your intelligence, youremotions, your imagination, and above all your humanity.

Prescription/RecommendationOnce again the material in this section should follow obviously and clearly from theresults of the last section. Here you are stating very clearly what should be done in thecase under consideration. Your final recommendation may take the form of one of theoptions described and evaluated earlier, and in this section you should repeat some ofthe more serious implications highlighted there, both positive and negative. Yourrecommendation need not be so restricted, however. You might, for example, chooseto recommend several of the options, perhaps related to short, medium and long termtime spans. Or, in the light of your evaluations you might feel that one option shouldbe implemented in a modified form, perhaps modified by one of the other options.The choices are quite wide, with only this restriction - you should not at this stageintroduce a completely new option. First it's cheating, and second your reader isentitled to ask "Where did that come from?" In other words don't spring surprises.

Having made your recommendation, you should evaluate this as well, becausethere might be additional implications following from the decision to implement. It isalso good practice at this stage to make some suggestions about how you might headoff some of the more negative implications. Remember also that are nearly alwayssome negative consequences of implementing any strategy to tackle organisational


problems, so don't try to duck the issue by ignoring the problem.

ActionThis, ultimately, is the most important section of a case study when it is presented to areal organisation who might be expected to act on your suggestions. In a case analysisproduced for educational purposes, however, it tends to be the least important, for thefollowing reasons.

When done properly this section can take considerable time. It needs to bebased on a detailed knowledge of the organisation; the way it works; what resources ithas at its disposal; how much time and resourcing it is prepared to commit, and so on.In a case analysis conducted for educational purposes you are unlikely to have thisinformation, particularly if the case has been set from a text book or similar source,remembering that your only source of information is likely to be the case notes, andthe instruction that you should stick close to the data. Assumptions can play a part, ofcourse, as they can at any point in the analysis, but they should be clearly labelled assuch. Under no circumstances, however, should you simply invent details to get youout of a tight spot. That would be too easy. Consider an extreme, and perhapsludicrous, example. In any case that you are likely to encounter, if you were allowedto invent details, there would be nothing to stop you from simply saying "But at thelast minute everyone realised that they were behaving badly. So they had a meeting,resolved all their differences and lived happily ever after. So the fact that Fiedler'stheory didn't seem to make any sense at all in relation to this case doesn't matter anymore. The End."

In relation to this section of a case analysis, then, you cannot write about whatyou have few details of. Nevertheless it is important to try and sketch in some featuresof how, in practical terms, you would see your recommendation turned into aprogramme of action. The difference between this section and the last, whichsometimes confuses people new to case analysis, is actually straightforward. Here isan example:

Recommendation: I recommend that our best course of action is for us all togo into town for a meal.

Action: We book a table for 8pm at Marios Famous Pizza Parlour andDrinking Emporium; leave the house at 7pm; catch the 7.30pm bus(avoiding the problem of drinking and driving, and, being cheaper thanthe taxi, leaving more money for indulgence), etc.

Concluding theoretical commentariesAs noted earlier, the theoretical commentary case analysis departs from the problem-solving case at the point of identifying, describing and evaluating the different optionsfor action. Obviously, however, a theoretical commentary doesn't stop there, and inpoint of fact there is a section relevant to such analyses which has a functionalequivalence to the last three sections of the problem-solving case. This is theConclusions section. Here the many interim conclusions drawn throughout the caseanalysis itself are restated and brought together. In some ways they are also broughtside by side where they can be directly compared. Out of this comparison, and inrelation to the main strands of argument set up in the analysis, the overall conclusionsof the analysis should emerge. This is not the same as the restatement of the interimconclusions, but should be an overall synthesis for the case as a whole, rather like thelast section in a good essay.


AbstractFor academic purposes each case analysis should have an abstract of roughly 100words. There is no mystery to this, and indeed it is a good discipline to follow.Equivalent terms, from different contexts include: synopsis; precis; and executivebriefing. Like all of these the abstract is a potted account of the entire piece, and itspurpose, obviously enough, is to enable prospective readers to evaluate the contentswithout having to read the whole document.

The abstract should always be placed at the front of your report, just after thetitle page.

ReferencesThis section is extremely important, and should appear at the end of the case analysis.In this section you should include the full details of all the work to which youreferred, even if only in passing, in your text. Every time you refer to someone's work,they are entitled to a full listing in your reference section. This is distinct to abibliography, which is a list of all the sources you actually used (the two obviouslynot the same thing). My preference is to use the double heading References &Bibliography to avoid complications.

The form which you choose to adopt for referencing is irrelevant, providingthat (i) it is a recognised system of some sort, and (ii) you follow it consistently. Thereis, however, a general preference in social science for the Harvard system, the form ofwhich you will find at the back of most social science texts and below.

Presenting a Case ReportWhen you have completed the text of your case report, remember that presentation isas important as content. At the very least you should prepare a cover page with thefollowing information: The title of the report; your name; your course; the date. Next,enclose the Abstract of your report, on its own page, and also bearing the title of thereport. Then include a contents page, followed by the main text of the report, andfinally your references and bibliography. In sum your report should have thefollowing, in this order:

v Title Page: Title; your name; your course; datev Abstract: Title; abstractv Contents: Contents page listing all your main headingsv Main Text: The text of your reportv References and Bibliography: A complete list of all the texts

you refer to in the text, and which you have used to prepareyour report.

It is worth commenting that you should also use a similar presentation for essays.

References and Bibliography

Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman (1984) Analysing Qualitative Data: A sourcebookfor new methods. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.


Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organization. London: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, Ca.:Sage.


Important Notes for WritingYour Own Case StudyIf you want to write a case study based on your own organisation, or anotherorganisation which you know well, you will need to observe some simple, butextremely important, rules about the ethics of research. What these boil down to is thestraightforward prescription that you must protect the identities of the individualswho comprise the main actors in your case. Accordingly, please make sure that thenames of individuals, departments and organisations are sufficiently disguised toprevent a casual reader of your assignment from identifying who you are talkingabout.

This is not a trivial matter, and should, therefore, not be taken lightly, even in anundergraduate piece.

As compensation you can always have fun making up names for people andplaces. Indicate obliquely what you think of your subject matter, if you like, byadopting names such as Grindem Down, or Dire Place. Old favourites (cliches), suchas Letsby Avenue, for a case about the Police Force can also be adapted. Or, tryrunning the original name through a spell checker or thesaurus to see what comes outthe other end. Some examples that I have found include Touchier for Thatcher andMeagre for Major; Morally or Motley for Morley, Fiddler, or Fiddlier for Fiedler,Facile or Foul for Fayol, and Measly, Mislay, Muesli or Moistly for Maslow.


Space for Doodles, Marginal Notes, Aimless

Scribblings, Love Letters and Shopping Lists

Documents

ORGANISATIONAL ANALYSIS - Lesley Prince Analysis Notes and Essays.pdf · Organisational Analysis: Notes and Essays Page i ORGANISATIONAL ANALYSIS: Notes and essays for the workshop