Search results

Theorists often point to social theory's normativity, but Gouldner's later works provide the most explicit, comprehensive treatment of it as post-traditional normative discourse – a practice distinct from sociology and sociological theory, yet linked historically and analytically to them. His argument about the need for a discourse space to debate social science's normative directions and to strengthen its connections to civil society is relevant today. Because Gouldner's approach has gaps and is somewhat fragmented I will reconstruct his argument about social theory per se. Although I point to problems that derive from his incomplete pragmatic turn, his approach offers an excellent departure point for discussing the meaning of social theory.

This paper seeks to identify in Philip Selznick’s earliest predominantly organizational writings the germs of a strong and unifying temper – or better perhaps, because the concept plays a significant role in the works, a coherent intellectual and moral character. It infuses Selznick’s work in all the domains he entered. It was evident in his earliest political writings and contributions to organization theory, and remained so in his later contributions to the sociology of law and social and public philosophy.

At one level each of his works had a different subject, at another they all were pondered within a common frame of concerns, intellectual and moral, and approached with a distinctive manner and tone. At a general level, this involved a conception of social science as a “humanist science,” the central concern of which was the fate of values in the world. His specific posture in relation to this subject was underpinned by a commitment to moral realism, or what I call “Hobbesian idealism.”

Selznick began, like Thomas Hobbes as a threat expert, and never lost regard for that expertise. He is alert to fragility, vulnerability, and the need to guard against them. Moreover, his normative reflections are sustained and deepened by his understanding of social processes in general, and of the dangers to which organizations and institutions, but also human personalities and groups, are susceptible. He has a lot to tell us about ways in which those dangers might be avoided. However, Selznick resists stopping where Hobbes stops. Though he stresses the presence and resilience of evil and the need for strenuous efforts to contain it, he holds out for more. Indeed, though recognizing danger might be the beginning of wisdom, it is only half – over time less than half – of the story.

He emphasized the importance of attending both to Hobbesian insights and idealistic ambitions in relation to organizational leadership, to law, to justice, to human achievement of all kinds. To see him, as the earliest critics of his organizational theory did, as a voice of unadulterated melancholy, or as his later ones tended to, as altogether too programmatically sunny and full of hope, is to miss the real core of the intellectual and moral sensibility that pervaded his life of scholarship in the social sciences. The paper concludes by commending this uncommon sensibility, both at the general level of advocacy of “humanist science” and in its specific “Hobbesian idealist” posture.

It is doubtful whether Max Weber would have been appreciative of his current status as the father of organisation theory. Weber did not develop the concept of bureaucracy as part of a quest to advance a science of organisations, or in order to do a microanalysis of the internal structure of particular organisational units. The concept of bureaucracy was an ideal-typical concept developed as a point of departure for comparisons across historical periods and geographic settings. Weber’s research was motivated by macroscopic and historical questions such as ‘why did capitalism develop in the West’ and, ‘how do persons in the West and other civilizations attach meaning to their activities?’ Unlike consultants and organisation theorists that make use of him today, it was not a major concern for Weber to develop criteria for the most efficient kinds of organisations. Rather, his concern was to identify variations in administrative and bureaucratic cultures and patterns by the means of the bureaucratic ideal type. It is maintained in modern textbooks in organisation theory that there has been a development from a closed and rationalistic paradigm towards an understanding of organisations as open and natural systems, and Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy is taken as a point of departure for this kind of narrative. This classification of Weber as an example of a rational and closed approach is highly questionable. The cross-societal and historical approach used so effectively by Weber, is put on a sidetrack in such mainstream narratives. It would be more in the spirit of Weber to focus on organising as an activity, bureaucracy as an ethos and to study organisations within their particular political and cultural contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether unitary managers with different professional backgrounds carry out and reflect differently upon their roles as unitary managers.

This paper presents findings from two different studies, comprising both data from qualitative interviews and a nationwide survey.

Doctors and nurses in many respects perform their roles as unitary managers differently. They hold the same position but carry out their roles differently. Doctors are very committed to clinical tasks and stress to a great extent that clinical tasks should be integrated in management at the department level. The opposite is true for the nurses, where leadership first and foremost should be understood as management.

Even though doctors and nurses are in the same position they manage differently, being committed to different tasks within the unit. This is not the intention of the reform. However, the question is thus, will this have (severe) consequences for the organization? Or does it represent a healthy diversity in the health organisation?

This paper explores whether different professions carry out their managerial tasks differently and what practical implications this could have. It brings to the fore substantial empirical data on how one of the major reforms in Norwegian (and international) health care has been adopted and carried out by major professional groups.

The purpose of this study was to test the mediating effect of psychological entitlement in the relationship between perceived overqualification (POQ) and workplace ostracism. In addition, the authors posited that POQ would interact with task interdependence to influence psychological entitlement and indirectly affect workplace ostracism.

Using data collected in three waves from 450 workers in a state-owned enterprise, the authors tested the proposed moderated mediation model.

POQ increased workplace ostracism through the mediation of psychological entitlement. Moreover, task interdependence buffered the positive effect of POQ on psychological entitlement.

When recruiting, managers should be careful about hiring employees who are too above the job requirements to lessen employees' POQ and lower its negative impact. In addition, they could reduce the feeling of being ostracized for overqualified employees through increasing task interdependence.

Existing research on antecedents of workplace ostracism had mainly focused on the ostracizers, while largely ignoring the victims. Moreover, of the few studies on the victims of ostracism, most focused on inherent employee characteristics or external environmental factors, while little research attention has been given to employees' subjective perceptions. The present study is among the first to examine whether employees' POQ and individuals' self-perception that their skills, knowledge and abilities exceed the job requirements would lead to being ostracized and if so, how and when.

By juxtaposing fatal colliery explosions in early twentieth-century Britain and in 2010 at Pike River, New Zealand, this paper aims to investigate the generalizability of the mock bureaucracy concept to underground coal mining disasters.

The main source is published official accident inquiries; a methodological reflection justifies the use of these materials.

Mock bureaucracies existed in the British underground coal mining milieu from the time when safety rules were first formulated in that industry context. As for Pike River, it is an exemplary case. The development in 1970s Britain of a new approach to safety management (the Robens system), and its subsequent export to New Zealand, means that a contemporary coal mine under financial duress, such as Pike River, is a prime site for mock bureaucracy to flourish.

Although the concept of mock bureaucracy has been applied to an explosion in an underground coal mine before, this is the first paper to explore the concept’s historical usage and generalizability in explaining the environing context of such explosions.

Employees are affected by the interpersonal treatment received from leaders (i.e. interactional justice), especially when being informed of negative outcomes (Brockner, 2010). Although respectful treatment may be expected from leaders generally, little is known about when leaders are more likely to display interactional justice and whether less interactional justice might be acceptable under certain circumstances. Drawing on reciprocity theory (e.g. Gouldner, 1960), and leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (e.g. Gerstner and Day, 1997), the purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that employees who are disrespectful and inconsiderate toward their supervisors (i.e. who are themselves interactionally unjust) would and should receive less interactional justice when being informed of a negative outcome.

The authors conducted three experimental studies (Ns=87, 47 and 114), in the context of leaders communicating a layoff decision to their subordinates.

The results supported the predictions albeit the effect of subordinate interactional justice on supervisor justice was modest, yet consistent, across studies.

The findings are consistent with reciprocity theory and the LMX literature and suggest that leader actions when communicating bad news are dependent on employee conduct. Limitations of the studies include a primary reliance on students as participants and the measurement of behavioral intentions rather than behavior.

The studies are among the first to examine interactional injustice perpetrated by subordinates toward their leaders, and its impact on leader behavior when delivering negative outcomes. There is a paucity of literature understanding the causes of leader fairness behavior, in addition to a consideration of unfairness from perpetrators of lower positional power.

The article argues for the necessity of theory within sociology, in general, and metatheory, in particular. It explores how theoretical, metatheoretical, and philosophical background conditions affect sociological research. It makes the case for why attending to background conditions is important for both the sociologist as an individual and also sociology as a collective and a discipline. In this context, it makes the case for critical realism as a useful program of metatheoretical reflexivity that focuses upon the more philosophical dimensions of sociology including the place of ontology and even how theory itself should be understood.

The purpose of this theoretical chapter is to rework a promising but limited theory of the foundations of reciprocity. Reciprocity is often attributed to an “internalized norm of reciprocity” – a deeply felt moral obligation to help those who have helped us in the past. Leifer's theory of local action develops a radically different and compelling foundation for reciprocity – one in which the impetus for reciprocity is a thinly veiled battle for status. We rework the theory to offer a new one that addresses its limitations. The key idea is that the impetus for reciprocity is the desire to signal that one intends to create joint value rather than to capture it from the counterparty.

Our analytical approach rests on close examination of a puzzling and underrecognized feature of social exchange: people who initiate social exchange routinely deny giving anything of value (“it was nothing”) while the receiver inflates their indebtedness to the giver (“this is too much!”). We refer to this negotiation strategy as reverse bargaining and use it as a window into the logic of social exchange.

We develop a more general theory of how people manage the threat of opportunism in social exchange that subsumes local action theory. The key insight is that people who initiate social exchange and seek reciprocity must balance two competing objectives: to ensure that the person receiving a benefit recognizes a debt she must repay; and to mitigate the receiver's suspicion that the giver's ulterior motive is to capture value from the receiver.