Äsja ilmus Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, mis on küll Amazonis üsna krõbeda hinnaga, kuid kõigil huvilistel tasuks selle seotamist siiski kaaluda, sest see raamat võib “teenida” lugejat päris pikka aega. Kuigi raamatus on mitmeid peatükke, mille valdkonnad on vahetult seotud ka siinse lehe teemadega, rõhutan siin organisatsiooniteooriatele keskendunud Neil Fligstein’i kirjutet.
Scholars from many subﬁelds (medical sociology, political sociology, social movements, culture, and education) have felt compelled to study organizational theory because of the obviously important role that complex organizations play in their empirical research. But scholars who do not do organizational theory are often struck at how arcane the debates are within organizational theory. They also think most of the organizational theory are about ﬁrms, and thus, the theory does not seem to have much application to other kinds of social arenas.
Organizational theories have three origins: Max Weber’s original work on bureaucracies that came to deﬁne the theory for sociologists, a line of theory based in business schools that had as its focus the improvement of management control over the work process, and the industrial organization literature in economics.
I review many of these theories including institutional theory, Marxist, population ecology, power and the politicalcultural approach, network approaches, agency theory, transaction cost analysis, the idea of path dependence, and economic evolutionary theory.
Organizational theory takes as its main object of study the complex or formal organization (what I will just call organizations). Organizations have goals, hierarchy, rules, deﬁnitions of membership, and active conceptions of career paths for their members.
Organisatsiooniteooria kolm suunda:
In Weber’s original formulation (1978), the ﬁrst modern complex organizations appeared in governments. They were more efﬁcient because they raised taxes, ﬁelded armies, and were thus able to control the means of violence in a given territory. Their hierarchical, bureaucratic structure meant that orders issued by people higher up in an organization were likely to be executed by those lower in the organization. […] Neoclassical economics, with its focus on price theory and mathematics, came to develop a subﬁeld called industrial organization. The basic idea was that the structure of markets should be determined by the costs and nature of market inputs, i.e., land, labor, and capital. […] The third strand of thought in organizational theory originates with the practical concerns of managers.
Simon and March created the grounds for a powerful synthesis for organizational theory by producing a model of actors that was more realistic. Instead of assuming that the people had perfect information and were able to undertake courses of action that perfectly maximized the use of resources, they realized that people had limited information and attention.
Sotsioloogiateooriad organisatsioonide valdkonnas:
I consider ﬁve general sociological approaches that are relevant to comparisons of organization: population ecology (Hannan and Freeman 1977, 1984), neo-Marxist approaches (Mintz and Schwartz 1985, 1994; Edwards 1979), political approaches (Pfeffer 1981; Campbell and Lindberg 1990; Fligstein 1990, 1996, 2001), institutional accounts (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, 1991; Meyer and Rowan 1977; Scott and Meyer 1994), and network approaches (for a review, see Powell and Smith-Doerr 1994).
By importing ideas from cultural sociology, economic sociology, and cognitive sociology, scholars have been able to not only make better sense of why organizations endure and work to reinforce the status quo of society but also occasionally transform these things in interesting and novel manner before our very eyes.
Fligstein, N. (2021). Organizations: Theoretical debates and the scope of organizational theory. In Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory (pp. 487-506). Springer, Cham.