Aston group

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under the name Aston Group (eng. Aston Group ) a group of organizational researchers in Great Britain became known, which researched between 1961 and 1970 under the direction of Derek S. Pugh . Its official name was the Industrial Administration Research Unit of the Birmingham College of Advanced Technology (the university was renamed Aston University in 1966 ). The Aston Group pioneered the statistical analysis of organizations and how they work. In contrast to previous analyzes, which only aimed at binary quantities, for example “presence” and “absence” of a certain characteristic, the researchers expanded the spectrum to include continuous results and thus achieved a more differentiated insight into their object of investigation.

The American psychologist and organizational theorist William Starbuck rated the research of the Aston group in a study in 1981 as "one of the most important clusters of organizational research in the last 20 years" (from 1961 to 1981). The assessment is shared by Royston Greenwood in the introduction to an interview with Derek S. Pugh on his retirement.

The members of the Aston group came from various fields such as psychology , economics , political science and sociology . Royston Greenwood gives the group's researchers three generations. Pugh and Hickson use the same names, but in a different order.

Generations of researchers

In the summary of the work, Derek Pugh describes the research of the Aston group. Accordingly, there is no formulated Aston theory about organizations. The theses and findings are incorporated into the work of different generations of researchers. So dealt:

  1. Derek Pugh, David J. Hickson and CR (Bob) Hinings with the relationship between organizational structures and the influencing factors technology, organizational size and the environment.
  2. Diane Pheysey , Kerr Inkson and Roy Payne deal with the relationship between organizational structure and organizational climate
  3. Lex Donaldson , John Child, and Charles McMillan added performance results and cross-cultural analysis to Aston research.

Another breakdown of the "generations" of Aston researchers is represented by Derek S. Pugh. According to his presentation, the succession of generations is:

  1. Derek S. Pugh, David J. Hickson, Bob Hinings
  2. Keith Macdonald, Christopher Turner, Theo Nichols, Philip Levy.
  3. John Child, Kerr Inkson, Roy Payne, Diana Pheysey; John Fairhead.
  4. (no longer in Aston): Gloria Lee, Martin Evans, Will McQuillan, Lex Donaldson, Malcolm Warner, Roger Mansfield, Royston Greenwood, Charles McMillan, Tony Ellis, Alan Bryman, Stuart Ranson, Joe Schwitter, Denzo Horvath, Koya Azumi, Alfred Kieser , M. Badran.

Lex Donaldson names David Hickson, John Child, Jerry Hage and Colin Fletcher as his "foster fathers" in Aston and then Derek S. Pugh, John Child, Roger Mansfield and Andrew Pettigrew as "Astonians".

However the generations are divided, the Aston group is the only occurrence where a group, rather than an individual scientist, has been associated with a method. Malcolm Warner claims that in the writings of Aston gurus a potentially brilliant empirical theory of organizations plugged ( There is a potentially brilliant empirical theory of Organizations to be written by the Aston gurus ) Such a theory, however, was not published.

Researches

A typical result from the early phase of the work is the following matrix, which is an early analysis tool for the extent of bureaucratisation . In a study of 46 companies near Birmingham, the Aston Group concluded that

  • that larger organizations tend to be more specialized, standardized and formalized (structuring of activities).
  • that with increasing size the centralization of decisions decreases (concentration of power).

The two results empirically confirm the expectation, but offer no explanation for this result. On the basis of these two dimensions, the researchers find that organizations with increasing structure and concentration of power tend to be more bureaucratic.

Power /
structuring 		Structuring of the activities
Low High
Concentration
of power 		High Personnel bureaucracy Full bureaucracy
Low Non-bureaucracy Workflow bureaucracy

On the basis of measurable parameters - the number of written rules of conduct - and a structural consideration of the concentration of power, the bureaucratization level of an organization can be determined relatively easily.

In an extension and building on the work of Max Weber , who recognized a single bureaucracy, the Aston Group formulates a taxonomy of different types of bureaucracy with different characteristics and characteristics. The basis for this are three factors: concentration of power, structure and task monitoring. From this they formulate such different types as personnel bureaucracy, implicitly structured bureaucracy, early full bureaucracy, full bureaucracy and others.

The researchers postulate a single causal chain in which administrative factors and the concentration of authority in an organization reduce the variances of roles and thereby reduce the innovation and flexibility motivated by interpersonal interaction. The factors are interconnected and influence each other. As a result, bureaucracies reduce innovation.

criticism

According to Robert Chia and others, the achievements of the Aston Group were and are decisive for the field of organizational research. And early on there was criticism of the results and methods of the Aston group. In a defense of these methods, Lex Donaldson names the most frequent points of criticism as the reification of organizations, the static results, the ignoring of meanings ("sense") in the work and the like. Similar points of criticism are also mentioned in modern times, for example by Robert Chia and others.

According to this criticism, a positivist standpoint is generally adopted, in which observations are collected and evaluated. This point of view gives entities that cannot be observed in themselves, for example organizations, societies , the environment , etc., a thingness that cannot be justified. But if the thingness cannot be tested, then statements about these entities become questionable. For example, how can you tell whether an organization is still the same when someone else is running it? This is not intended to claim that an organization consists of its members, but only that logical statements about organizations only make sense if fundamental laws of thought can be upheld, for example the principle of identity . The Aston Group's approach therefore promotes a school of thought of static, structured and discrete states instead of the more or less indeterminate processes that create these states.

Publications

Aston programs

  • Derek S. Pugh and David J. Hickson (1976) Organizational Structure in Its Context: The Aston Program I , Gower Publishing
  • Derek S. Pugh and CR Hinings (Eds .; 1976), Organizational Structure - Extensions and Replications: The Aston Program II , Gower Publishing
  • Derek S. Pugh and RL Payne, RL (Eds .; 1977), Organizational Behavior in Its Context: The Aston Program III , Gower Publishing
  • David J. Hickson and Charles J. McMillan (Eds .; 1981), Organization and Nation: The Aston Program IV , Gower Publishing

Further publications of the Aston program

  • John Child (1972) Organizational Structures, Environment and Performance: the Role of Strategic Choice , Sociology 6 (1972), 2-22
  • Derek S. Pugh (1973) The Measurement of Organization Structures: Does Context Determine Form? , Organizational Dynamics (Spring 1973), 19-34; reprinted in DS Pugh (ed.), Organization Theory, Penguin, 1997
  • Lex Donaldson (1986) Size and Bureaucracy in East and West: A Preliminary Meta Analysis , in Stewart R. Clegg , DC Dunphy and SG Redding, The Enterprise and Management in East Asia , University of Hong Kong, 1986
  • David J. Hickson C. Robert Hinings, CA Lee, RE Schneck and JM Pennings, A Strategic Contingencies Theory of Intraorganizational Power , Administrative Science Quarterly, 16/2 (1971), 216-29
  • C. Robert Hinings, David J. Hickson, JM Pennings and RC Schneck, Structural Conditions of Intraorganizational Power , Administrative Science Quarterly, 1911 (1974), 22-44
  • Lex Donaldson (1985) In Defense of Organization Theory , Cambridge University Press
  • David J. Hickson, RJ Butler, D. Cray, GR Mallory, and David C. Wilson (1986) Top Decisions , Blackwell and Jossey-Bass
  • John Child (1994) Management in China during the Age of Reform , Cambridge University Press
  • Lex Donaldson (1995) American Anti-Management Theories of Organization , Cambridge University Press

swell

  1. ↑ Erich Frese (1992) Organization Theory - Historical Development - Approaches - Perspectives ; 2. revised and expanded edition 1992 XVI ,; Gabler Verlag; Page 116 ff
  2. ^ Derek Pugh: The Aston Research Program ; Pp. 124 ff. In Alan Bryman: Doing Research in Organizations , 1988, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-41500-258-5
  3. ↑ Michael J. Handel: The Sociology of Organizations: Classic, Contemporary and Critical Readings , 2002, Sage Publications, ISBN 978-0-76198-766-6 , p. 41 ff
  4. ^ William H. Starbuck (1981) A trip to view the elephants and rattlesnakes in the Garden of Aston , in AH Van de Ven and WF Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 167-198); New York, John Wiley; cited in Royston Greenwood and Kay Devine (1997) Inside Aston: A Conversation with Derek Pugh ; Journal of Management Inquiry 1997 6: 200; doi : 10.1177 / 105649269763003 .
  5. ^ A b Royston Greenwood and Kay Devine (1997) Inside Aston: A Conversation with Derek Pugh ; Journal of Management Inquiry 1997 6: 200; doi : 10.1177 / 105649269763003 .
  6. ↑ a b Derek Pugh and David J. Hickson (ed) 1996; Writers on Organizations , 5th Edition 1996; Penguin Books, London
  7. ^ A b c John B. Miner (2006) Organization Behavior 2: Essential Theories of Process and Structure .; Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe
  8. ^ Royston Greenwood and Kay Devine (1997). Inside Aston: A Conversation with Derek Pugh . Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 200-208
  9. ↑ Derek S. Pugh The Aston Program, vols 1-3 ( Memento of the original from July 2, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998, Classic Research in Management Series; accessed on July 1, 2015. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.getsetup.net
  10. ↑ a b c d Lex Donaldson (1985) In Defense of Organization Theory: A Reply to the Critics ; New York; Cambridge University Press
  11. ↑ Malcolm Warner (1981) Review of Organization and Nation: The Aston Program IV. Journal of Management Studies, 184 48-50
  12. ↑ a b c d Robert Chia (1997) Thirty Years on: From Organizational Structures to the Organization of Thought ; Organizations Studies 1997, 18/4: 685-707 © 1997 EGOS 0170-8406 / 97 online (PDF; 1.6 MB)