Organizational theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizational theories have the purpose of organizations to explain their origin, their existence and their functioning. A variety of organizational theories exist. All approaches have their object area - the organizations - the same, while each one examines certain aspects. The theories play a role in various disciplines such as organizational sociology , organizational psychology , business administration and administrative science. In the context of organizational theories, one speaks here of organizational science ; Organizational Behavior is a special, interdisciplinary subject.

Max Weber's bureaucratic approach

Max Weber presented the late 19th century the bureaucracy associated with the "process of rationalization, that the escalating throughout history human ability to mentally deal with the natural and social environment and creatively intervene in it" .

In Weber's view, rationalization occurred on three levels:

  • At the level of practical life
  • At the level of worldviews and belief systems
  • At the level of institutions

Weber's reflections began at the level of worldviews and belief systems. Here he saw a magical worldview which, in his opinion, had to be disenchanted, since this worldview prevented man from taking control of the world, as the annoyance of a god had to be expected in every activity. In the course of history, the Calvinist worldview was able to separate God and the world, whereby the world was "completely disenchanted" . In Weber's view, this disenchantment of the worldview goes hand in hand with a rationalization of institutions. Here he developed three ideal types of rule, each of which has a different degree of rationality:

  • charismatic rule (e.g. based on hero power)
  • traditional rule (based on traditions)
  • legal rule (based on legitimacy)

According to Weber, only legal rule is rational; he regards the other two types as pre-rational forms. According to Weber, the rationality of legal rule is based on “ objectivity, impersonality and predictability .” After all, Weber sees bureaucracy as the purest form of legal rule. The bureaucracy is characterized by a person-independent division of labor, an office hierarchy, an office management as well as a task fulfillment, which is based on documents. However, it is problematic that the high level of rationality of the bureaucracy severely restricts the practical way of life of the individual and also rationalizes it. This specifically means that “the way of life is to be structured methodically and consistently according to one's own value orientations - at one's own discretion” . To deal with this dilemma, which both those working in the bureaucracy and outsiders, such as B. Citizens, Weber suggests to solve the bureaucracy by a charismatic top and industrial companies by independent entrepreneurs. Overall, Weber's approach is rated positively in the scientific discourse. B. from Habermas. Outside of science, there is also a high level of acceptance, as it can be traced back to everyday experience. However, it is critically discussed that despite Weber's assumptions it came about that despite the development of bureaucracy, individuality and creativity have increased. As evidence, for example, science and art can be used, which, despite being managed in a bureaucracy, create new styles or develop competing theories.

Scientific Management and Taylorism

Taylorism, an approach going back to Frederick Winslow Taylor , scientifically scientific management theory. Taylor not only identified best practice methods in organizations, but also transformed them into concrete, optimizing application rules. Taylor used the experiment as a precise methodological principle in order to derive general organizational principles and to optimize them. Since the observed work processes should produce reliable results, Taylor increased the wages of the observed workers. Taylor identified four general organizational principles primarily through his time and movement studies, in which he closely observed the movement sequences and work performance under changed conditions:

The first is the separation of hand and brain work and pursues the goal of “putting scientific values ​​in place of rules of thumb”. This principle requires the separation of executive and prescriptive work. The second principle is closely related to the first and concerns the quota and bonus at work. Taylor took the view that material incentives such as bonuses or bonuses should motivate workers to do a certain amount of work. Taylor found that the masters were overwhelmed with the calculation of the amount of bonus and workload. He therefore recommended the establishment of a work office and the introduction of a system of functions or activities in which each master takes on a specific control task. The third principle concerns the selection and adjustment of workers. Taylor wanted a "first class workforce" with each worker assigned to his or her ability. Finally, the fourth principle is devoted to the reconciliation between workers and management through the rule of experts. and the goal of increasing management and worker wages through increased efficiency.

The criticism of Taylor's approach is largely due to its scientific nature. Kieser puts it like this: "'Scientific management' is a science without theory.", And further emphasizes that the experiment is an aid for theory testing and not for theory formation. Taylor also did not comply with any criteria applicable to social science experiments. Taylor also did not check his hypotheses with regard to his negative image of man, but saw them as given. In addition, Taylor is accused of having manipulated his data and stresses that a precise examination of an increase in efficiency based on his approach is not possible. Kieser goes on to say that the effectiveness of Taylorism, which is particularly evident in Taylor-inspired Fordism , was not produced because it was based on an adequate theory, but because “its application actually expanded management's control over the workers and thus Discipline of the workers contributed significantly ”. Further aspects of critical discussion are the reduction of people to performing a single, purposeful, monotonous activity, the health consequences, and the dequalification of workers.

Management theory

Management theory is understood as the teaching of "good practice" . In other words, as a teaching that draws on proven methods in everyday organizational life, i.e. on organizational principles. Such organizational principles have the advantage in practice that they reduce the complexity of the work organization. Attempts to summarize best practice in guides and manuals have been going on for four millennia. For example, from the times of the pyramids in ancient Egypt, there are recommendations on how to deal with dissatisfied workers, or in the Chinese empire of the Choudynasty there is a manual for the administration of the empire. The rules derived from practice often relate to the division of labor. Plato already referred to this. In the Middle Ages, monasteries were central to formulating organizational rules. In mercantilism , the insight prevailed that “ the“ people's prosperity ”could be increased by intervening in the economy, for example by founding workhouses and factories ”. The advantages of the division of labor were then further specified by Adam Smith , among others , who examined the production of pins. A little later, Ure set up rules for the organization of work and staffing, explicitly referring to the advantages of mechanical science as a substitute for the "unreliability of human nature" Babbage made it clear that one can operate more efficiently through the division of labor, if only directly for The skills required for the job are bought by the company (Babbage Principle). In addition to the division of labor, another efficiency criterion recognized early in management teaching is the “instructions for comprehensive and appropriate formalization” and the unit of order placement required by Fayol , among others . There are four main criticisms of the simple management theory. The first deals with the lack of specification of the conditions for the validity of organizational principles. So no general statement about optimal line spans, nor about the unit of order placement can be derived. The second aspect criticizes the load of values. It is argued that "organizational principles and the ideologies behind them" are self-confirming. In other words, framework conditions are created for the success of the chosen organizational principles that ensure their success. In addition, there is no justification for why the selected principle should be the best. The third aspect deals with the past orientation of organizational principles and the associated conservative effect, which results from the fact that in the past it has been shown which principles have proven to be the best or most proven in past problems. The fourth criticizing aspect is aimed at fashion waves. Organizational fashions are talked about and talking about the organization as such is changed, but the structures and processes remain the same.

Human relations approach

The origin of the human relations movement are the Hawthorne experiments , in which the effects of working conditions on work performance were examined. The core message of this approach is that humans are social beings and function according to their own laws. It follows that a positive attitude towards work leads to a high level of satisfaction among the members of the organization and their superiors. This satisfaction in turn results in high work performance.

The organizational development (OE) is based on findings from the group dynamics laboratory method ( NTL Institute ) and the survey feedback . “Making those affected become involved” is a core concept of the OE and has also found its way into many other methods. Joint learning processes are initiated and methodologically supported. “Planned social change” uses the skills of everyone involved and the organization as a whole for development and change. The laws of social communities are used and (as with the human relations approach) the interests of employees are taken into account. OE is used in large companies, administrations, churches, social institutions and the army.

Following the human relations movement, motivation theory developed, a field of research that focuses on human behavior. The main focus is on the relationship between motivation or frustration , satisfaction and performance.

Above all Abraham Maslow , Douglas McGregor and Frederick Herzberg should be mentioned as representatives. Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs and classified the action-determining motives of humans in a five-step scheme. With his XY theory, Douglas McGregor assumed that every management decision is shaped by a certain image of man . The core statement of Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory , on the other hand, states that the work content , i.e. the hygiene factors and the motivators, determine the motivation significantly.

Behavioral decision theory

The values ​​and perceptions of the members, their incomplete knowledge, their recognition by opinion leaders, their loyalty to authorities as well as specific communication forms and barriers and peer pressure also influence the decision-making process. One of the early theoreticians of decision-making behavior in organizations is Herbert A. Simon , who pointed out the limited rationality of organizational decisions as early as 1945. The micropolitical approach of organizational theory, on the other hand, focuses on the conscious strategic influencing of decisions in organizations.

Situational approaches

In the situational approach, also known as contingency theory, the focus is placed on the formal structure of an organization in order to explain its efficiency with regard to its organizational goals. A universally valid model of an organizational structure is not assumed, the application of which can achieve the highest possible efficiency, but the organizational structure is considered depending on the situation of the organization to which it is being adapted. An underlying assumption is that the organizational structure has a direct effect on the behavior of the organizational members. This research perspective emerged not least after the observation of a large number of different organizational structures, whose deviations from an ideal model did not result in any losses in terms of their efficiency. The concern of the situational approach is to be fulfilled with the help of a research program, for which four preliminary work is necessary:

I. The formal organizational structure must be operationalized as a dependent variable, i.e. specified and made measurable. Classically, this is done on the basis of five dimensions, which are derived from Max Weber's bureaucracy concept : 1. Division of labor 2. Standardization 3. Centralization 4. Formalization 5. Configuration

II. The situation of the organization must be operationalized as an independent variable. This is done without a theoretical derivation. A distinction is made between an internal situation and an external situation. Dimensions with which the former can be described are, for example, the size and age of the organization, as well as processes and manufacturing techniques. The external situation can again be subdivided into a task-specific environment, which includes, for example, competitive conditions, and a global environment, which includes social and cultural conditions. Finally, the behavior of the members and the efficiency of the organization must also be operationalized. It is assumed that the behavior of the members is controlled via the organizational structure, which is efficient or inefficient depending on the situation of the organization. Due to the problem of empirically grasping such relationships, this aspect was hardly taken into account in studies.

III. The situational approach does not have a theory from which hypotheses can be derived for empirical verification. Since this is essentially a research program, the results of which are explained by means of ad hoc assumptions, research designs and methods need to be developed that allow the form, direction and strength of a relationship between the formal structure and the situation of the organization in terms of their efficiency can be measured. The research work generally used large amounts of data that were processed by regression or path analysis.

Important representatives for the development of the approach were a research group at the University of Chicago around Peter Blau and the Aston group around Derek S. Pugh in Birmingham.

In the situational approach, the formal organizational structure is given central importance, while decision-making processes are not taken into account, which distinguishes it from behavioral decision theory. By hiding the actor's perspective, the approach also differs greatly from institutional and human-relation approaches. Connections can be found to neo-institutional approaches in which the formal organizational structure is also central and the relationship between organizations and their environment is examined.

There is a long list of criticisms of the situational approach. In addition to methodological deficiencies and the lack of theory of the approach, it is criticized, among other things, that the assumption of a deterministic influence of the situation on the organizational structure is not tenable, that there is no explanation of the adjustment of the organizational structure, that rule is not taken into account or that an appropriate consideration of the Actions and intentions of the organization members are absent.

Neo-institutionalist approaches

Important information is still missing in this paragraph. Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

From the point of view of neo-institutionalism, the elements of the formal structure of an organization are constructed by rules and expectations of the environment, which have a binding character. These formal structures serve to give the organization legitimacy. The central concepts of the approach are institutionalization and the institution. Institutionalization describes both a process and a state and has a theoretical reference point in the sociology of knowledge, which according to reality is socially constructed and determined by everyday experiences. Different societies construct different realities. Institutionalization as a process is the mediation of such a reality, while institutionalization as a state is the construction of the mediated reality. In contrast, according to the neo-institutionalist view, institutions in organizational science are “institutionalized elements of the formal structure of organizations and management practices that are industry-wide, national or international.” What is significant is a departure from the model of the rationally acting actor. Neo-institutionalism assumes that institutionalized elements of the organization such as procedures, actions and interests of the actors determine. The institutionalization can assume different degrees, the stronger the degree of institutionalization, the less actions are reflected. There are two currents of the approach: a) a macro-institutionalist approach, which primarily looks at organizations in their environment, whose rules and expectations are important for the organization, and b) a micro-institutionalist approach, which examines individuals in relation to the organization, which itself is an institution there and to be understood as producers of institutionalized elements.

The neo-institutionalist approach distinguishes itself primarily from theories of rational action and points to the fact that reality is socially constructed.

The neo-institutionalist approach is criticized primarily because of its inconsistency. The points of criticism mentioned below are taken up by some neo-institutionalists and incorporated into the theory, but not generally accepted. There are, in principle, several neo-institutionalisms. What is justified lies in the different explanatory interests of the individual studies. Often, an unclear understanding of actors and power, an unclear explanation of institutional change and the unclear nature of the organizational environment are criticized. Likewise, the institutionalization is deliberately narrowed down in order to distance oneself from the technical-rational view of organizations, which may overemphasize the "show side".

Institutional economic approaches

The institutional economic theories of the organization deal with the analysis of organizations from the point of view of economic exchange relationships. They are a combination of economic and organizational theory and examine the mutual relationship between institution, exchange, costs and efficiency. Three theories can be distinguished: Theory of rights of disposal , agency theory , transaction cost theory .

The theory of rights of disposal focuses on the design and distribution of rights of disposal in its institutional analysis. Rights of disposal regulate the extent to which economic actors are allowed to dispose of resources, and explain institutionalized rules of conduct for resource use (expected behavior and sanctions). The theory deals with explanatory approaches to the genesis, assignment and change of rights of disposal and assumes that individual actors always act according to their own material and immaterial benefit within the institutional framework and the legitimate disposal of resources. According to the main statement of the theory, the net benefit is lower if the actor receives less power over the resource or the more transaction costs are incurred for the determination, transfer and enforcement of rights of disposal. The structure of the rights of disposal as well as the level of the transaction costs determine the possible benefits and risks that economic actors can face in the context of resource use. Individuals are not only described as profit maximizers and companies are not only described as “black boxes”. Different effects of right of disposal structures can be analyzed and taken into account. But it is a very simplified approach with conceptualization and operationalization problems.

Agency theory focuses on the institution of the contract and its role in the delegation relationship between a principal and an agent. The principal delegates tasks and decisions to the agent in return for compensation. It is assumed that there is necessarily different information on both sides and that diverging interests guide the principal and the agent. As a rule, z. For example, the agent is better informed about his ability for the tasks assigned to him by the principal than the principal himself. These relationships are understood as contractual relationships and analyzed from the point of view that actors strive for individual benefit maximization, have stable preferences, and differing risk appetite and have disparate information. An organization is seen as a network of contracts. At the nodes of the network, there are implicit (e.g. also oral) or explicit (e.g. written) contractual relationships between individuals. Problems like missing information from the principal about goals (or hidden goals) of the agent are pointed out and possible solutions like the improvement of information systems or the introduction of control systems are considered. The control systems cause so-called agency costs, which are incurred by the principal. The following types of agency costs are defined: guarantee costs , management and control costs and residual costs . It should be noted critically that the theory primarily focuses on individual relationships between a principal and an agent and leaves out the role of regulating third parties as well as the relationships between several agents. The contract negotiation is also focused, but the contract fulfillment phase is omitted.

Transaction cost theory examines the efficiency of transactions in institutional arrangements in order to explain their genesis and organizational formation. Efficiency means investing as few resources (e.g. time, money) as possible in the transaction. Here are transaction costs distinguished from production costs and differentiated in information costs , transaction costs , control costs , adjustment costs etc. The cost categories set differ in costs arising after conclusion (ex post) before the contract (ex ante) and in cost. In contrast to the right of disposal and agency theory, the transaction cost theory stands out precisely because of the explicit inclusion of ex post costs. On the basis of these distinctions, institutional arrangements are compared, whereby the actors are assumed to have limited rationality, opportunistic practices and risk neutrality. In addition, the uncertainty and frequency of transactions, influencing factors such as incentive intensities and adaptability, as well as various forms of contractual basis in terms of duration and specification, which affect the costs of establishing and using institutional arrangements, are considered. The transaction cost theory extends organizational research to include an economic justification of organizational formation and the economic advantages of institutional arrangements. However, there are difficulties in developing theories as well as operationalization and measurement problems. There is also no analytical instrument to cope with the complexity of the entanglement of different transactions and institutions.

Structural theory approach

The cognitive interest of the structuring theory according to Anthony Giddens is the mediation between objectivist and subjectivist positions. The resulting theoretical construct, which is based on the mutual presupposition of action and structure, explains the reproduction of social practices. The core principles of the theory of structuring, on the basis of which the neologism structuring. can be derived:

  1. “The social actors produce and reproduce through their actions the conditions (structure) that enable their action, and
  2. Structures are both the medium and the result of social action. "

The central concept of structuring theory therefore represents the duality of structure . The mutual relationship between action and structure also makes it clear that the theory is based on a procedural perspective.

Acting actors are equipped with practical knowledge of existing structures. This knowledge is either practical (here the agent is only aware of the structure as a memory trace) or discursive (the agent can name the structure precisely). Practical knowledge can become discursive knowledge through information. In addition, actors are endowed with intentionality and the power to reflect on their actions. According to Giddens, actions cannot be viewed in isolation and always routinely include their environment. Conditions for action that are not recognized by the actor influence his actions. These conditions interact with unintended consequences of action, the structures. Structures are therefore both a condition and a result of actions. According to Giddens, the limited human awareness of these conditions and consequences justifies the right to exist of the social sciences, because their task is to generate knowledge through a methodical approach that goes beyond that of the lay actors, who are only aware of structures in the dark.

The classification scheme of the structural dimensions serves as an orientation aid for the methodology of the structuring theory. According to this, signification (understood as the constitution of meaning) and legitimation (understood as rights and obligations) are structural dimensions, which are called rules. They manifest themselves in the interaction as communication and sanction. Giddens describes the structural dimension of rule as a resource that generates the structure of power through the actions of the actors. The continuously reproduced relationships between actors or collectives that manifest themselves in context-bound social practices is what Giddens describes as a social system. Action and structure can only be separated from each other analytically and are examined in structuring theory with the analysis of strategic-intentional behavior and institutional analysis, which are just as interdependent as their objects of investigation. Here, the theoretical mediation of action and structure leads to a methodical combination of understanding and explanation.

The structuring theory according to Anthony Giddens thus clearly distinguishes itself from purely objectivist ( structuralism , functionalism , situational approach ) and also from subjectivist (interpretive approaches, hermeneutics , organizational culture approach) approaches, in that the actor is given an active role and the limiting effect of structures is observed . This aspect is also the starting point for a criticism of the structuring theory. In order to do justice to both sides of the argument, the terminology used by Giddens remains unclear. The inclusion of the actors' rationality without weighing up their consequences can be interpreted as an objectivist orientation, which Giddens actually tries to evade. In addition, central questions that arise from Giddens' argument remain unanswered. The consequence is that the author defines key concepts (such as the rationalization of action) differently and the concept of the duality of structure seems to be undermined.

Socio-technical approach

The concept of socio-technical systems was founded in the early 1950s by Eric Lansdown Trist . It was his concern to make the work more humane and at the same time to increase the performance. The socio-technical approach regards organizations as open systems , whose main task is the transformation of input into output . People , work , organization and technology are generally viewed as being of equal value. The machine model of the organization by James D. Thompson assumes that the input-output transformations take place in relatively stable technical cores that are surrounded by a ring of services that reduce uncertainty - e.g. B. by selecting and filtering the inputs.

The sociosystemic model was developed by Russell Ackoff . It regards the organization as a social system whose parts have their own ends. The system as a whole also aims to further develop itself, its parts and often also the higher-level system. Ackoff names five characteristics that a sociosystemic organization must fulfill:

  1. It has to be democratic.
  2. It has to implement a mechanism for the internal exchange of services (internal market).
  3. It needs a multi-dimensional structure.
  4. It has to implement a process of interactive planning in order to continuously shape itself.
  5. You need a decision-making system that supports this continuous process.

Systems theory approaches

The systems theory goes back to the Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972). This theory serves to explain processes of growth, adaptation and self-regulation . The cybernetics as the science of controlling and regulating systems , however, was the American Norbert Wiener founded (1894 to 1964).

Both overarching sciences are based on ways of thinking, which are often characterized as holistic thinking or steering of systems. The core message is that social systems have the ability to organize themselves and develop rules of behavior in the process. According to system theory and cybernetics, structures arise by themselves.

A sociological system concept was first formulated by Talcott Parsons . A sociological system theory based on this was then formulated by Niklas Luhmann in the 1980s .

For Luhmann, organizations are social systems that consist of the communication of decisions . Their structure is made up of decided decision-making premises (decision-making programs, communication channels and deployment of personnel) and uncertain decision-making premises (organizational culture, consisting of informal communication, attitudes and values). Luhmann places organizations at the center of the various social sub-systems and assigns them the function of re-specifying the initially broad problems to be solved by the sub-system. Organizations thus increase the problem-solving capacity of functionally differentiated societies by reducing complexity. The organizations operating within the framework of a sub-system have included the problem-oriented codes and programs of their functional system in their decision-making premises and, by conditioning and isolating their members, enable their more systematic and effective application. The members belonging to the environment of the system have not only accepted the rules by joining, but have also given a general agreement for future decisions of the organization. In modern organizations, their motivation is no longer secured by an identity of organizational purpose and individual purpose, but by functional equivalents (especially money).

Since Luhmann claims an all-explanatory major theory, he automatically distinguishes himself from all other major theories. There are particular differences to actor-centered theoretical approaches (e.g. role theory and actor-network theory ). The “ contingency ” concept in systems theory (“ underdetermination ”) is also unequal to that of the situational approach (“ determinacy ”). At Luhmann, the environment does not determine the reactions of organizations.

Luhmann, however, focuses one-sidedly on (system) functional aspects and thus obscures the view of morally indifferent functioning for the sake of functioning as a sign of modernity. The blocking out of the actors and the negation of the possibility of targeted control make it difficult to apply the Luhmannian concept of organization in business contexts.

Population Ecology Approach

The central aim of the population approach is to explain the social change of organizations. The population approach in the evolution theory makes use of biology and tries to explain the social change of organizations with the central concepts of the biological evolution theory. The analysis of change in organizations does not start with individual organizations, but rather populations of organizations are in the foreground of the analysis. Organizations of a common population have the same basic structure. In everyday language, one could also speak of sectors to which organizations can be assigned instead of populations. Changes within a population of organizations are triggered by variation. Variations within a population occur, among other things, when organizations are founded, since newly founded organizations are based on successful existing organizations. This imitation does not succeed one-to-one, however, so that variations occur within a population. In contrast, technological change plays an important role in the emergence of new forms of organization. So is z. B. to see a great connection between the invention of the internal combustion engine and the development of the automotive industry. The term selection is also used in the population approach. With selection is meant the "struggle of existence" between organizations. Organizations that are unable to adapt to a changing environment disappear from the population, so that it becomes more and more homogeneous over time. In addition, it is necessary that the successful organizational models that have survived the selection process are preserved (retention).

Since the population approach in the analysis of the social change of organizations emphasizes the importance of the environment or the environmental conditions of a population of organizations, similarities to the contingency approach of organizational theory can be determined. The difference to the contingency approach can be seen in the fact that it is not the structural adaptation of an organization to the environment that is analyzed, but that the analysis is at the level of the populations of organizations. The population approach, on the other hand, can be understood as a further development of the theory of open systems, which also observes the exchange relationships between the system and the environment

The following criticism is made of the population approach:

  • The population approach is accused of hidden biologism.
  • The organizational evolution mechanisms (variation, selection, etc.) are themselves subject to an evolution process, which the population approach does not take into account.
  • When organizations change, the importance of the environment is emphasized too much and the importance of the individual or the management of the organization is neglected.
  • Criticism also consists in the assumption that the establishment of new organizations is accepted as the dominant mechanism of variation. The same applies to selection as the elimination mechanism of organizations.
  • In addition, the definition of the population is criticized. Not all organizations can be clearly assigned to a population.
  • The methodological approach is also criticized. Accordingly, a vast amount of empirical data has to be processed when analyzing a population.

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A. Kieser: Max Weber's analysis of the bureaucracy. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 63.
  2. ^ A. Kieser: Max Weber's analysis of the bureaucracy. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 70.
  3. ↑ Gabriel 1979: 32, quoted from Kieser 2006: 72.
  4. ^ A. Kieser: Max Weber's analysis of the bureaucracy. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 71 f.
  5. ^ A. Kieser: Max Weber's analysis of the bureaucracy. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 76.
  6. ^ A. Kieser: Max Weber's analysis of the bureaucracy. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 86.
  7. ^ Alfred Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: Organizational Theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 104ff.
  8. ^ Alfred Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: Organizational Theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 107.
  9. ^ Alfred Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: Organizational Theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 111.
  10. ^ Alfred Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: Organizational Theories. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 106-112.
  11. ^ Alfred Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: Organizational Theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 121.
  12. ^ Alfred Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: Organizational Theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 123.
  13. ^ Alfred Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: Organizational Theories. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 121-128.
  14. ^ A. Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 95.
  15. ^ A. Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 96.
  16. ^ A. Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 97.
  17. ^ A. Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, p. 101.
  18. ^ A. Kieser: Management theory and Taylorism. In: A. Kieser, H. Ebers: Organization theories. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 93-103.
  19. ↑ Herbert A. Simon: Decision-making behavior in organizations , trans. The 3rd engl. Edition. Verlag modern industry, Landsberg / Lech 1981, p. 99 ff.
  20. ^ Alfred Kieser: The situational approach. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, p. 219.
  21. ^ Alfred Kieser: The situational approach. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, p. 221f.
  22. ^ Alfred Kieser: The situational approach. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, p. 222f.
  23. ^ Alfred Kieser: The situational approach. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, p. 223.
  24. ^ Peter Preisendörfer: Organizational Sociology . Basics, theories and problems. 3. Edition. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2011, p. 82.
  25. ^ Alfred Kieser: The situational approach. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 231-239.
  26. ^ Alfred Kieser: The situational approach. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 233-239.
  27. ^ Peter Wagenbach: Neo-institutionalist approaches in organizational sociology. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, p. 355.
  28. ↑ M. Ebers, W. Gotsch: Institutional economic theories of organization. In: A. Kieser, M. Ebers (ed.): Organization theories. 6th, expanded edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006.
  29. ↑ M. Ebers, W. Gotsch: Institutional economic theories of organization. In: A. Kieser, M. Ebers (ed.): Organization theories. 6th, expanded edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 248-258.
  30. ↑ M. Ebers, W. Gotsch: Institutional economic theories of organization. In: A. Kieser, M. Ebers (ed.): Organization theories. 6th, expanded edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 258-277.
  31. ↑ M. Ebers, W. Gotsch: Institutional economic theories of organization. In: A. Kieser, M. Ebers (ed.): Organization theories. 6th, expanded edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 277-305.
  32. ↑ Cf. Peter Walgenbach: The structure theory. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6th, exp. Edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 403-426.
  33. ↑ Peter Walgenbach: The structuring theory. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6th, exp. Edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, p. 406.
  34. ↑ Wil Martens, Günther Ortmann: Organizations in Luhmann's system theory. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 427-454.
  35. ↑ Wil Martens, Günther Ortmann: Organizations in Luhmann's system theory. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, p. 427.
  36. ↑ Wil Martens, Günther Ortmann: Organizations in Luhmann's system theory. In: Alfred Kieser, Mark Ebers (Ed.): Organization theories. 6., revised. Edition. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 455-461.
  37. ^ A b A. Kieser, M. Woywode: Evolution- theoretical approaches. In: A. Kieser, M. Ebers (ed.): Organization theories. 6th edition. Stuttgart 1996, p. 309ff.
  38. ^ A b c Michael T. Hannan , John H. Freeman : Organizational Ecology. In: S. Kühl (Ed.): Key works of organizational sociology. Wiesbaden 2005, pp. 332/333.
  39. ↑ A. Kieser, M. Woywode: Evolution Theoretical approaches. In: A. Kieser, M. Ebers (ed.): Organization theories. 6th edition. Stuttgart 1996, p. 337ff.