Paradigm Wars: Donaldson versus the Critics of Organization Theory

Abstract

Some observers write about organizational paradigms as if the competition between theories takes place at the level of ideas, with ’good ideas ’battling with ’bad ideas’ in some sort of ideational arena (Astley andvandeVen1983). Others write of competing theoretical paradigms as if the contest at the idea level were epiphenomenal, with the real struggle occurring at the level of vested economic and political interests (Clegg and Dunkerley 1980). Still others view the competition as driven by hypothesis testing, replications or failures to replicate, and the accumulation of empirical generalizations(Hall 1987). Donaldson’s (1985)position is closest to the last,as he views progress in theorizing about organizations as a function of empirical research findings and their application to the solving of real-world problems.
Donaldson’s defence of what he labels ’Organization Theory’ is thus based on the assumption that the relevant arguments are not and should not be at the ideas level nor at the level of vested interests, but rather should be joined at the empirical level. He argues that organizational design should be based upon well-grounded empirical generalizations, honed in the fire of long-term research programmes.He takes attacks from the critics seriously and writes as though he and the critics ultimately share a common frame of reference for their debates.
I admire Donaldson’s spirited defence of the Aston Group and contingency theory and support many of his evaluative remarks concerning the ’critics’. However, I think his assumptions about the field of organization studies are too optimistic. In place of a unitary, mainstream ’Organizational Theory’ there are many theory groups today, each with its own paradigm, pursuing agendas which will not be integrated via the ’normal science’ route. As for the ’critics ’he discusses, it is questionable whether their challenges have had any effect on the research programmes of the theory groups dominating main stream organization journals today. Their criticisms have had little effect on the paradigms supported by major theory groups, but they have enriched paradigmatic controversy among people applying organization theory to problems in education,social welfare, planning, and other fields.

Full text

http://oss.sagepub.com/
Organization Studies
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/9/1/19
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/017084068800900106
1988 9: 19Organization Studies
Howard Aldrich
Paradigm Warriors: Donaldson versus the Critics of Organization Theory
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Group for Organizational Studies
can be found at:Organization StudiesAdditional services and information for
http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/9/1/19.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jan 1, 1988Version of Record >>
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

19
Williamson,
Oliver
E.
1975
Markets
and
hierarchies.
New
York,
Free
Press.
Williamson,
Oliver
E.
1979
’Transaction-cost
economics:
the
governance
of
contractual
relations’.
Journal
of
Law
and
Economics
22:
233-262.
Paradigm
Warriors:
Donaldson
versus
the
Critics
of
Organization
Theory*
Howard
Aldrich
Department
of
Sociology, University
of
North
Carolina,
Chapel
Hill,
U.S.A.
Some
observers
write
about
organizational
paradigms
as
if
the
competition
between
theories
takes
place
at
the
level of
ideas,
with
’good
ideas’
battling
with
’bad
ideas’
in
some
sort
of
ideational
arena
(Astley
and
van
de
Ven
1983).
Others
write
of
competing
theoretical
paradigms
as
if
the
contest
at
the
idea
level
were
epiphenomenal,
with
the
real
struggle
occurring
at
the
level
of
vested
economic
and
political
interests
(Clegg
and
Dunkerley
1980).
Still
others
view
the
competition
as
driven
by
hypothesis
testing,
replications
or
failures
to
replicate,
and
the
accumulation
of
empirical
generalizations
(Hall
1987).
Donaldson’s
(1985)
position
is
closest
to
the
last,
as
he
views
progress
in
theorizing
about
organizations
as
a
function
of
empirical
research
findings
and
their
application
to
the
solving
of
real-world
problems.
Donaldson’s
defence
of
what
he
labels
’Organization
Theory’
is
thus
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
relevant
arguments
are
not
and
should
not
be
at
the
ideas
level
nor
at
the
level
of
vested
interests,
but
rather
should
be
joined
at
the
empirical
level.
He
argues
that
organizational
design
should
be
based
upon
well-grounded
empirical
generalizations,
honed
in
the
fire
of
long-term
research
programmes.
He
takes
attacks
from
the
critics
seriously
and
writes
as
though
he
and
the
critics
ultimately
share
a
common
frame
of
reference
for
their
debates.
I
admire
Donaldson’s
spirited
defence
of
the
Aston
Group
and
contingency
theory
and
support
many
of
his
evaluative
remarks
concerning
the
’critics’.
However,
I
think
his
assumptions
about
the
field
of
organization
studies
are
too
optimistic.
In
place
of
a
unitary,
mainstream
’Organizational
Theory’ there
are
many
theory
groups
today,
each
with
its
own
paradigm,
pursuing
agendas
which
will not be
integrated
via
the ’normal
science’ route.
As
for
the
’critics’
he
discusses,
it
is
questionable
whether
their
challenges
have
had
any
effect
on
the
research
programmes
of
the
theory
groups
dominating
mainstream
organiza-
tion
journals
today.
Their
criticisms
have
had
little
effect
on
the
paradigms
supported
by
major
theory
groups,
but
they
haae
enriched
paradigmatic
controversy
among
people
applying
organization
theory
to
problems
in
education,
social
welfare,
planning,
and
other
fields.
One
paradigm
or
many?
What
Donaldson
labels
’Organization
Theory’
must
be
seen
in
the
context
of
many
other
theory
groups
competing
to
have
their
paradigm
recognized.
As
Scott
(1987:
93-116)
has
so
masterfully
pointed
out,
at
least
nine
different
theory
groups,
all
working
within
the
open
systems
tradition,
are
active
today:
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20
transactions
cost
analysis,
the
negotiated
order
perspective
from
symbolic
interaction
theorists,
the
choice
under
ambiguity
view,
socio-technical
systems,
strategic
contingency
theory,
population
ecology,
resource
dependence,
Marxist
theory,
and
institutional
theory.
In
contrast
to
a
’normal
science’
course,
people
identified
with
some
of
these
groups
are
not
developing
research
programmes,
evince
little
concern
for
issues
of
measurement
and
research
design,
and
are
not
attempting
to
build
a
cumulated
set
of
replicated
research
findings.
Accordingly,
their
contributions
to
the
field
of
organization
studies
are
limited
to
the
continuing
repetition
of
certain
fundamental
propositions
which
are
either
untested
or
untestable,
e.g.
’organizations
are
instruments
of
class
domination’,
or
’uncertainty
makes
rational
planning
difficult’.
Some
of
the
groups
have
made
major
strides
in
paradigm
development
and
testing,
but
none
has
emerged
as
the
dominant
paradigm.
Donaldson’s
’contingency
organization
theory’
must
be
seen
as
one
among
many
possible
competing
paradigms
for
the
study
of
organizations.
It
is
clearly
no
longer
as
coherently
organized
nor
as
visible
as
it
was
when
the
Aston
Group
began,
as a
close
reading
of
Donaldson’s
research
citations
will
confirm.
Ironically,
Donaldson
committed
the
same
error
as
the
critics
he
singled
out,
as
he
joined
them
in
implying
the
presence
of
an
’orthodox’,
‘conventional’,
or
’core’
group
which
dominates
the
field.
(If
I
had
one
pound
sterling
for
every
reference
to ’orthodox
organization
theory’
in
the
critical
literature,
I
would
be
a
rich
man
indeed!)
Perhaps
Donaldson
should
have
been
more
concerned
with
the
social
forces
which
have
made
the
field
so
heterogeneous
and
which
seem
to
preclude
the
kind
of
rallying
’round
the
centre’
he
calls
for
in
his
last
chapter.
Who
Notices
the
Critics?
Donaldson
felt
compelled
to
defend
’Organization
Theory’
I
against
an
onslaught
of
hostile
criticism
from
many
quarters.
Clearly,
he
feared
the
worst
from
the
combined
effect
of
attacks
by
critics
whose
arguments
he
takes
pains
to
refute.
But
was
his
concern
justified?
Have
the
critics
really
challenged
established
ways
of
thinking
about
organizations?
Assessing
the
critics’
influence
is
no
simple
matter,
but
I
can
make
a
start
by
suggesting
how
the
problem
should
be
defined.
Critical
ideas
could
turn
up
in
lectures,
conference
papers,
and
casual
conversations
between
colleagues,
but
their
impact
will
be
most
widespread
if
they
appear
in
print
and
are
subsequently
used
by
others
in
what
they
write.
In
short,
ideas
are
influential
if
they
affect
investigators’
research
propositions,
shape
theorists’
conceptual
schemes,
are
used
as
frames
of
reference
by
authors
of
review
articles,
and
so
on.
Using
this
standard,
I
decided
to
see
whether
the
critics
Donaldson
singled
out
for
extensive
treatment
had,
in
fact,
merited
such
attention.
I
chose
five
articles
and
books -
Benson
( 1977),
Burrell
and
Morgan
(1979),
Clegg
and
Dunkerley
(1980),
Morgan
(1980),
and
Silverman
(1970)
-
based
on
their
coverage
in
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

21
Donaldson.
I
excluded
Child
(1972)
because
his
article
on ’strategic
choice’ was
not
a
’root
and
branch’
rejection
of
the
Aston
group’s
work,
as
in
the
others’
work,
but
rather
a
friendly
critique
that
must
be
seen
in
the
overall
context
of
his
participation
in
and
replication
of
the
Aston
group’s
programme.
I
organized
my
inquiry
around
four
questions:
( 1 )
has
the
work
of
these
five
critics/groups
directly
influenced
articles
published
in
the
leading
organization
theory
and
research
journals
in
the
U.S.
and
Europe?;
(2)
more
specifically,
have
the
critics
influenced
research
articles?;
(3)
have
the
critics
influenced
scholars
publishing
in
other,
non-organization
journals,
especially
the
applied
social
sciences?;
and
(4)
are
the
critics
really
questioning
’U.S.-type’
organizational
research
and
thus
attracting
attention
elsewhere
in
the
world
but
not
in
U.S.
journals?
I
examined
these
four
questions
using
the
Social
Science
Citation
Index,
which
presents
information
on
all
articles
cited
in
the
bibliographies
of
articles
(and
chapters
in
many
edited
annuals)
in
nearly
all
social
science
journals
published
anywhere
in
the
world.
For
every
year
since
one
of
the
target
articles
or
books
was
published,
up
to
and
including
August
1986,
I counted
the
number
of
times
it
was
cited
in
several
different
categories
of
journals:
( 1 )
major
organization
journals
-
for
the
U.S.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
and
Academv
of
Management
Review,
and
for
Europe
and
the
U. K. ,
Organization
Studies
and
Journal
of
Nlanagenient
Studies
(for
each
of
these
journals,
I
counted
citations
by
research-based
articles
as
opposed
to
conceptual
or
review
articles);
(2)
business,
industrial
relations,
and
publication
administration
journals;
(3)
social
and
psychology
journals;
and
(4)
other
social
science
journals,
e.g.
planning,
education.
I
also
counted
the
total
citations
in
non-U.S.
based
journals.
Articles
were
classified
as
’research’
if
they
were
concerned
with
describing
or
explaining
empirical
observations,
and
’conceptual’
if
they
were
concerned
with
presenting
a
point
of
view,
developing
a
model,
or
offering
a
new
concept.
My
findings
must
be
taken
as
extremely
tentative,
given
the
lack
of
baseline
information
on
the
number
of
citations for
a
’typical’
organization
theory
article.
Results
are
shown
in
Table
1.
The
five
articles
and
books
were
cited
in
176
different
journals,
80
(45
percent)
of
which
were
published
in
the
U.S.
When
evaluating
the
citation
figures,
keep
in
mind
the
number
of
years
that
have
elapsed
since
the
article
or
book
was
published,
e.g.
Silverman’s
book
has
received
247
citations
since
it
was
published
in
1970,
or
about
15
per
years
.
Three
results
stand
out:
( 1 )
on
balance,
these
five
received
little
attention
in
either
U.S.
or
U.K.
major
organization
journals;
(2)
when
they
were
cited
in
U.S.
or
U.K.
major
organization
journals,
they
were
mostly
cited
in
conceptual
rather
than
research
articles;
and
(3)
they
were
heavily
cited
outside
the
major
organization
journals,
mainly
in
applied
social
science
journals.
Let
me
examine
each
of
these
findings
more
closely.
First,
the
five
pieces
were
mentioned
only
77
times
in
the
three
U.S.
organization
journals
and
60
times
in
the
two
European/U.K.
journals.
Clegg
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22
Table
1
Citations
to
the
Writings
of
’Organization
Theory’s
Critics’.
Source:
Social
Science
CitatIOn
Index,
1978-1 WIA.
Coverage:
all
citations
in
all
journals
published
since
the
year
of
publication
of
an
articles
or
journal.
and
Dunkerley’s
book
was
more
or
less
ignored
by
authors
publishing
in
U.S.
journals,
with
only
4
citations
over
six
years,
and
Morgan
was
mentioned
only
twice
in
six
years
in
the
European/U.K.
journals.
The
other
three
articles
and
books
fared
only
marginally
better,
with
20
citations
being
the
highest
number
received.
Silverman’s
book,
to
which
Donaldson
devotes
so
much
attention,
was
mentioned
about
once
per
year
across
the
three
U.S.
journals!
Second,
even
when
the
articles
and
books
were
mentioned,
only
26
percent
of
the
citations
were
in
empirical
research
articles.
The
rest
were
cited
in
theoretical
or
conceptual
review
pieces.
To
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
extent
to
which
these
’critics’
were
informing
organizational
theorizing
and
practice,
I
looked
more
closely
at
the
articles
citing
three
of
them.
I
tried
to
determine
whether
they
were
central
to
the
article’s
argument
or
incidental,
peripheral
citations.
(I
I excluded
articles
written
by
the
persons
cited.)
Of Clegg
and
Dunkerley’s
citations,
all
were
of
the
incidental
or
’honorific’
variety,
with
authors
citing
them
as
authorities
for
statements
such
as
’pressures
for
democracy
in
organizations
have
increased’
or
’powerful
economic
interests
affect
corporate
goals’.
For
Silverman,
I
looked
only
at
his
citations
in
ASQ
articles,
and
found
all,
again,
were
of
the
’honorific’
variety.
Finally,
I
examined
all
32
citations
to
Benson
in
the
5
major
journals
and
found
only
5
occasions
where
Benson’s
arguments
actually
figured
centrally
in
an
author’s
rationale
for
explaining
research
results
or
formulating
a
conceptual
model.
Thus,
all
but
a
handful
of
citations
to
these
’critics’
were
simply
casual
references
included
to
buttress
fairly
general
statements
about
social
processes.
I
found
little
evidence
that
authors
in
the
five
major
organization
journals
had
altered
their
thinking
because
of
the
critics
of
’Organization
Theory’.
Third,
my
first
two
points
tell
only
half
the
story,
as
the
audience
for
these
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

23
critics
is
clearly
not
persons
publishing
in
the
major
organization
journals,
but
rather
those
publishing
in
other
social
science
outlets.
About
75
percent
of
the
references
to
these
articles
and
books
occurred
in
non-organization
theory
journals.
Moreover,
of
the
430
citations
in
non-OT
journals,
80
percent
were
in
non-U.S.
based
publications.
These
’other’
journals
cover
the
social
science
landscape,
ranging
from
Accounting
Review
through
Library
Quarterly
to
Zeitschrift
fur
Pedagogik.
One
might
expect
the
number
of
citations
would
be
higher
for
non-OT
journals
simply
because
there
are
more
of
them
in
the
world.
Thus,
some
of
the
imbalance
shown
in
Table
1
is
surely
because
of
more
articles
appearing
in
non-OT
journals,
with
more
chances
to
cite
others’ work.
Nonetheless,
authors
in
these
non-OT
journals
roamed
far
afield
from
their
applied
areas
to
cite
the
critics’
work,
and
the
critics
themselves
were
not
especially
concerned
with
application
in
their
writings.
The
absolute
numbers
in
Table
1
thus
tell
only
part
of
the
story,
and
one
would
need
to
determine
a
baseline
citation
rate
and
examine
more
closely
how
citations
are
actually
used
in
the
non-OT
journals.
Given
the
time
pressures
in
preparing
this
paper,
I
was
unable
to
examine
all
430
non-OT
journal
citations
in
detail,
and
so
I
chose
Benson’s
article
for
closer
examination.
Of
the
32
articles
I
was
able
to
track
down,
23
were
conceptual
or
review
papers,
and
the
rest
were
empirical
papers.
Many
of
the
conceptual
papers
were
themselves
critical
attacks
on
a
perceived
dominant
paradigm
in
a
social
science
subfield,
such
as
educational
administration,
social
work,
public
administration,
and
health
care.
In
three
of
the
23
conceptual
papers,
Benson’s
argument
played
a
fairly
central
role,
with
his
notion
of
’the
dialectic’
and
’contradiction’
cited
favourably.
In
two
other
papers,
he
was
one
of
many
critical
theorists
treated
positively,
but
in
the
other
18
papers,
he
was
mentioned
only
in
passing.
In
none
of
the
empirical
papers
was
Benson
a
central
reference
-
his
article
seemed
a
convenient
cite
on
which
to
hang
the
general
point
that
organizations
contain
internal
sources
of
conflict.
In
the
past
five
years,
more
of
Benson’s
citations
have
come
from
the
non-organization
theory
journals
than
from
ASQ,
AMR,
.4M/.
OS
and
7~/~.
My
examination
of
citation
patterns
supported
two
conclusions.
First,
the
’critics’
whom
Donaldson
feared
were
undermining
’Organization
Theory’
have
certainlv
not
scaled
the
mountain
of
major
organization
journals.
They
have
had
a
negligible
effect
on
empirical
papers
published
in
such
journals
-
collectively,
35
mentions
in
empirical
reports
in
the
five
journals
since
1~70-
and
their
major
direct
influence
has
been
on
a
small
number
of
conceptual
papers.
Second,
they
have
a
sizable
indirect
influence
through
the
widespread
diffusion
of
their
criticisms
in
other
journals.
Donaldson’s
focus
on
defending
’Organization
Theory’ caused
him
to
miss
the
really
significant
develupment
in
the
past
decade
-
the
major
effect
of
the
critics
has
been
to
influence
the
terms
of
debate
on
orientations,
approaches,
and
paradigms
in
the
applied
social
sciences.
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24
Conclusions
The
battle
of
the
paradigms
is
far
from
over.
Donaldson’s
book
highlighted
some
of
the
terms
of
the
dispute,
and
rebutted
many
of
the
misplaced
claims of
the
critics
of
the
Aston
Group
and
contingency
theory.
The
field
of
combatants,
however,
includes
many
more
contending
paradigms
and
theory
groups
than
’contingency
theory
versus
all
comers’.
I
see
positive
as
well
as
negative
effects
of
these
controversies.
On
the
positive
side,
some
of
the
theory
groups
are
establishing
strong
positions,
with
high
levels
of
consensus
on
research
priorities,
central
issues,
terminological
standardization,
and
the
other
trappings
of
’normal
science’.
’Organization
Theory’
and
its
critics
are
affecting
applied
social
science
research
in
a
very
useful
way,
forcing
practitioners
to
confront
their
otherwise
unstated
assumptions,
and
perhaps
preventing
the
unthinking
adoption
of
paradigms
from
the
major
organization
journals.
On
the
negative
side,
most
of
the
actual
paradigm
struggle
has
been
confined
to
the
level
of
ideas,
with
words
battling
words
in
an
unending
sea
of
repetitious
prose.
Few
of
the
authors
publishing
in
the
major
organization
journals
have
come
to
grips
with
the
often
quite
telling
criticisms
reviewed
by
Donaldson.
Few
of
the
’critics’
identified
by
Donaldson
have
played
a
leadership
role
in
provoking
or
themselves
creating
sustained
research
programmes
that
would
settle
some
of
the
controversies
at
the
empirical
level.
Indeed,
as
a
former
associate
editor
of ASQ,
I
formed
a
clear
impression
after
ten
years
on
the
job
that,
for
every
5
empirical
articles
published,
there
were
25
conceptual
articles
written
in
the
following
year,
trying
to
interpret
them!
In
that
respect,
we
have
not
come
very
far
from
the rather
heroic
efforts
begun
by
the
Aston
Group,
some
two
decades
ago.
Notes
*1
am
indebted
to
Jane
A.
Scott
for
excellent
assistance
in
preparing
the
citation
data
used
in
this
paper.
For
critical
and
constructive
suggestions,
I
had
help
from
Peter
Bearman,
Craig
Calhoun,
Eric
Leifer,
Michael
Powell,
and
Jane
Scott.
References
Astley,
W.
Graham,
and
Andrew
H.
van
de
Ven
1983
’Central
perspectives
and
debates
in
organization
theory’.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly
28:
245-273.
Benson,
J.
Kenneth
1977
’Organizations:
a
dialectical
view’.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly
22:
1-21.
Burrell,
Gibson,
and
Gareth
Morgan
1979
Sociological
paradigms
and
organiza-
tional
analysis:
elements
of
the
socio-
logy
of
corporate
life.
London:
Heinemann.
Child, John
1972
’Organization
structure,
environment,
and
performance
—
the
role
of
strategic
choice’.
Sociology
6:
1-22.
Clegg,
Stewart,
and
David
Dunkerley
1980
Organization,
class,
and
control.
Lon-
don :
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul.
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

25
Donaldson, Lex
1985
In
defence
of
organization
theory:
a
reply
to
the
cntics.
Cambridge:
Cam-
bridge
University Press.
Hall,
Richard
1987
Organizations:
structures,
processes
and
outcomes.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Morgan, Gareth
1980
’Paradigms,
metaphors,
and
puzzle
solving
in
organization
theory’.
Ad-
ministrative
Science
Quarterly
25:
605-622.
Scott, W. Richard
1987
Organizations:
rational,
natural,
and
open
systems.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Silverman,
David
1970
The
theory
of
organizations.
London:
Heinemann.
Misunderstandings
and
Theoretical
Choices
Lucien
Karpik
Centre
de
Sociologie
de
l’Innovation,
Ecole
des
Mines,
Paris,
France
In
a
work
bristling
with
the
polemical
vigour
that
can
cause
moral
indignation,
Donaldson
asserts
that
the
debate
of
the
last
fifteen
years
has
been
unjust
to
Organization
Theory,
and,
what
is
more,
even
threatens
the
whole
edifice
or
organization
studies.
The
conflict
between
action
theory
(analyzing
’people
within
organizations’)
and
conventional
theory
(structure
and
performance)
is
for
him
at
once
absurd
and
insoluble,
since
one
cannot
compare
perspectives
attached
to
different
problems.
The
extension
of
the
analysis
to
the
wider
society
and
to
Sociological
Theory
would,
for
its
part,
be
suicidal,
since
it
would
lead
to
the
dissolution
of
the
sociology
of
organizations.
In
a
word,
this
story,
full
of
sound
and
fury,
dominated
by
wilfulness
and
irresponsibility,
bears
the
stigmata
of
an
irrational
debate.
Such
pessimism
does
not
seem
to
be
justified.
With
respect
to
the
relationships
between
process
and
structure,
between
organization
and
society
as
a
whole,
I
would
like
to
show
that
quite
apart
from
the
inevitable
passions
and
misunderstandings,
the
stakes
are
in
fact
significant.
So
much
so,
indeed,
that
they
have
governed
the
past
evolution
and
present
state
of
the
sociology
of
organizations.
On
Structure
and
Process
z
Even
taking
structure
as
a
property
of
organizations,
the
question
of
why
it
takes
one
form
or
another
remains
open.
The
analysis
developed
since
the
1960s
by
Perrow,
Cyert
and
March
and
many
others
considers
that
a
property
of
an
organization
(its
goals
or
its
structures)
only
becomes
intelligible
when
it
is
tied
to
a
conflictual
process
between
actors,
who
are
distinguished
one
from
the
other
by
their
orientations,
resources,
constraints,
margins
of action;
and
to
resolution
of
conflicts
by
the
decisiveness
of
a
dominant
power
capable
of
imposing
his
solution
on
the
totality
of
the
members
of
an
organization.
Thus
the
harmful
opposition
between
’action’
and
’structure’
is
resolved.
Logically,
such
an
approach
does
not
in
any
way
threaten
the
study
of
the
at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 24, 2014oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from