SYLLABUS - moodle2.brandeis.edu€¦ · Web viewThe purpose of this course is to develop the student’s ability to conduct theory-based research on organizations. This starts with

The Heller School for Social Policy and ManagementBRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

HS526 Organizational Theory and BehaviorFall Semester 2018

Instructors: Jon Chilingerian, Ph.D., Jody Hoffer Gittell, Ph.D. Coordinating Instructor: Jon ChilingerianClassroom: G3Office Hours: Chilingerian: Room 204 Mon (2-5) Tue (12-1:45), Wed (9-12); Gittell: Heller 206, Wed (12:30-2)Time of Class: Wed 2:00-4:50—One exception, Sept 12 class starts at noon._______________________________________________________________________Course Description: This course introduces students to organization theory and behavior from a policy and management perspective. The literature of organization theory addresses itself to the questions about the external environment that organizations operate within as well as the strategies and processes adopted by organizations. One basic question to which all course readings is related is: What role do organizations play in creating and delivering more effective policy outcomes?

In order to meet policy objectives and achieve high performance outcomes, organizations must solve some basic challenges:

Decision Making Units, Decision Theories, and Decision Traps Social Policy as Systems of Organizations Interacting Over Time Leadership Theory and Cultural Perspectives Resource Dependence Theory, Social Networks and Diffusion Theory Coordinating Work That is Highly Interdependent, Uncertain and Time Constrained Human Resource Systems, Diversity and Human Sustainability Autonomy, Control, Trust and Interdependence Organizational Learning and Multi-Level Change Organizational and Social Conflict - Integration or Domination?

During the semester we will examine a number of major perspectives on the nature and process of organization, and how they help us to understand these challenges.

The course is open to all doctoral students. No prior knowledge of organization theory is required. All that is required is that students be prepared to engage in intensive reading and thinking about theories that might contribute to their own research.

HS526a Syllabus Fall 20181

Cours Objectives: The purpose of this course is to develop the student’s ability to conduct theory-based research on organizations. This starts with the ability to form research questions and hypotheses that are informed by existing theories and by the student's experience. The course will cover the major theoretical perspectives on organizations and link these to contemporary empirical organizational studies. Special focus is placed on exploring in depth the link between theory and research exhibited in this empirical work to enable students to develop the capability of using theory to guide their own research. We will encourage you to identify hypotheses in each of the theories we read about, and encourage you to develop hypotheses that are potentially relevant to your own work, from multiple theoretical perspectives.

Overall Goal: Finding Theories Relevant to Your Social Policy Work

We hope you will select a few theories from the semester that interest you. How would you use them either separately, or in combination, for your research?

In addition, this course has the following objectives. 1. to develop an awareness and understanding of what organization theory is and why it is

important in providing analytical lenses to see (or ignore) phenomenon2. to review how some major theorists have analyzed organizations3. to develop a critical attitude to the literature, understanding levels of, and units of,

organizational analysis4. to develop an integrative and creative point of view about organizations5. to learn how to develop testable hypotheses about organizations from existing theories and

from your experience6. to develop your ability to use theory to design your own research involving organizations and

the social policy world at large.

Course Readings:See syllabus below. Additional readings may be recommended in response to discussion in class and student input and interest.

Course Requirements:

1. Reading To Prepare for Each Class. Students are expected to read materials assigned for class, before each class, lead some discussions and to engage in thoughtful discussion. 2. Case Study: Using the theoretical frameworks we have discussed in class write an original case study. The purpose of the case study is to give you practice: analyzing the culture of an organization that delivers services in your area of research interest. Apply the concepts from Ed Schein’s book Organizational Culture and Leadership and other concepts that you have read about in the course readings. The paper should be about 5-10 pages and will be due and presented on October 24.

3. Presentation. Each student will be required to make two twenty minute presentations in class. Select a book or theory you want to review, sign up in advance, and coordinate with the other students


who have signed up for that week. Be prepared to lead the class discussion after your presentation. You should try to do one presentation for Gittell and one for Chilingerian.

4. Final Paper and Presentation. Each student will be required to write a final paper that serves as preparation for the comprehensive exams. The paper will: Topic and research questions. Outline a policy, organization, or management challenge,

identify research questions Theory and hypotheses. Introduce and develop in detail one or two theories that address

these research questions, then develop detailed hypotheses that can be tested empirically - this section should be the bulk of your paper

Research design, methods and data. Summarize briefly your research design, the data you would collect, and methods you would use, to test these hypotheses

Presentation. Give a 20 minute presentation of this paper in the final two weeks of class Submission. Submit final paper by December 5

Grading Scheme: Case study on an organizational culture = 10 points Two presentations plus leading several class discussions . = 10 points Active class participation = 10 points Final paper and presentation = 20 points

Total = 50 points

Grades to be Satisfactory (40-50 points) or Unsatisfactory (less than 40 points)

Provisions for Feedback:Students will get credit each week for class discussions about the readings and lectures. Students will receive feedback on their presentation and on their final paper and presentation.

Academic Integrity: Violations of University policies on academic integrity, described in Section 3 of Rights and Responsibilities, may result in failure in the course or on the assignment, and could end in suspension from the University. If you are in doubt about the instructions for any assignment in this course, you must ask for clarification.

Notice: If you have a documented disability and require any accommodations, please bring them to my attention prior to the second meeting of the class. If you have any questions about learning or other disabilities, please contact the disabilities coordinator for The Heller School.

Books on Order at Bookstore:Required Books*

*Schein, Edgar H. 2017. Organizational Culture and Leadership, fourth edition. ISBN: 978-1-119-21204-1, Jossey-Bass. Paper.

* Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 2018. Dying for a paycheck. New York: Harper Collins. ISBN: 978-0-06-2800923.


*Godwyn, M. and Gittell, J.H. 2012 Sociology of Organizations: Structures and Relationships. SAGE Publications.

*Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik. 2003. The External Control of Organizations. Stanford University Press.

*Miles, Jeffrey. Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey Bass Reader. 2012. San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Optional:

Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (fourth edition) 2017. Thousand Oaks: SAGE ISBN: 978-0-7619-6339-4

Hatch, MaryJo. 2013 Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford. 3d edition.

Recommended Books***

***Northhouse, P.G. 2012. Leadership: Theory and Practice (sixth edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

***Pfeffer, J. Managing with Power. Politics and Influence in Organization. Harvard Business School Press. 1992

*** Hatch, M.J. with Cunliffe, A.L. Organizational Theory (2006) second edition by. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-926021-4

***March J. and H. Simon. 1956. Organizations.

***Barbasi, A. 2003. Linked. Penguin Book.

***Galbraith, J. 2000. Designing the Global Corporation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass

***Pfeffer, J. 1980. Organizational Theory. New York: Wiley.

***Hershey and Blanchard. 1990. Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

***Katz, D. and R. Kahn. 1978. Social Psychology or Organizations. New York: Wiley.

***Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

***Pfeffer, J. 1997. New Directions in Organizational Theory: Problems and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press


***Price, J. and Mueller, C. 1986. Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Pitman Publishing.

***Scott, R., Davis, G. Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives. by W. Richard Scott, Gerald F. Davis. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River: New Jersey ISBN 0-13-195893-3 (2007)

***Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in Action: The Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

*** Tosi, H.L. 2009. Theories of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

***Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in Action: The Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

***Weick, K.E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.


Overview of Course Schedule

Class and Date Topic Lead Instructor(s)August 29

Class 1

Decision Making Units, Decision Theories, and Decision Traps

Chilingerian

September 5

Class 2

Social Policy as Systems of Organizations Interacting Over Time

Chilingerian

September 12

Class 3

Leadership Theory and Cultural Perspectives Chilingerian

September 26

Class 4

Resource Dependence Theory, Social Networks and Diffusion Theory

Chilingerian

October 3

Class 5

Learning Integration Session: Presentation of Culture Studies, Toxic Work Environments, and the Congruence Model

Chilingerian

October 10

Class 6

Coordinating Work That is Highly Interdependent, Uncertain and Time-Constrained

Gittell

October 17

Class 7

Human Resource Systems, Diversity and Human Sustainability

Gittell

October 24

Class 8

Autonomy, Control, Trust and Interdependence Gittell

October 31

Class 9

Organizational Learning and Multi-Level Systems Change

Gittell

November 7

Class 10

Organizational and Social Conflict - Integration or Domination?

Gittell

November 14

Class 11

Presentations of Final Papers & Integration of Theories

Chilingerian/Gittell

November 28

Class 12

Presentations of Final Papers & Integration of Theories


December 5

No Class

Submission of Final Papers (if you have not by then)



August 29, 2018. Class 1: Decision Making Units, Decision Theories, and Decision Traps

Topic 1. Strategic Thinking & Decision-Making Units

Overview: The concept of a people working together as decision making units (DMU) will be introduced as a basic building block of organizations. This introductory session will introduce some of the early ideas on the heuristics of decision making, how human biases can distort perception, memory, judgement, and trip up your brain. The work of Kahneman and Tversky launched the new field of decision neuroscience and behavioral economics. They discovered that human brains assess what is going on via pattern recognition, and then “reacts” to it with emotional tags stored in memory. We will also review some findings in social science about cognitive neuroscience, emotion, perception, persuasion and influence.

Once we understand a DMU, think about questions such as: What processes do people in DMUs use to come to decisions? How do people in people in DMUs differentiate facts from assumptions? How do people in DMUs form ideas about what will happen in the future? How do people in DMUs evaluate the consequences and likelihood of an outcome?

Tasks: Required Readings: The Future of Bio-Pasteur Required Readings: Understanding & Analyzing Organizations: Part A and Part B by

Chilingerian (2016) Take 1-2 Pre-Tests: 10-15 minutes: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

Question: Should BioPasteur introduce the drug Yes or No? Why?

Over 5 years, BioPasteur invested nearly all of its profits on DIASTOP—a drug that could cure type 1 and type 2 Diabetes and was intended to be patient-centered. This break-through drug created much excitement--endocrinologists and primary care physicians were looking forward to its introduction. The drug was extensively tested and there were a very, very few complications (.3% were hospitalized). *(If you feel you need more information, let me know what specific issues/questions you have. Otherwise, please decide.)


https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

Recommended Readings: In the Miles book, read the description of the theory up to “criticism and critique.” In Miles,

Jeffrey. Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey Bass Reader. 2012. San Francisco: Josey Bass. [Miles Book: Chapters 6, 14, 16, 20, 24, 29, 31 and 32]. If you have time read the rest.

Kaplan, Gimbel and Harris. 2016. Neural correlates of maintaining one’s beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Nature: Scientific Reports. DOI: 10.1038/srep39589

Tversky, Amos., Kahneman, Daniel. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. September 27: 185(4157): 1124-31; Max H. Bazerman and Don A. Moore, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making , 8th ed. (New York: Wiley, 2013). & Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011).

Questions:

1. What did your pre-test tell you? What do learn from the data?2. If you have any personal examples of bias (be it an act of harassment or a micro- or macro-

aggression) that you would like to share with the class, please briefly describe through the survey link below. Names are not collected with this survey to keep it fully anonymous. https://brandeis.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eQmxr6v2sZjPWsd

3. What biases most affect organizational decision making? How do biases manifest? Are some more likely to be encountered under certain conditions?

4. Are you interested in decision making? What aspects?


https://brandeis.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eQmxr6v2sZjPWsd

September 5, 2018. Class 2: Social Policy as Systems of Organizations Interacting Over Time Topic 2: Policy and Organizations as Complex Systems: Applying System Dynamics Models to Understand Organizational Behavior

Overview: Why do so many population-based policies, innovation initiatives, and organizational responses fail to produce the desired or expected results? Why do organizations suffer from periodic crises and fluctuations in performance, customer experience, and employee morale? Why do some organizations grow while others collapse? What behavioral and social interventions are needed to improve the cost effectiveness of our interventions? While there are many plausible answers to these questions, this session focuses on system theory and system dynamics to understand behavior of people in organizations (households, communities, agencies, delivery systems, and the so on).

System dynamics models acknowledge that behavior and performance are counter-intuitive owing to multiple feedback effects, long time delays, and nonlinear responses to our policy decisions. Economic, technological, social, and environmental change challenges policy makers and managers to understand the behavior of complex systems. Learning in such environments is difficult precisely because we are unable to see the long term consequences of our most important policy decisions. So, how can social policy researchers help policy makers and managers identify and design policies that are not undermined by complex interdependent variables and unexpected side effects?In this session we will learn to use a health simulation model to develop principles of policy design for successful management of complex strategies. Effective learning in such environments requires methods to develop systems thinking by representing and assessing dynamic complexity. It also requires tools that managers can use to accelerate learning throughout an organization.

This session will use the ‘ReThink Health’ Simulation to investigate the extent to which health system performance in a region can change if the leaders are committed to higher-value, reinvesting savings and expanding global payments, enabling healthier behaviors, and expanding socio-economic opportunity. The model will divide the population by age, economic status, and insurance status and simulates changing health states by changing unhealthy behaviors, poverty, aging, and the quality of care. These drivers affect illness, acute episodes, and mortality. The model allows multiple options to simulate the likely effect of efforts to alter health risks, health delivery, insurance, and program financing. In working through the simulation and a thoughtful debrief discussion, together we will achieve a better understanding of the basic behavior of complex organizations embedded in a system and explore affordable ways to unlock better health and economic potential through combined investments in social, clinical and population health initiatives, coupled with financial agreements that that reduce incentives for costly care.

Rethink Health introduces us to system dynamics modeling for the analysis of social policy and organizational strategy. You will learn to visualize the social determinants of health and how structures and policies create organizational dynamics that regulate performance. System dynamics allows us to create 'microworlds,' where space and time can be compressed, slowed, and stopped so we


can experience the long-term side effects of decisions, systematically explore new strategies, and develop our understanding of complex systems.

The learning objectives are:1. To introduce a way to model organization behavior and social policy over time.2. To explore the importance of the social determinants of health, and review why healthy

behaviors, safer environments, efforts to reduce crime and unemployment are necessary components of improving community well-being.

Tasks:

As part of this session you will be assigned to complete Round 1 of the ReThink Health Assignment before class and during the second session you will work with a group to complete Round 2. Be sure to read the background documents, complete the pre-work questionnaire, and watch the introductory videos as explained in the task list. As pre-work, you will complete the instructions Round 1. In-class you will meet with a group and complete Round 2. Then we will debrief at the end of class to see what we learned.

Before Class: Complete Round 1 of the ReThink Health SimulationIn-class simulation: Complete Round 2 ReThink Health Simulation

Required Pre-Readings:

1. Sterman, J. 2006. Learning from Evidence in a Complex World2. Repenning, N., Sterman J. 2002. Capability Traps and Self-Confirming Attribution Errors in

the Dynamics of Process Improvement. ASQ3. ReThink Model Summary and Review ReThink Dynamics Initiatives4. Instructions for Round 15. Instructions for Round 26. Miles, Jeffrey. Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey Bass Reader. 2012. San

Francisco: Josey Bass. Chapters: 13 and 20.

Recommended Readings:

Sterman, J. Learning in and About Complex Systems. Chapter 1. Sterman J. Structure and Behavior of Dynamic Systems. Chapter 4 Sterman, J. Tools for Systems Thinking. Chapter 5 Forrester, J. 1995. Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems.

Questions: What does a system view mean to you? What are complex adaptive systems? How would you apply this to organizational analysis?


September 12, 2018. Class 3: Leadership Theory and Cultural Perspectives Class starts at Noon on September 12, 2018.In Class Video Case: Followership as Leadership & Wag Dodge

Topic 3. Leadership: Effective Styles and Attention Structures

Overview: There are two topics today: leadership and culture. During the first half of this session, we will focus on the key research ingredients to leadership: task and relational behavior and introduce the concept of leadership attention structures. There are many “theories” of leadership, we will introduce a situational leadership model connects leadership style with organizational effectiveness. The Hersey Blanchard model is based on the idea that appropriate leader behavior depends on the readiness of the leader’s direct reports and followers.

Readiness refers to the degree of motivation, competence, experience, commitment and confidence in accepting responsibility. As the readiness of followers improves, the leader’s behavior should also change. When we talk about leadership, we will introduce a organizational justice/fair process and collective intelligence models of leading. Finally, goal theory runs to the heart of this situational model of leading, and goal theory is one of the strongest bodies of literature in organizational science.

Topic 4: Studying Organizational Culture:

In class video: Robert McDonald, Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs; United Airlines: Southwest Airlines. Rule-based versus Principle-based Organizations?

Introduction: There are probably more definitions of culture (and leadership) than there are people studying it. Both are elusive concepts, and they have tremendous face validity—everyone thinks they understand what leadership & culture are, but that understanding is often vague and fuzzy. In this session, think about several useful methods of studying both leadership & culture. We will analyze the way leaders protect and embed values in cultures, and the core values on which it is based, are shaped over time and think about how organizational culture might affect innovation. How do we comprehend and study organization culture?

Tasks: Required Readings

Leadership Hilton, K., Wageman, R. 2016. “Leadership in Volunteer Multistakeholder Groups Tackling

Complex Problems.” Monographs in Leadership and Management. Volume 8, 425-264. Chilingerian, J. 1994 “Managing Strategic Issues and Stakeholders: How Modes of Executive

Attention Enact Crisis Management.” The Strategic Management Society. pp189-213. “Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups.” Woolley

A.W. et al., Science 29 October 2010


Miles, Jeffrey. Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey Bass Reader. 2012. San Francisco: Josey Bass. Chapters: 4, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 22, and 34

Culture Reading Schein, Edgar H. 2017. Organizational Culture and Leadership, fourth edition. ISBN: 978-0-

470-19060-9, Jossey-Bass. Study Questions:

Read the Wooley et al paper on collective intelligence. Look on-line and see recent papers and evidence. Is this a convincing theory?

Try to analyze an organizational culture in your area of interest with Schein's methodology. What are the artifacts, the values and the deep assumptions? Come to class with an idea for your case study. The case presentation is due October 24.

What does a ruled-based versus principles-based culture look like? Is this a new or interesting area for study?

Recommended Reading for Future Work: Yukl, Gary. 2012. Effective Leadership Practices: What we Know and What Questions We

Need to Address. Academy of Management Perspectives. Kippenburg, Daan, Van., Sitkin, Sim. 2013. A Critique of Charismatic Transformational

Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board? Academy of Management Annals. Vol 17, No1, 1-60.

Ancona, D., et al. Three Perspectives on Organizations – “Perspective 3. The Cultural Perspective on Organizations” 2004. Southwest Publishing.

Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy. (Jan 2003) W. Chan Kim & Renee Mauborgne. HBR

Latham, Gary and Locke, Edwin. "Goal setting--A Motivational Technique That Works" Latham, Gary and Locke, Edwin. "Enhancing the Benefits and Overcoming the Pitfalls of Goal

Setting." Avolio, Bruce, J,. Walumwa, Fred, O., Weber, Todd, J. 2009. Current Theories, Research, and

Future Directions. Ann. Review of Psychology. 60:21-49. Weick, K.E. and K.M. Sutcliffe. 2003. “Hospital as Cultures of Entrapment: A Reanalysis of

the Bristol Royal Infirmary,” California Management Review, Winter. House, R., & Baetz, M. (1979). “Leadership: Some Empirical Generalizations and New

Research Directions”, in B. Staw (ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 341-423.

Hershey and Blanchard. 1990. Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

House, R., W. Spangler, and J. Woycke. 1991. “Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 364-396.

Northhouse, P.G. 2012. Leadership: Theory and Practice (sixth edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications


September 26, 2018. Class 4: Resource Dependence Theory, Social Networks and Diffusion TheoryTopic 7. Resource Dependence Theory

Overview: Pfeffer and Salancik’s work is an outgrowth of open-systems theory and social-psychological theories of exchange. In Chapter 1 Pfeffer and Salacik explain how an external constraint perspective on organizational action differ from an intendedly rational perspective and a random/emergent perspective? Pfeffer and Salancik discuss several concepts that affect the power of a focal organization: resource criticality, resource importance, magnitude of resource exchange, concentration of resource control, discretion over the resource, and asymmetric dependence. They explain the key types of interdependence (behavioral, competitive, and symbiotic). We will also read recent studies that apply resource dependency theory.

Tasks:

Required Readings:

1. Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik. 2003. The External Control of Organizations. Stanford University Press

2. Miles, Jeffrey. Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey Bass Reader. 2012. San Francisco: Josey Bass. Chapters: 21, 26 and 37

To discuss resource dependence theory we will ask 3 students to present the empirical papers. 3 students can select one of the papers below for a presentation. How does RDT hold up as a descriptive or explanatory theory?

i. *Yeager, V., Zhang, Y., and Diana, M. 2015. Analyzing Determinants of Hospitals’ Accountable Care Organization Participation: a Resource Dependency Theory Perspective, MCRR

ii. *Casciaro, T. & Piskorski, MJ. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 167-199.

iii. *Santos, F.M., Eisenhardt, K.M. 2009. Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: entrepreneurial agency in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 643-671.

Discussion Questions: After you read Pfeffer and Salancik, think about a conceptual diagram that describes resource

dependencies and hypotheses in one of your areas of interest. What is the intellectual heritage of RDT? What relationship do the above concepts have to

each other and the power of the focal organization? (Hint: you might find it useful to diagram these relationships.) What is the unit of analysis in the model outlined in Chapter 3? Is this model parsimonious? How might it be improved?


How well do the authors (Casciaro, T. & Piskorski; Yeager, Zhang, and Diana; Guler; and Santos, F.M., Eisenhardt, K.M) test the RDT model? How well do these studies operationalize the model’s key concepts and test the relationships between these concepts? How does each paper extend or concentrate on a specific aspect of these theories? Do they integrate or disintegrate the concepts of the theory? How might these studies be improved? What are the implications of these results for transaction costs and resource dependence theories? What additional data and statistical tests would help you integrate these perspectives?

Recommended Readings: Hillman A, Withers M, Collins B. 2009. Resource Dependence Theory: A Review.

Journal of Management. 35(6):1404-27. Davis G, Cobb J. Resource Dependence Theory: Past and Future. In: Lounsbury

M, editor. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. ; 2010.

Guler.T. 2007. Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influences on sequential decision making in the venture capital industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (2): 248-285.

Topic 8: Social Network Method & Theory

Introduction: The diffusion of any idea, innovation, or technology depends on the process by which it is communicated to people who belong to a social system. The attitudes of people toward change can facilitate, slow down, or resist the diffusion process. When people are interested in change, and they share a common culture, communicate and interact through social networks, little changes can have a big effect. The tipping point refers to a moment when everything changes suddenly.

Social Network Analysis is both a method and a theory to describe and analyze relational patterns, both formal and informal, between individuals, groups and organizations in a network. Network theory is based on graph theory in which connections between and among people people can be represented by “nodes” and the ties/ edges or relationships they have. Ties can represent an array of different types of relationships between two actors, such as verbal interactions, information flows or cultural influences that affect learning, adoption, and behavior.

Tasks:

Required Readings:

1. Miles, Jeffrey. Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey Bass Reader. 2012. San Francisco: Josey Bass. Chapters: 9, 23, 30 and 36

2. Chilingerian, J. 2008. “Origins of DRGS: A Technical, Cultural, Political Story.”

Recommended Readings:

Liu, Barabasi, et alia. Controllability of Complex Networks. Nature (May 2011)

Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (especially chapters 2, 5 & 7)


October 3, 2018. Class 5: Learning Integration Session

Topic: Presentation of Culture Studies, Toxic Work Environmentsand the Congruence Model

Overview: The first half of this session will discuss the organizational analyses and culture study you conducted. In the second half, we will discuss Pfeffer’s analysis of modern work practices, and the effect on people. We will also introduce a conceptual model to sharpen our organizational diagnostic skills. The congruence model was developed by Michael Tushman and David Nadler and Charles O'Reilly. The model is a framework for analyzing the architecture of an organization, and facilitating researchers' ability to diagnose and fix problems. The model postulates that strategy, people, informal structures and culture, critical tasks, formal structures and executive leadership should be aligned if an organization is to be effective or achieve high levels of performance. The model also reveals the difficulty of measuring organizational variables.

Tasks:Required Readings: Pfeffer, J. 2018. Dying for a Paycheck. New York: Harper-Collins. Jones, Jennings, Higgins, and Waal. 2018. Ethological observations of social behavior in the

operating room. PNAS. Miles, Jeffrey. Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey Bass Reader. 2012.

San Francisco: Josey Bass. Chapters 1, 10, 25, 27, and 38.

Study Questions:

1. Do you agree with Pfeffer’s observation that the relationship between people and organization is broken? Is the problem culture? Where are the major misalignments? Is it possible to make people, work, formal architecture and informal structures more “congruent”? How?

2. Is the observations of social behavior in the operating room evidence of the effect of diversity on collective intelligence?

Recommended Readings: Tushman, M.L. & O’Reilly, C. A. 2007. Managerial Problem Solving: A Congruence

Approach,” Chapter 4, pp 1-44 in Tushman, M.L. & O’Reilly Winning through innovation: a practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press


October 10, 2018. Class 6: Coordinating Work That is Highly Interdependent, Uncertain and Time-Constrained

Overview: In Thompson’s (1967) seminal work on organizations, he argued that effective coordination in highly interdependent work settings is characterized by ‘mutual adjustment’ among participants, as outcomes from one task feed back and create new information for participants performing related tasks. However Thompson saw mutual adjustment as playing a limited role in organizations (Kogut and Zander, 1996). Because mutual adjustment is prohibitively costly, Thompson argued, coordination more commonly occurs through coordinating mechanisms such as supervision, routines, scheduling, pre-planning or standardization. These coordinating mechanisms enable organizations to achieve coordination while minimizing interaction among participants (Tushman and Nadler, 1978; Galbraith, 1977). Due to their limited bandwidth (Daft and Lengel, 1986), these mechanisms are typically argued to be most effective in settings with low levels of task interdependence and low levels of uncertainty (Thompson, 1967; Argote, 1982; Van de Ven et al., 1976).

Increasingly, however, work is characterized by high levels of task interdependence, uncertainty and time constraints, expanding the relevance of high bandwidth coordination beyond what Thompson had foreseen. But because it was expected to be the exception rather than the norm, the micro-dynamics of this form of coordination are seriously underdeveloped relative to our current need to understand them. Organizational scholars have begun to explore the micro-dynamics of coordination through theories of sense-making (Weick, 1993; Weick and Roberts, 1993; Crowston and Kammerer, 1998), expertise coordination (Faraj and Sproull, 2000; Faraj and Xiao, 2005), transactive memory (Liang et al., 1995) and social capital (Leana and Van Buren, 1999) and relational coordination (Gittell, 2002; Gittell, 2006).

In this class we will explore the dynamics of coordination in contexts that are highly interdependent, uncertain and time-constrained, much like the contexts where social policies are often developed and implemented. You will work in teams to create a relational map of a coordination challenge you have experienced within and/or between organizations, then analyze the causes of those coordination challenges, and propose some potential design solutions.

Relational Mapping (in class): Identify a work process you are familiar with that is highly interdependent, uncertain and time constrained, requiring coordination for its successful completion.

Identify the workgroups involved in the process Create a relational map of this work process using techniques introduced in class Identify strong, moderate and weak ties in the coordination network. Consider potential causes of these patterns, and potential design solutions.



Required Readings: (choose 4 of the following, found in Sociology of Organizations: Structures and Relationships unless otherwise indicated)

Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Follett, M.P. (1949). “The Process of Control," in Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in

Business Organization by Mary Parker Follett. London: Management Publications Trust, Ltd. March, J. and Simon, H. (1958). “The Division of Work," in Organizations. New York:

Wiley. Galbraith, J. (1972). “Organization Design: An Information Processing View," in

Organization Planning: Cases and Concepts. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Argote, L. (1981). “Input Uncertainty and Organizational Coordination in Hospital Emergency

Units," Administrative Science Quarterly. Weick, K. and Roberts, K. (1993). “Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating

on Flight Decks," Administrative Science Quarterly. Gittell, J.H. (2002). "Coordinating Mechanisms in Care Provider Groups: Relational

Coordination as a Mediator and Input Uncertainty as a Moderator of Performance Effects," Management Science. Available on LATTE.

Faraj, S. and Xiao, Y. (2006). “Coordination in Fast Response Organizations," Management Science.

Gittell, J.H., Douglass, A. (2012). “Relational Bureaucracy: Structuring Reciprocal Relationships into Roles,” Academy of Management Review, 37(4): 709-754.

Further Readings:

Wageman, R. (1995). “Interdependence and Group Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:145–80.

Crowston, K. and Kammerer, E. (1998). “Coordination and Collective Mind in Software Requirements Development.” IBM Systems Journal, 372:227–45.

Gittell, J.H. (2011). “New Directions for Relational Coordination Theory.” Pp. 74–94, Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, edited by Kim Cameron and Gretchen Spreitzer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gittell, J.H., Beswick, J., Goldmann, D., Wallack, S. (2014). "Teamwork Methodologies for Accountable Care: Relational Coordination and TeamSTEPPS," Health Care Management Review, 40(20): 116-125.


October 17, 2018. Class 7: Human Resource Systems, Diversity and Human Sustainability

Overview: One of the core principles of strategic human resource management is that organizational performance is influenced by the way employees are managed. In support of this argument, certain sets of human resource practices have been found to improve employee effectiveness and to predict higher levels of organizational performance (Bailey et al. 2001, Ramsey et al. 2000; see also reviews by Becker and Gerhart 1996, Ichniowski et al. 1996). Researchers have documented the impact of human resource practices on efficiency outcomes such as worker productivity (Arthur 1994, Bartel 1994, Datta et al. 2005, Koch and McGrath 1996) and equipment reliability (Ichniowski et al. 1997, Youndt et al. 1996), on quality outcomes such as manufacturing quality (MacDuffie 1995) and patient mortality (West et al. 2002), and on business growth (Bartel 2004) and financial performance (e.g., Collins and Smith 2006, Delery and Doty 1996, Huselid 1995, Wright et al. 2006). Human resource practices have also been found to explain performance differences among steel-finishing lines (Ichniowski et al. 1997), call centers (Batt 1999), airlines (Gittell 2001), banks (Richard and Johnson 2004), and high-tech firms (Collins and Clark 2003), though some studies have found no performance differences associated with human resource practices (e.g., Cappelli and Neumark 2001).

Multiple labels have been applied to this basic argument, including high-performance work systems, high-commitment work systems, high-involvement work systems, and high-performance human resource management. Despite these different labels, their common thread is that organizations can achieve high performance by adopting practices that recognize and leverage employees’ ability to create value. Though some disagreement remains among researchers, it is generally agreed that these practices include selection, training, mentoring, incentives, and knowledge-sharing mechanisms (Horgan and Muhlau 2006) and that these practices are most effective when they are implemented in bundles because of their combined effects on performance (Batt 1999, Dunlop and Weil 1996, Ichniowski et al. 1997, Laursen 2002, MacDuffie 1995).

There is less agreement, however, regarding the causal mechanisms through which high-performance work systems influence performance outcomes. The two dominant arguments are based on human capital and skill on the one hand, and motivation and commitment on the other. In addition, there is an emerging view that relationships constitute a third causal mechanism through which high-performance work systems influence performance outcomes (Delery and Shaw 2001). Rather than focusing primarily on the knowledge and skills of employees or on the commitment of employees to their organization, this third view focuses on relationships among employees as the primary causal mechanism that connects high-performance work systems and performance outcomes (e.g., Collins and Clark 2003, Collins and Smith 2006; Gittell, Seidner and Wimbush, 2010).

In this class we will explore these perspectives with particular emphasis on this third view, which moves us from strategic human resource management to strategic relational human resource management.


To do strategic relational human resource management well requires attention to interdependence, as well as staff diversity along dimensions such as gender, race, religion, socioeconomic background and sexual orientation. Organizations like other social networks tend to be self-replicating, and unless a deliberate effort is made, the same types of people tend to be hired and promoted over and over again. Our class today will address strategies for breaking this pattern to achieve staff diversity goals, and strategies for mobilizing the capabilities of a diverse workforce as they engage in interdependent work. We will consider the impact of these different approaches on the well-being of workers, using the perspective of human sustainability.

The evidence that multiple participants create value through their collective efforts might be expected to motivate a more equitable distribution of that value. However, even in the face of the evidence, the benefits of collaboration may not be equitably shared with frontline workers. Data show steadily increasing productivity in the U.S. since the early 1970's while real wages have remained nearly constant, demonstrating that productivity gains have not been equitably shared. Both theory and evidence suggest that workers benefit from relational coordination through increased job satisfaction and engagement and decreased burnout, and that firms benefit from relational coordination through increased efficiency and financial outcomes, quality and safety outcomes, client engagement, as well as learning and innovation. But we do not know whether workers benefit financially from engaging in relational coordination or other forms of collaboration, nor do we have theories to address this question.

HR Matrix (in class): Working with the same team as last week, and referencing the same coordination challenge identified in your relational map, you will carry out an HR practices assessment to assess how well current HR pratices support relational coordination among the key roles.


Required Readings: (choose 4 of the following readings, found in Sociology of Organizations: Structures and Relationships unless otherwise indicated)

Gittell, J.H., Seidner, R. and Wimbush, J. (2010). “A Relational Model of How High Performance Work Systems Work," Organization Science.

Delery, J. E. and Shaw, J.D. (2001). "The Strategic Management of People in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis and Extension." G. R. Ferris, ed. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 20. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 165–197. Available on LATTE.

Evans, W. R. and Davis, W.D. (2005). "High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Social Structure," Journal of Management, 31: 758–775. Available on LATTE.

Kvande, E. and Rasmussen, B. (1995). “Women’s Careers in Static and Dynamic Organizations," Acta Sociologica.

Maier, M. (1997). “We Have to Make a MANagement Decision: Challenger and the Dysfunctions of Corporate Masculinity," Managing the Organizational Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Schilt, K. (2006). “Just One of the Guys? How TransMen Make Gender Visible at Work," Gender and Society, 20(4): 465-490.

Nkomo, S. (1992). “The Emperor has no Clothes: Rewriting Race in Organizations," Academy of Management Review, 17(3): 487-513.

Prasad, A. (1997). “The Colonizing Consciousness and Representations of the Other: A Postcolonial Critique of the Discourse of Oil," in Managing the Organizational Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Griffin, K.H. and Hebl, M.R. (2002). “The Disclosure Dilemma for Gay Men and Lesbians: ‘Coming Out’ at Work," Journal of Applied Psychology.

Pfeffer, J. (2010). "Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor," Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1): 34-45.

Pfeffer, J. (2018). Dying for a Paycheck: How Modern Management Harms Employee Health and Company Performance - and What We Can Do About It. Harper Collins Publishers, NY.

Spreitzer, G., Porath, C.L., Gibson, C.B. (2012). "Toward Human Sustainability: How To Enable More Thriving At Work," Organizational Dynamics, 41: 155-162.

Further Readings:

Havens, D.S., Gittell, J.H., Vasey, J. (2018). “Impact of Relational Coordination on Nurse Outcomes: Achieving the Quadruple Aim,” Journal of Nursing Administration.

Gittell, J.H., Logan, C.K., Cronenwett, J., Foster, T., Freeman, R., Godfrey, M., Vidal, D.C. (2018). "Impact of Relational Coordination on Staff and Patient Outcomes in Outpatient Surgical Clinics," Health Care Management Review.

Dunlop, J. T. and Weil, D. (1996). "Diffusion and Performance Of Modular Production in the U.S. Apparel Industry," Industrial Relations, 35(3): 334–355.

Collins, C. and Smith, K. (2006). "Knowledge Exchange and Combination: The Role of Human Resource Practices in the Performance of High-Technology Firms," Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 544–560.


Heath, M. (2003). “Soft-Boiled Masculinity: Renegotiating Gender and Racial Identities in the Promise Keepers Movement.” Gender & Society, 17(3): 423–44.

Kanter, R.M. (1993). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Ortleib, R. and Sieben, B. (2010). “Migrant Employees in Germany: Personnel Structures and

Practices.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 29(4): 364–79. Park, J,, Malachi, E., Sternin, O. and Tevet, R. (2009). “Subtle Bias against Muslim Job

Applicants in Personnel Decisions.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 39(9): 2174–90.


October 24, 2018. Class 8: Autonomy, Control, Trust and InterdependenceOverview: Postbureaucracy theorists argue that supervision is obsolete. The environment in which organizations operate is increasingly turbulent, and flat, team-based organizations with reduced layers of supervision are expected to react more quickly and effectively. The increased interdependence of work requires strong group process, and group process is likely to be stronger when supervisors are not in the way. The superior performance of flat, team- based organizations will lead them over time to replace their more hierarchical counterparts (e.g., Piore and Sabel 1984, Walton 1985, Zuboff 1988, Appelbaum and Batt 1994, Heckscher and Donnellon 1994).

In contrast to the postbureaucracy view, other organizational scholars have argued that effective leadership is both time consuming and relationship intensive... Galbraith (1977) argued that working with subordinates to solve problems would be particularly valuable when work is highly interdependent. Others found that consultative leadership (Jermier and Berkes 1979), leader behaviors that promote coordination (Lord and Rouzee 1979), and leader initiating structure (Fry et al. 1986) were particularly valuable in the presence of highly interdependent work. More recent studies have reported that groups with greater managerial control performed better than those with greater autonomy from managers (Ancona 1990, Henderson and Lee 1992, Kim and Lee 1995, Eisenhardt and Tabrizi 1995). Note that these studies defined managerial control in varying ways.

In this class we will explore whether these arguments regarding autonomy and control are in opposition or whether both contain elements of the truth, thus developing new insights into theories of leadership.

Video Case (to be viewed and discussed in class): "Command and Control vs. Mission Command: Transforming Leadership in the US Military"

Odierno, R.T. (2012). Mission Command by the Chief of Staff of the Army. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2l1I8hY9Wo. Available online.


Taylor, F.W. (1911). “Fundamentals of Scientific Management," Scientific Management, pp. 9-29. New York: Harper and Row.

Follett, M.P. (1949). “The Basis of Authority," Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization by Mary Parker Follett, pp. 34-46. London: Management Publications Trust, Ltd.

McGregor, D. (1960). “Theory Y: The Integration of Individual and Organizational Goals," The Human Side of Enterprise, pp. 45-57. New York: McGraw-Hill.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2l1I8hY9Wo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2l1I8hY9Wo

Aoki, M. (1990). “Toward an Economic Model of the Japanese Firm," Journal of Economic Literature, 28: 1-27.

Batt, R. (1999). “Work Organization, Technology and Performance in Customer Service and Sales," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52: 539-564.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (1992). “Connective Leadership: Female Leadership Styles in the 21st Century Workplace," Sociological Perspectives, 35(1): 183-203.

Sweeney, P., Thompson, V. and Blanton, H. (2009). “Trust and Influence in Combat: An Interdependence Model," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(1): 235–264.

Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976). “Theory of the Firm: Managerial, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure," Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305-360. Available on LATTE.

Williamson, O. (1993). "Calculativeness, Trust and Economic Organization," Journal of Law and Economics, 36: 453-486. Available on LATTE.

Gittell, J.H. (2001). “Supervisory Span, Relational Coordination and Flight Departure Performance: A Reassessment of Post-Bureaucracy Theory," Organization Science, 12(4): 467-482. Available on LATTE.

Baker, G., Gibbons, R. and Murphy, K. (2002). "Relational Contracts and the Theory of the Firm," Quarterly Journal of Economics. Available on LATTE.

Gibbons, R. and Henderson, R. (2013). "Relational Contracts and Organizational Capabilities," Organization Science. Available on LATTE.

Further Readings:

Battistelli, F. and Ricotta, G. (2005). “The Rhetoric of Management Control in Italian Cities: Constructing New Meanings of Public Action,” Administration & Society, 36: 661-687.

Herbst, P.G. (1976). “Non-Hierarchical Forms of Organization,” Acta Sociologica, 19(1): 65-75.

Spreitzer, G., de Janasz, S.C. and Quinn, R.E. (1999). “Empowered to Lead: The Role of Psychological Control in Leadership,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 511-526.

Aoki, M. (1990). “Toward an Economic Model of the Japanese Firm," Journal of Economic Literature, 28: 1-27.

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007). “Shared Leadership in Teams: An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1217-1234.

Denhardt, J.B. and Campbell, K.B. (2006). “The Role of Democratic Values in Transformational Leadership,” Administration & Society, 38: 556-572.

Edwards, R. (1979). Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.

Follett, M.P. (1949). “Coordination,” in Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization by Mary Parker Follett, pp. 61-76. L. Urwick (ed.). London: Management Publications Trust, Ltd.

Follett, M.P. (1949). “The Process of Control,” in Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization by Mary Parker Follett, pp. 77-89. L. Urwick (ed.). London: Management Publications Trust, Ltd.

Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL.


Leibenstein, H. (1987). Inside the Firm: The Inefficiencies of Hierarchy. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Merton, R. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL. Stone, K. (1975). “The Origin of Job Structures in the Steel Industry,” in Labor Market

Segmentation, Richard Edwards, Michael Reich and David Gordon (eds.). Lexington Books.


October 31, 2018. Class 9: Organizational Learning and Multi-Level Systems Change Overview: In this class we will identify relational challenges that are inherent to organizational change - for example multiple stakeholders, power differentials, identity threats, disruptive learning, causal dilemmas, and "being the change you wish to see."

Multiple stakeholders with different perspectives are needed to support and carry out organizational change. According to configurationist, congruence and resource dependence theories, change is driven by shifts in the organization’s environment. It is treated as an exogenous or independent variable. One could argue instead that an organization's environment is created by multiple stakeholders, both internal and external, and that multiple stakeholders are also needed to create a sustainable response to that environment. The needs of one stakeholder may align and/or conflict with the needs of the other stakeholders however. How to motivate stakeholders who come from distinct perspectives to contribute time and effort to a change effort? Institutional, conflict and negotiation theories provide some guidance.

Power differences. The need for multiple stakeholders from different perspectives and power raises the need to address power differences. According to Gittell and Douglass (2012), "One key insight for [addressing power differences] is that neither party, regardless of its relative power, can fully accomplish its task-related goals without cooperation from the other under conditions of task interdependence. The change process could begin, first, by establishing the salience of task-related goals to the parties; second, by enabling the parties to discover their task interdependence; third, by creating a relational space in which to experiment with new patterns of interrelating; and fourth, by changing formal structures to support these new patterns."

Identity threat. Moreover, new role relationships do not come easily due to the potential for identity threat identified in organizational learning theories (e.g. Argyris, Edmondson, Schein). The identity threat introduced by new role relationships is particularly salient given that our identities are fundamentally relational. Organizational change is therefore constrained by the identity threat that emerges when role relationships change. How do people engage in new ways of relating, especially when those new relationships involve changes in identity? This challenge may be different in nature depending on the starting point. When the pure relational form is the starting point, going from personal to role-based relationships with one’s co-workers, customers and leaders is likely to be experienced as depersonalization. When the pure bureaucratic form is the starting point, going from siloed and hierarchical relationships to reciprocal relationships with one’s co-workers, customers and leaders is likely to be experienced as a threat to professional identity.

Disruptive learning. We know from organizational learning theory that learning - particularly learning how - is facilitated by active participation in the learning process (Tucker & Nembhard). We also know that learning tends to be incremental and constrained by existing knowledge (Christiansen). Yet disruptive learning is needed to move to a new organizational form based on new ways of relating and working together. Improvement science is based on active participation; however it is also based on incrementalism and fixing errors rather than radical learning for disruptive change What are the


learning methodologies through which stakeholders can codesign fundamentally new ways of working together? Enabling disruptive learning is therefore a key challenge for a theory of organizational change.

Causal dilemmas. In a change process, stakeholders do not yet have the reciprocal relationships in place that are needed to enact the structures to support reciprocal relationships. Organizational change therefore is constrained by a causal dilemma. How can new structures that are needed to support new ways of relating be designed by stakeholders who are still learning the new ways of relating? How might the process of designing those new structures provide opportunities to practice the new ways of relating? It is in effect a chicken and egg, or bootstrapping problem. Addressing this causal dilemma is a key challenge for a relational theory of organizational change. Structuration theory identifies a similar causal paradox and offers some insights for how to resolve it. According to structuration thoery, structures shape agency, but at the same time agency is needed to produce and reproduce these structures (Marx, Giddens). More recent developments in structuration theory reveals that structures shape relationships, and that those same relationships are needed to produce and reproduce these structures (Feldman; Perlow et al; Fletcher et al; Kellogg).

Being the change. Finally, stakeholders as individuals must act out the desired change in order to influence others to believe that such a change is both conceivable and achievable. Change is a process of seeing in order to believe, as suggested by Weick's theory of sensemaking, and also Meyer's theory of vicarious learning. As argued by social movement leaders such as Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, change happens by "being the change you wish to see in the world."

In Class Multi-Level Systems Change Simulation:



Argyris, C. (1976). “Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Organizational Decision-Making,” Administrative Science Quartderly.

DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields,” American Journal of Sociology.

Levitt, B. and March, J. (1988). "Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology. Edmondson, J. (2002). “The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A

Group-Level Perspective,” Organization Science. Perlow, L., Gittell, J.H. and Katz, N. (2004). "Contextualizing Patterns of Work Group

Interaction: Toward A Nested Theory of Structuration," Organization Science. Available on LATTE.

Fletcher, J.K., Bailyn, L. and Beard, S.B. (2009). “Practical Pushing: Creating Discursive Space in Organizational Narratives,” in Critical Management Studies at Work: Negotiating Tensions between Theory and Practice, Julie Wolfram Cox, Tony G. LeTrent-Jones, Maxim Voronov and David Weir (eds.). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kellogg, K. (2009). “Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Micro-institutional Changes in Surgery,” American Journal of Sociology, 115(3): 657-711.

Gittell, J.H. (2016), Transforming Relationships for High Performance: The Power of Relational Coordination. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, Chapter 6. Available on LATTE.

Reay, T. et al (2017). "Getting Leopards to Change Their Spots: Co-Creating a New Professional Role Identity," Academy of Management Journal. Available on LATTE.


Further Readings:

Briscoe, F. and Safford, S. (2008). “The Nixon-in-China Effect: Activism, Imitation and the Institutionalism of Contentious Practices.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3): 460–91.

Durant, R. (2007). “Toxic Politics, Organizational Change and the ‘Greening’ of the U.S. Military: Toward a Polity-Centered Perspective.” Administration & Society, 39: 409–46.

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M. (1985). “Organizational Learning.” Academy of Management Review, 10(4): 803–13.

Holmes, J., Schnurr, S. and Marra, M. (2007). “Leadership and Communication: Discursive Evidence of a Workplace Culture Change.” Discourse & Communication, (4): 433–51.

Huber, G.P. (1991). “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures.” Organization Science, 2(1): 88–115.


November 7, 2018. Class 10: Organizational and Social Conflict - Domination or Integration?Overview: We are living in a time of deepening divisions between political parties, races, genders, ethnic and religious groups, economic classes, and nations, as many have noted (e.g., Hochschild 2016). In the face of these conflicts, the theory of integration offers a potential way forward. Although integration may be difficult to achieve, it has the potential to be transformational at many levels, “for the relations between individuals, or between groups, classes, races [and] nations” (Follett 2003). In an era of extreme polarization where all of these relations are at risk, is integration relevant for addressing conflict?

Follett (1998) argues that conflict is necessary for growth: “nature desires eagerly opposites and of them it completes its harmony, not out of similar." According to her there are three ways to resolve conflict: domination, compromise, and integration. In domination, one side wins and the other loses, which is the easiest approach but it begets retaliation and therefore produces unstable solutions. In compromise, both sides gain something but also lose something that is valued, which also produces unstable solutions, given that both parties feel they have lost something of value. In integration, the underlying desires of both sides are addressed through creative problem-solving, producing more stable solutions. Integrative solutions are both more creative and long-lasting than domination or compromise.

However, Follett cautions that integration is not always an available option. In order to reach integration, Follett (2003) argues, we must “distinguish declared motive from real motive, alleged cause from real cause . . . to face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open." This process, she opines, allows for clear examination of values, “evaluation often leads to revaluation . . . in which neither side ever ‘gives in’ . . . but . . . when there is a simultaneous revaluation of interests on both sides and unity precipitates itself."

Integration proceeds from an attitude of willingness through a series of steps—sharing, disintegration, revaluation, and integration. The “method of integration” requires breaking down the situation into its component parts to see more clearly what’s really at stake for each party, attending not only to the professed positions people adopt, but also to their underlying interests which may be less immediately evident. Integration therefore requires that participants reveal their underlying interests—the “whole field of desire." “The first rule, then, for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open” (Follett 1924). By doing so, a common understanding of the situation emerges, enabling participants to co-create a response.

Follett's theory of integrative conflict resolution has given rise to alternative theories and methods for conflict resolution. Her theory provides an important contrast to other views of conflict including domination through hierarchy, and domination through class warfare. We will explore these competing theories of conflict in this final class.


Required Readings: (choose 4 of the following from Sociology of Organizations: Structures and Relationships)

Marx, K. (1887, 1967). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. New York: International Publishers.

Follett, M.P. (1926/1942). “Constructive Conflict” in Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Pondy, L. (1967). "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models," Administrative Science Quarterly.

Archibald, W.P. (2009). “Marx, Globalization and Alienation: Received and Underappreciated Wisdoms," Critical Sociology.

Johnson, B. (2009). “Racial Inequality in the Workplace: How Critical Management Studies Can Inform Current Approaches," Critical Management Studies at Work: Negotiating Tensions Between Theory and Practice, in Julie Wolfram Cox, Tony G. LeTrent-Jones, Maxim Voronov and David Weir (eds.). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gittell, J.H., Fletcher, J. (2018). "Integrative Solutions in a Divided World: Toward a Relational Model of Change," in M. Stout and J. Love (eds.) The Future of Progressivism: Applying Follettian Thinking to Contemporary Issues. Process Century Press. On LATTE.

Wright, G. (2018). "From Domination to Integration: Dealing With Polarized Views of Race in Contemporary American Politics," in M. Stout and J. Love (eds.) The Future of Progressivism: Applying Follettian Thinking to Contemporary Issues. Process Century Press. On LATTE.

Further Readings:

Hochschild, A. (2003). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. 2nd ed., Berkeley: University of California Press.

Stoudt, M. (2010). “Back to the Future: Toward a Political Economy of Love and Abundance,”Administration & Society, 42:3.

Van Maanen, J (1990). “The Smile Factory: Work at Disneyland.” Pp. 58–76 in Reframing Organizational Culture, edited by Peter J. Frost et al. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walton, R. and McKersie, R. (1965). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw-Hill (reprinted in 1991 by Cornell University Press).


November 15 & November 29, 2017. Classes 11-12: Presentation of Final Papers and Integration of TheoriesOverview: During these two classes, you will present your organization theory papers. You will get 20 minutes to present, then take questions. The following day you will receive feedback from the professors and from one other student.

How can we develop testable hypotheses using the theories and tools discussed so far? We will also discuss research designs, including both quantitative and qualitative methods, that we can use to test these hypotheses.


Appendix A: Organization Theory And Behavior: How Do We Study It?

The following 5 published manuscripts are published in the top tier “A” journals in organizational science. We will not have time to discuss but you can refer to them.

Recommended Readings

Bensaou, Ben, M., Galunic, Charles, Jonczyk-Sedes, Claudia. 2013. Players and Purists: Networking Strategies and Agencies of Service Professionals. Organization Science. DOI.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0826Net

Bloom, N., Van Reenen. J. Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries (2007). Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. cxxii Issue 4.

Bresman, Henrik. 2010. Changing Routines: A Process Model of Vicarious Group Learning in Pharmaceutical R&D. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 565, No. 1, 35-61.

Cronqvist, Henrik & Yu, Frank. 2015. Shaped by Their Daughters: Executives, Female Socialization, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Unpublished Manuscript, SSRN, Social Science Electronic Publishing.

Petriglieri, Jennifer Louise. 2015. Co-Creating Relationship Repair: Pathways to Reconstructing Destabilized Organizational Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly. Downloaded March 25, 2015. DO. 10.1177/0001839215579234

Appendix B: AN UNDERGROUND GUIDE TO ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE METHODS

(with thanks to Dr. John V. Maanen and Dr. Calvin Morrill)

Orienting Questions

--What is the relationship between particular methods and theoreticalapproaches in organizational studies?

--How do research questions and hypotheses shape the kinds of methods that are used to study organizations and vice versa?

A. Orientations

Bryman, Alan. 1989. Research Methods and Organization Studies. Boston, MA: UnwinHyman.

Webb, Eugene, and Karl E. Weick. 1979. “Unobtrusive Measures in OrganizationalTheory: A Reminder.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 650-659.*

Stablein, Ralph. 1996. “Data in Organization Studies.” Pp. 509-525 in Handbook ofOrganization Studies, Stuart Klegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, eds. London:Sage Publications.

See the journal, Organizational Research Methods (1998 - present).


B. Institutionalism

Schneiberg, Marc, and Elisabeth A. Clemens. 2006. “The Typical Tools for the Job:Methods in Organizational Institutionalism.” Forthcoming in How Institutions Change,edited by Walter W. Powell & Daniel L. Jones. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

C. Narrative Analysis

Czarniawska, Barbara. 1997. Narrating the Organization: Dramas of InstitutionalIdentity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boje, David. 2001. Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Studies.Thousand Oaks: Sage.

D. Network Analysis

Nohria, Nitin, and Robert G. Eccles, eds. 1992. Networks and Organizations: Structure,Form, and Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Rogers, Everett., and D. Lawrence Kincaid. 1981. Communication Networks: Toward aNew Paradigm for Research. NY: Free Press.Freeman, Linton C., Douglas R. White, and A. Kimball Romney. 1992. ResearchMethods in Social Network Analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methodsand Applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Marsden, Peter V. 1990. “Network Data and Measurement.” Annual Review of Sociology16: 435-463.*

E. Organizational Ecology and Demography

Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1989. “Methods.” Pp. 147-198 inOrganizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carroll, Glenn R., and Michael T. Hannan. 2000. “Methods of Corporate Demography.”Pp. 83-278 in The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

F. Organizational Ethnography

Morrill, Calvin, and Gary Alan Fine. 1997. “Ethnographic Contributions toOrganizational Sociology.” Sociological Methods and Research 25: 424-451.*


Morrill, Calvin. 1995. “Anatomy of an Ethnography of Business Elites.” Pp. 229-255 inThe Executive Way: Conflict Management in Corporations. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Morrill, Calvin, David B. Buller, Mary K. Buller, & Linda K. Larkey. 1999. "Toward anOrganizational Perspective on Identifying and Managing Formal Gatekeepers."Qualitative Sociology 22: 51-72.

Schwartzman, Helen B. 1993. Ethnography in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Feldman, Martha S. 1995. Strategies for Interpreting Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Feldman, Martha S., Jeannine Bell, and Michelle Tracy Berger. 2003. Gaining Access: APractical and Theoretical Guide for Qualitative Researchers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Scott, W. Richard. 1965. “Field Methods in the Study of Organizations.” Pp. 261-304 inHandbook of Organizations, James G. March, ed. Chicago: Rand McNally.*

Dingwall, Robert, and P. M. Strong. 1986. “The Interactional Study of Organizations: ACritique and Reformulation.” Urban Life 14:205-232. (also relates to institutionalism)

Van Maanen, John. 1979. “The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnography.”Administrative Science Quarterly 24 539-550.*

Hertz, Rosanna, and Jonathan B. Imber, eds. 1995. Studying Elites Using QualitativeMethods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

G. Experimentalism and Psychometric Scaling

Morrill, Calvin, and Ellen Snyderman. 1997. “It’s Not What You Do, But Who You Are:Informal Social Control, Social Status, and Normative Seriousness in Organizations." Sociological Forum 12: 519-543. (factorial survey/quasi experimentalism)*

Morrill, Calvin, and Cheryl King Thomas. 1992. "Organizational Conflict Managementas Disputing Process: The Problem of Social Escalation." Human CommunicationResearch 18: 400-428. (psychometric scaling/self-report)*

Keppel, Geoffrey. 1991. Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, 3rd Edition.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

H. Action Research


Eden, Colin, and Chris Huxham. 1996. “Action Research for the Study of Organizations.” Pp. 526-542 in Handbook of Organization Studies, Stuart Klegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, eds. London: Sage Publications.


Documents

SYLLABUS - moodle2.brandeis.edu€¦ · Web viewThe purpose of this course is to develop the student’s ability to conduct theory-based research on organizations. This starts with