We appreciate the helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper from Charles Fombrun, John Bryson, William Gomberg, and anonymousASQ reviewers. We also appreciate the support of the Center forthe Study of Organizational Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for release time to prepare this paper. The diverse schools of organizational thought are classified according to micro and macro levels of organizational analysis and deterministic versus voluntaristic assumptions of human nature to yield four basic perspectives: systemstructural, strategic choice, natural selection, and collective-action views of organizations. These four views represent qualitatively different concepts of organizational structure, behavior, change, and managerial roles. Six theoretical debates are then identified by systematically juxtaposing the four views against each other, and a partial reconciliation is achieved by bringing opposing viewpoints into dialectical relief. The six debates, which tend to be addressed singly and in isolation from each other in the literature, arethen integrated ata metatheoretical level. The framework presented thus attempts to overcome the problems associated with excessive theoretical compartmentalization by focusing on the interplay between divergent theoretical perspectives, but it also attempts to preserve the authenticity of distinctive viewpoints, thereby retaining the advantages associated with theoretical pluralism.*

/pdf/central-perspectives-and-debates-in-organization-theory-2wx2j7opnu.pdf

Central perspectives and debates in organization theory.

Time is a fact of life time in social theory - destiny, necessity, enigma from the measure of motion of entropy rhythmicity - source of life and form human time studied industrial time and power time transcended time for social theory - points of departure.

Time and Social Theory

The paper presents a critical exploration of the treatment of subjectivity and power in sociology through an examination of recent developments in labour process theory. This is introduced through a discussion of dualism and the study of power. It is then argued that the exposure of the neglect of subjectivity in the response to Labour and Monopoly Capital has not been matched by effort to remedy this deficiency. Originating in Marx, the intellectual history of this neglect is explored through a review of key contributions to the post-Braverman literature. Our argument draws upon the work of Foucault to suggest a more adequate appreciation of processes of subjugation in which subjectivity is fetishised in identity. This thesis is articulated and illustrated through a critique of the influential empirical studies of Burawoy and Cockburn.

Power and Subjectivity at Work: From Degradation to Subjugation in Social Relations:

The fundamental problem of linking human agency and social structure stalks through the history of sociological theory. Basically it concerns how to develop an adequate theoretical account which deals simultaneously with men constituting society and the social formation of human agents. For any theorist, except the holist, social structure is ultimately a human product, but for any theorist, except advocates of psychologism, this product in turn shapes individuals and influences their interaction. However successive theoretical developments have tilted either towards structure or towards action, a slippage which has gathered in momentum over time. Initially this meant that one element became dominant and the other subordinate: human agency had become pale and ghostly in mid-century functionalism, whilst structure betook an evanescent fragility in the re-flowering of phenomenology. Eventually certain schools of thought repressed the second element almost completely. On the one hand structuralist Marxism and normative functionalism virtually snuffed-out agency-the acting subject became increasingly lifeless whilst the structural or cultural components enjoyed a life of their own, self-propelling or self-maintaining. On the other hand interpretative sociology busily banished the structural to the realm of objectification and facticity-human agency became sovereign whilst social structure was reduced to supine plasticity because of its constructed nature. Although proponents of these divergent views were extremely vociferous, they were also extensively criticized and precisely on the grounds that both structure and action were indispensable in sociological explanation.2 Moreover serious efforts to re-address the problem and to re-unite structure and action had already begun from inside 'the two Sociologies',3 when they were characterized in this manichean way. These attempts emerged after the early sixties from 'general' functionalists,4 'humanistic' marxists5 and from interactionists confronting the existence of strongly patterned conduct.6 Furthermore they were joined in the same decade by a bold attempt

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01245.x

Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. 1982.

A central notion behind this paper is that certain fundamental theoretical and philosophical assumptions underlie any piece of research there is no such thing as a totally objective or value free investigation. Given this initial claim it is thought that the underlying assumptions behind any piece of work should be recognized and assessed by researchers to ensure that they are consistent with their personal beliefs. In other words, researchers into the management sciences should consider their own values and beliefs concerning the nature of society and the social sciences. In order to assist people in this task previous research into the organizational and social aspects of accounting is reviewed and grouped into various schools of thought within a basic sociological framework devised by Burrell and Morgan (1979). This classification of previous accounting literature according to its principal theoretical and philosophical assumptions serves a number of important purposes. First, the framework forms a map that can be used to find one's way through the wealth of research, the aims of which are sometimes confusing and the results conflicting. It will be seen that the multi-disciplinary nature of management accounting, and the consequent variety of theories subsumed under its heading, masks the fact that they tend to stem from similar perspectives towards society and the social sciences. Secondly, a practically oriented subject such as management accounting has often embraced theories from other areas with little concern for their philosophical underpinnings. By making explicit the basic assumptions behind different pieces of work, it is hoped that a greater tolerance and awareness of research from alternative disciplines and perspectives may br

Alan Dawe

Papers

The Two Sociologies

The Underworld-View of Erving Goffman@@@Interaction Ritual@@@Encounters@@@Relations in Public@@@Strategic Interaction

Penguin Survey of the Social Sciences 1965

The Political Context of Sociology

Role: Sociological Studies 4