enacting the environment: organization persistence and change

Enacting the Environment: Organization Persistence and ChangeOrganizations and Environments by Howard E. Aldrich; Organizations: An InformationSystems Perspective by Kenneth E. Knight; Reuben R. McDaniel,; Organizational Design byJeffrey Pfeffer; The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspectiveby Jeffrey Pfeffer; Gerald R. SalancikReview by: Robert P. McGowanPublic Administration Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1980), pp. 86-91Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976113 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 03:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.43 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 03:23:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/976113?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


86 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

BOOK REVIEWS MICHAEL J. WHITE and Louis F. WESCHLER, Editors

Review Editor's Choice

Annmarie Hauck Walsh, The Public's Business: The Politics and Practices of Government Corporations, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978.

Public corporations in the United States have long been a neglected area of inquiry. For this reason alone Walsh's study should command attention. It explains with concrete examples how these increasingly important tools of government are financed and organized,

But its interest goes well beyond the confines of its immediate subject. The book is really an analysis of some of the major issues of public administration- efficiency, autonomy, public responsibility, policy integration, and the public/private interface. Moreover Walsh relates organizational structure to organizational policies, and examines the proliferation of public corporations from a public policy perspective. This stimulating and provocative book should be essential reading for academic and practitioner alike.

N.C.

ENACTING THE ENVIRONMENT: ORGANIZATION PERSISTENCE AND CHANGE

Robert P. McGowan, Syracuse University

Organizations and Environments, Howard Et Aldrich. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979. Pp. 384, cloth.

Organizations: An Information Systems Perspective, Kenneth E. Knight and Reuben R. McDaniel, Jr. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing, 1979. Pp. 19 1, paper.

Organizational Design, Jeffrey Pfeffer. Arlington Heights, Ill.: AHM Publishing, 1978. Pp. 256, paper.

The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald R. Salancik. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Pp. 300, cloth.

In a work considered instrumental for both practi- tioners and academicians alike, The Social Psychology of Organizations,' Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn describe organizations as "negative entropic" processes. Briefly, organizations are subject to the same universal law as complex physical systems and move toward eventual disintegration and death. Organizations seek to expand their lifespan through adaptation-importing and storing more energy from the environment than they expand. Present efforts by government agencies and private firms to expand the level of activities beyond their initial mission-through such mechanisms as diversification or absortion of other organizational entities-indicate a basic characteristic of surviving organizations: persis-

tence through adaptation to environmental change. Examining the recent literature published on the

subject of organizational actions, the reader encounters a wealth of material. This material is lucid in certain areas and quite perplexing in others.2 A fundamental reason for the overwhelming volume rests in defining organization theory in relation to internal and external environments-witness current works on organization development, organization behavior, organizational design, organization systems, information systems, and the like. The inability of theorists to reach consensus on defini- tions of organization size and growth, administrative intensity, hierarchy, and organizational boundaries has further thwarted progress. Finally, some writers have expressed concern that organizations are subject to significant determinants of behavior that are not applica- ble across types of organizations.3 Through a discussion of various successful and less successful change strategies, the present review examines the ability of organizations to adapt to their environment. Has our understanding of organization design and adaptation been enhanced in recent works?

Robert P. McGowan is a doctoral candidate in public administration at the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. He has already contributed several articles and papers to professional journals and association meetings.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1980



BOOK REVIEWS 87

Convergence of Administrative Theory

Conceptually, it is useful to view the environment of organizations as a product of two distinct paths of inquiry: one, the more focused view of the organization itself; the other, a broader perspective of the universe of organizations. It is this fundamental divergence which has tended however to separate out various schools of thought. One therefore finds in the business management literature a body of work focusing on determinants of organizational behavior. In the field of public administrative theory, a similar focus at the organizational level is quite often concerned with such topics as service delivery functions or decision-making structures.

Turning to the macro-level approach, the function of complex organizations and technology emerge from the management literature. While viewed as significant, organizational complexity and technology are treated by public administration theorists as two of several variables determining policy outcomes. In sum, the discussion and subsequent analyses of organizational relations with the environment have largely been a function of such factors as the availability of data to the researcher, the adoption of distinct premises concerning internal vs. external interaction, and concentration on the policy outcomes of the organization being examined.

Beginning with a perspective of organizations engag- ing in exchange relationships between the internal and external environments, systems theorists have provided a logical bridge between a number of these areas. Conse- quently, the areas of distinction between the public and private organization have tended to converge in the literature. With private organizations constrained by regulations imposed by a variety of federal and state organizations and (sometimes) dependent upon public subsidies to maintain their operations, hard and fast distinctions between public and private organizations do not hold. Similarly, scrutiny of public sector organizations reveals a pattern of management practices tradi- tionally associated with the private sector: boards of directors governing local service organizations, personnel reform promoting executive mobility, and increased reliance on user charges.

While systems logic provides the framework for the understanding of organization adaptation to the environment, works were selected for review based upon treatment of certain fundamental themes: (1 ) organizations as information systems, (2) control and influence among organizations, (3) organizational boundaries, and (4) change strategies.4

Organizations as Information Systems

Several years ago, Herbert Simon directed our attention to the development of information-processing technology.5 For Simon, the ability of organizations to apply existing technology to the collection and utiliza- tion of information is critical to the organization's ability to make effective decisions. The experience of organizations with a myriad of computer-based informa-


tion systems has set a new prerequisite for successful management: an ability to understand systems logic. From providing the fiscal and programmatic detail of organizational operations, such systems-based in part on increasing technology and decreasing operational costs-have progressed to management information systems (MIS) and even small data centers for the individual consumer.

To define the organization as primarily an information system is not a radical departure for organization theorists concerned with the environment of organizational activities. Knight and McDaniel, in adopting a generic approach to the subject of information, do not hesitate to link information management to organization adaptation:

The term information implicitly assumes existence of usefulness (utility) as distinguished from data (facts) that do not necessarily have any apparent utility. Further, information utility may be realized only when information is transmitted from one data- processing or information-generating system to another. Infor- mation when transmitted assumes an economic value because it can modify the behavior of the second system (p. 13).

A critical part of their discussion then becomes the mechanism by which the organization exercises control of information flows. Do internal structures influence the organization's ability to successfully gather and utilize information for its operations? Are organizations, in fact, capable of effectively responding to changes in a turbulent environment? The authors provide a partial response to such questions in viewing the role of human information processors in both the selection and distor- tion of information from the environment. The influence of processors is determined by such factors as the capacity of these individuals to physically absorb information, the expectations or needs of the organization, and the complexity of the environment itself (p. 42). Unfortunately, the authors turn to a lengthy and all too familiar treatment of systems theory and its primary components (chapters 4-6) before returning to a discussion of organizational responses to its environment.

Pfeffer in Organizational Design equates-as do Knight and McDaniel-the locus of power with control of the information system. Consequently, information and information technology are viewed as means for exercising influence in the larger sphere of organizational politics. They become devices for centralizing control within the organization; and, in fact, the true pay-off of information systems is in coordinating complex and differentiated structures. Pfeffer offers an interesting prognosis for such structures and maintains that "by increasing the information processing capacity of posi- tions in the organization, the implementation of information technology may make less division of labor and task specialization necessary in the organization" (p. 75).

Control and Influence Among Organizations

A common approach in discussing organizational




interactions with the environment is to describe the degree to which organizations engage in coalition forma- tion and bargaining as a means of exercising influence. What this assumes is some degree of rationality by members of the organization in developing a consistent set or pattern of policy and program preferences. Information technology-previously described-is offered as one mechanism for coordinating diverse ele- ments. However, the ability of certain contemporary organizations to function and survive without adopting or utilizing structured information systems underscores the primary limitation of this particular approach.

Actions concerning discretion over critical resources and ability to cope with environmental uncertainty often determine the extent to which the organization remains intact or changes its structure and behavior patterns. The transformation in the early 1970s of local community development agencies from providing spe- cific job development opportunities to broad-based economic and social programs was less a result of organizational evolution than an effort directed at maintaining steady funding sources.6 As a result, the initial goals of these agencies were altered to such a degree that users of the services were substantially different. But through this upheaval the internal structure of the organization remained stable.'

In discussing the rationality of organizations, the difficulty rests in attributing a goal to a diverse coalition of interests. Pfeffer and Salancik examine the development of interdependencies among organizations and hold that the concept of a predominant goal or mission is inappropriate for understanding organizational actions. Whether we examine the local community development agency or the operation of an academic department as a component of a larger university system, the organization is primarily the total set of inter-structured activities engaged in at any point in time (p. 32).

Coalition behavior is not viewed by Pfeffer and Salancik as being necessarily determined by such internal structure variables as formal hierarchy, specialization, rules and standards, and professionalism but rather as a response to external pressures. Boundary-less well- defined-is determined by the discretion of an organization to control an activity in relation to another organization or individual (p. 32). This would tend to argue against the concept of organizational planning based upon a primary mission or goal within which the more substantive program objectives are developed. For each subgroup within the organization, there exists a different set or array of interactions operating between subgroups and with a distinct external clientele. The degree to which they persist and survive is determined by their level of discretion in offering inducements to focal members and primary contributors. Any effort to centralize activities through information systems must be weighed against this discretionary loss.

Pfeffer and Salancik, in discussing inter-structured activities of organizations, go beyond the casual treatment of such concepts as dependency relationships and influence and engage in limited empirical analyses of

public/private operations. Their ability to effectively intersperse empirical work among narrative is, in fact, one distinguishing feature of this work. Pfeffer and Salancik focus on a variety of organizational actors including Israeli managers, defense department contrac- tors, and hospital board members; this diversity enriches the theoretical discussion and provides a helpful dose of concreteness.

Organizational Boundares

In moving from individual units to the population level of organizations, Aldrich, in Organizations and Environment, has adopted the population ecology/ natural selection model approach:

[The] model represents an attempt to explain the process underlying change.... I wish to emphasize that the process of organizational change, while controlled by the environment, does not necessarily mean progress to higher forms of social organizations or to better organizations. The process of natural selection means organizations are moving toward a better fit with the environment (p. 27).

The rational model of traditional organizational and economic research has, for Aldrich, ignored the part played by unplanned variation. By analyzing sources of organizational variation, selection, and retention, an answer to an earlier question is suggested: organizations seem adaptive to their environment and it is not only the fittest organizations that seem to survive. The test of efficiency, nonetheless, remains the channeling of information to proper roles so that appropriate decisions on resource acquisition and disposal can be made (p. 61).

To provide additional understanding of exchange relationships, the dimensions of the environment have particular predictive power. The amount of resources made available to organizations will effect their ability to form interorganizational relations, structure themselves, and adopt necessary survival techniques. In a time of relative resource abundance, states and localities were often capable of maintaining similar and/or parallel levels of activities: suburban school systems emerged to service an increasing population of residents from urban centers-with no apparent change in central school systems; the growth of programs as a result of the infusion of Revenue Sharing funds permitted a high degree of flexibility at the community level. With the eventual decline of the resource base, critical decisions needed to be made, activities consolidated, and programs ultimately terminated. Other factors influencing interorganizational relations include: the degree of diversity in the environment, amount of stability, the concentration/dispersion of resources, and environmental turbu- lence (p. 69).

Since organizations respond to various dimensions of the environment, there appears to be a high degree of variability exhibited in the enactment process. The divergent interests of members and the basic ambiguities in determining organizational boundaries produce both organizational conflict and uncertainty. Economic bar-




BOOK REVIEWS 89

riers and often legal limits serve to restrict the degree of choice an organization is able to exercise in selecting new environments. Central or key organizations can prescribe conditions for continuing operations within a particular industry. Such actions as imitation and bor- rowing of products or activities are both important sources of new ideas and constraints on future action; and business, trade, and professional publications promote the development of a common frame of reference (p. 158). An area meriting further study would be the impact of this choice phenomenon on innovation and technology transfer activities. Unfortunately, this subject has been given cursory attention in all of the works.

Another consideration involves the problems encoun- tered by organizations attempting to control their boundaries. Pfeffer and Salancik succinctly describe these problems as: (1) the organization not correctly perceiving all of the external groups on which it depends or the relative importance of each, (2) misreading the criteria or demands being made upon the organization, (3) a commitment to doing things a certain way, and (4) the problem of balancing the demands of many organizations or groups simultaneously (p. 78). They suggest a process of determining relevant interest groups, weighing the relative importance of each, and assessing the reactions to the organizations' activities or outputs. The nurturing by private industry and governmental units of professional and trade lobby organizations is indicative of efforts being made to increase awareness of environmental changes.

Aldrich, in a related discussion of responsiveness, emphasizes the difficulty in developing lines of distinction in organizational membership. Since boundaries are often subject to change due to opportunities and constraints, organizational authorities are limited in their impact. Yet they can set conditions for entry to the organization. The ability of professional associations to accredit colleges and universities provides control over membership growth and expansion. Organizations dependent upon others for resources may indeed lose some authority in controlling entry, and certain organizations may lack any authority to exercise entry conditions- being subject to legal or statutory mandates (e.g., prisons and hospitals).

Similarly, control over departure determines the level of organizational responsiveness. Private associations possess a high degree of authority over employees -mediated to some extent by the power of various labor organizations. Voluntary organizations and associations can resort to similar procedures. When members tend to deviate from adherence to the philosophy or tenets of the organization, their expulsion is viewed as necessary by central managers or authorities for maintaining homogeneity. Control of boundaries, therefore, is viewed as the primary means by which organizations open themselves to external influence. Variation in boundary maintenance may be a result of strategic maneuvers prescribed by authorities or may represent actions taken by outsiders (p. 242).


Aldrich-more so than the other authors-has provided a melange of theories anoi ideas extracted from the business and public administration literature on boundary spanning roles. While Knight and McDaniel view the utility of these roles as assimilating and filtering information, boundary spanners also serve a primary external representation function. Allen, in a study of the role of professionals in research and development laboratories,8 examines the behavior of gatekeepers in linking the organizational unit with critical external bodies. Apply- ing this-concept to a more generalized set of events, Aldrich ties complexity and differentiation of the environments to the gatekeeping function: boundary roles tend to proliferate when organizations are in concentrated, heterogeneous, unstable and lean environments (p. 263). As the environment tends toward stability and homogeneity, the organization will exhibit less pressures to nurture these gatekeepers.

Change Strategies

The themes discussed to this point possess a certain value in describing behaviors of organizations in attempting to understand the influence of the environment. The concepts are well-grounded in theory and there exists areas of commonality and distinction among the works. The selection and use of a particular change strategy will depend upon both internal and external structure variables which must be accommodated into the model --thereby precluding the development of a universal solution for organizations.

Knight and McDaniel-in adopting an information systems perspective-view the organization's response to complexity as constituting a fourfold strategy:

(1) reduce the need for information exchange (2) develop buffers for limited systems (3) reorganize around critical systems (4) increase unanticipated outcomes as part of the creative pro-

cess (p. 109)

A critical limitation of current organizations who adopt this strategy is seen as an overcommitment to structured problem solutions based uopon routine information. The forces within the organization which promote this behavior are, for these authors, motivated by a desire to reduce conditions of conflict and competition. A meth- od commonly used by organizations is reduction of information exchange-segmentation and specialization of tasks and routines being the most prevalent. The difficulty of governmental organizations in reaching consensus on environmental and health-related issues, for example, is a function, not only of complexity and differentiation, but also of weak information sharing at critical junctures. Steps are being taken to provide clearinghouses of information (e.g., state legislative information system) in which participation is through subscription users. The benefit of this approach is the minimization of control by an individual member while at the same time adoption of a common reference




dictionary for member input and expansion. Perceiving change as an effort by the organization to

alter its dependency relationships, Pfeffer, Aldrich, and Pfeffer and Salancik provide a common set of strategies. The effectiveness of managers rests in their ability to "exploit the environment in obtaining resources while at the same time maintaining an autonomous bargaining position" (Aldrich, p. 167). This does not necessarily infer that certain actions undertaken in the name of ''organizational effectiveness" may not be motivated by the demands of participants for greater influence in the organization (Pfeffer, p. 190).

The following are mechanisms commonly suggested for altering organizational interdependence-both passive and active in operation:

* legitimation through goal adjustments * government regulation (e.g., subsidy, licensing,

restricted entry) * merger (e.g., vertical/horizontal integration by indus-

try) * joint ventures * long-term contracts * diversification * trade associations and cartels * cooptation (e.g., selection of boards of directors) * movement of personnel between organizations

Since the use of such techniques vary across industries and organizational units and often operate in a com- bined fashion, no preferred solution is offered. Selection of a particular change strategy will necessarily depend on the available information system, the legitimacy of desired actions, magnitude of the change, and time frame for the change. Aldrich encourages the use of "organization sets" in further analyzing organizations as well as providing some direction in understanding interorganizational relations. Through organizational set analysis, we can determine which organizations are effectively linked to a focal organization by specifying the resource flows of information, goods, and services as well as the contact between the boundary-spanning roles of the focal organization and others (p. 280). Again, effort is directed at looking at the population of organizations rather than individual units-the hope being that additional understanding of contextual relations will develop.

Summary and Conclusion

As an overall assessment, the Knight and McDaniel work is relatively brief and, as such, does not treat the topic of information systems beyond an extensive discussion of systems theory. In one of the later chapters on organizations as evolving systems, the authors pin- point an area which must undoubtedly concern many individuals in accommodating structured information systems to the organization: the incorporation of value preferences. Unfortunately, this is not successfully inte- grated into the subject matter.

Organizational Design is promoted as one of a series of works in the area of organizational behavior by the publisher, AHM Publishing Company. While Pfeffer satisfactorily touches upon the central concepts of interorganizational relations, he is cautious not to delve too deeply into areas of possible overlap with other works in the series. His discussion of design as a function of organizational politics is candid in its approach and centers on the importance of influence in understanding organizational actions.

For balance of treatment and depth, the Aldrich and Pfeffer and Salancik texts are the strongest. Aldrich faithfully documents and integrates the extensive body of literature in this area. Examining the amount of material published in the past five years, this is no simple undertaking. Pfeffer and Salancik provide extensive analysis of a topic which is not readily understood by students of organization theory: enacting the environment. Their use of empirical studies with discussion of the subject matter is a refreshing change; I would also like to see the authors relate one body of data across the several topical areas-thereby alleviating the problem of comparability of results.

Works in this genre provide numerous avenues of study and speculation in understanding the ability of organizations to influence change. Whether our interests are focused on private sector units or on public/ quasi-public institutions, the need for organizations to determine and manage critical dependencies emerges as the dominant theme. Organinizations able or willing to vary adaptive strategies can take advantage of their changing environments to improve their chances of survival.

Notes

1. Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.

2. See Dwight Waldo's review essay, "Organization Theory: Revisiting the Elephant," Public Administration Review, Vol. 38, No. 6 (November/December 1978), pp. 589-597, for an excellent overview of the trends in organization theory in recent years.

3. Note John R. Kimberly's "Issues in the Creation of Organiza- tions: Initiation, Innovation, and Institutionalization," Aca- demv of Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 437457, 1979.

4. Additional works in this area which have been published in recent years would include: Kenneth D. McKenzie, Organiza- tional Structures (Arlington Heights, Ill.: AHM Publishing), 1978; Edward E. Lawler III and John Grant Rhode, Information and Control in Organizations (Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing), 1976; and J. P. Kotter, L. A. Schlesinger and V. Sathe, Organization: Text, Cases, and Readings in the Management of Organizational Design and Change (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin Press), 1979.

5. Herbert A. Simon, "Applying Information Technology to Organization Design," Public Administration Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (May/June 1973), pp. 268-278.

6. Ernest R. Alexander, "Goal Setting and Growth in an




BOOK REVIEWS .91

Uncertain World: A Case Study of a Local Community Organization," Public Administration Review, Vol. 36, No. 2 (March/April 1976), pp. 182-19 1.

7. For a theoretical explanation of structural stability in the face of substantial environmental and policy change see B. Bozeman and E. A. Slusher's "Scarcitv and Environment

Stress in Public Organizations," Administration and Society, Vol. 11, No. 3, November 1979, pp. 335-355.

8. T. J. Allen, Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the Research and Development Organization. Cam- bridge: MIT Press, 1977.

VALUES, TRUTH, AND ADMINISTRATION: GOD OR MAMMON?

Frederick C. Thayer, University of Pittsburgh

Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, Sissela Bok. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1978. Pp. 354 (paper).

Freedom Inside the Organization: Bringing Civil Liber- ties to the Workplace, David W. Ewing. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978. Pp. 246 (paper).

Towards a Philosophy of Administration, Christopher Hodgkinson. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978. Pp. 244.

Can Organizations Change? Environmental Protection, Citizen Participation, and the Corps of Engineers, Daniel A. Mazmanian and Jeanne Nienaber. Washing- ton: The Brookings Institution, 1979. Pp. 220.

Bureaucratic Culture: Citizens and Administrators in Israel, David Nachmias and David H. Rosenbloom. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978. Pp. 212.

The Emerging Order: God in the Age of Scarcity, Jeremy Rifkin, with Ted Howard. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1979. Pp. 302.

Ethics for Bureaucrats. An Essay on Law and Values, John A. Rohr. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, 1978. Pp. 292.

Organizational America: Can Individual Freedom Sur- vive Within the Security It Promises? William G. Scott and David K. Hart, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com- pany, 1979. Pp. 272.

The Politics of Social Knowledge, Larry D. Spence. University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978. Pp. 374.

Bureaucratic Opposition: Challenging A buses at the Workplace, Deena Weinstein. New York: Pergamon Press, 1979. Pp. 144 (paper).

Because I raise religious issues, I begin with a famous prayer:

o God, give us serenity to accept what cannot be changed, courage to change what should be changed, and wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. *

Values, as statements of the desirable ("ought"), often are distinguished from facts, descriptions of reality ("is"). If we believe we can change reality, we muster courage, a word connoting struggle against oppression. If we believe facts cannot be changed, we accept them, our

*Usually attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr.


actions implying we actually prefer them. Obeying orders from superiors is one example, assuming greed an unchangeable "fact of human nature" is another, politics and economics assuming man is and should be greedy. Once accepted, then, facts are indistinguishable from values. These authors do not clearly separate desired and accepted values (I shall return to this), but they ask if it is time to change the supposedly unchangeable, to stop manipulating insignificant "variables" and begin challenging fundamental "constants."

Contemporary discussions of values and administration occur within the two familiar perspectives of organization theory. One holds that only individuals have values, organizations (including the Church) existing only to serve those values. "Classical,"** "mech- anistic," or "modern'* describe the approach and, except for the ambiguous position of the state, it dominates Western societies. The second view holds that organizations have intrinsic values, some desirable, all supersed- ing the values of individuals. "Organic," "systems," and "biological" are usual labels, and the perspective has dominated traditional societies, the medieval Church and, in part, Nazi Germany. History makes this approach suspect, and some authors conclude individualism has yet to conquer organicism.

Some authors are administrative philosophers (Bok, Hodgkinson, Rohr, Scott/Hart, Spence), others administrative empiricists (Ewing, Mazmanian/Nienaber, Nach- mias/Rosenbloom, Weinstein), a division based only on points of departure. Rifkin/Howard, exploring modern theology, are a bit outside both categories, but they make clear that theology, values, and organizations are inseparable. A word of caution is in order about the style that some authors use.

The philosophers often use organizational jargon in

Frederick C. Thayer is professor of public administration, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh. He is the author of An End to Hierarchy! An End to Competition (Franklin Watts-New Viewpoints, 1973) and is a regular contributor to the Public Administration Review, Administration and Society and other journals concerned with administrative theory.

**Widely used in business administration, "classical" implies organizations did not exist prior to the Industrial Revolution.



enacting the environment: organization persistence and change

Documents