HEORETICAL UMAN SERVICE O - SAGE - the natural home for

3THEORETICAL APPROACHES TOHUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

EVE GARROW

YEHESKEL HASENFELD

33

Considering the complexities of humanservices as a class of organizations,what theoretical approaches are best

suited for their study? Morgan (1997) suggeststhat theories on organizations arise from theimages or metaphors we have about them.Yetthese metaphors produce a limited and partialpicture of the organization. As a result, thetheories themselves, although claiming to beencompassing, only provide a partial—if notbiased—understanding of the organization.Such images portray the organization in vari-ous ways, ranging from a rational instrumentdesigned to achieve specific goals, to a carrierof cultural meanings and rules, to a systemdetermined by powerful political pressures.

Our intention is not to review all the the-oretical perspectives on organizations (forsuch a review, see Clegg, Hardy, Lawrence, &Nord, 2006; Scott & Davis, 2007). Rather, weexamine major theories with a focus onthose that have been particularly salient inthe analysis of human services. First, such

theories should have an empirical base.Second, they should account for the specificattributes that set human services apartfrom other organizations. These attributesstem from the fact that human serviceswork on people to transform them (seeChapter 1). As a result, these organizations(a) engage in moral work, upholding andreinforcing moral values about “desirable”human behavior and the “good” society;(b) are embedded in a broader institutionalenvironment from which they derive theirlegitimacy, their license to work on people,and their service technologies; (c) mustcontend with interest groups, both internaland external to the organization, whichwould like to achieve their goals throughcontrol of the organization; (d) rely onclient-staff relations to achieve service out-comes, relations that involve the deliberateuse of emotions by both workers andclients; (e) are gendered organizations (i.e.,the majority of their frontline workers are

women, a practice that is sustained by anideology that views the care of people as“women’s work”); and, related, (f) reflectorganizational ideologies of domination oremancipation. Although no one theory islikely to produce a full picture of humanservice organizations, this review suggeststhat some do a better job than others.

THE RATIONAL-LEGAL MODEL

The classical image of the organization is thatof a goal-oriented, purposefully designedmachine. Morgan (1997, pp. 22–23) remindsus that the origin of the word organization isderived from the Greek organon, whichmeans a tool or an instrument. In this theo-retical perspective, it is assumed that orga-nizations have a clear and specific set ofgoals and that the internal structure andprocesses represent a rational design toattain them. The design is rational becausethe internal division of labor, the definitionsof role positions, and the distribution ofauthority are highly formalized and hierar-chical and can be shown to be the mosteffective and efficient means to achieve theorganization’s aims. The design is legalbecause the assignments to positions, thedistribution of authority, and the rights andduties of each position are based on imper-sonal rules that are applied universally. BothTaylor’s scientific management and Weber’smodel of the rational-legal bureaucracyexemplify such a design. Rationality can bemaintained because the organization is viewedas insulated from a complex environment oras functioning in a highly stable environ-ment, its goals are explicit, and the behaviorof its staff is fully determined by their formalrole prescriptions.

There are many examples in the humanservices where attempts are made to putsuch a model of organizations into practice.Sandfort (this volume) identifies the pro-gram designs for welfare-to-work and for

early-childhood education. In both exam-ples, the program design consists of anexplicit sequence of interconnected activi-ties aimed to produce the desired outcomes.Both follow a logical model consisting ofinputs, process, outputs, outcomes, andimpact (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008).

In the case of welfare-to-work, as notedby Sandfort (this volume) and others (e.g.,DeParle, 2004; Handler & Hasenfeld, 2007),although many elements of the design wereput into effect and could be shown to pro-duce some of the desired outputs, severallimitations of the rational design becamequite apparent. External political pressuresforced the implementers to contract out thecase management, making the delivery ofservices cumbersome and burdensome.Periodic legislative changes and reducedfunding resulted in ambiguities about rulesand procedures. Vagueness and disagree-ments about the goals of the program—emphasis on education versus placement injobs—resulted in inconsistent operatingpolicies. Uncertainties about the availabilityof services forced case managers to make adhoc decisions. Difficulties with uncoopera-tive recipients gave rise to informal proce-dures for handling them not consonantwith the manual. And despite an extensivesystem of monitoring, the validity and reli-ability of the information was highlyaffected by how the case managers and therecipients perceived the situation.

Despite its historical standing as a meta-phor for organization, the empirical evidencesuggests that the rational-legal model doesnot provide an accurate description of howorganizations really function (for a review,see Scott & Davis, 2007). Furthermore, themodel fails to take into account many of thekey attributes of human service organiza-tions. For example, the moral basis of organi-zational choices, such as what counts as adesirable outcome and how to measure effec-tiveness (as well as the power struggles thatunderlie these choices), is hidden behind a

34 PART I �� UNDERSTANDING HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

veneer of technical rationality. Because itassumes a closed system, the multiple andchanging influences of the environment arenot addressed. In addition, the issue of poweras a key variable in explaining the structure,processes, and services of human serviceorganizations is undertheorized in the model.For example, it is assumed that goal attain-ment would be measured through feedbackloops from workers and clients—a naivebelief when one considers the significantpower that line staff exercise over clientsand their ability to use discretion to controlsuch feedback (Brodkin, 1997). The modelleaves little room for exploring how thepower differentials between clients and staffline workers affect the quality of client-worker relations and ultimately determineservice effectiveness. It also fails to accountfor the influences of indeterminate tech-nology; amorphous and conflicting goals;informal relations both among staff andbetween staff and clients; and constraints onaccountability and authority. Finally, criticshave argued that the rational model justi-fies the concentration of power in largeorganizations and a hierarchical authoritystruc ture (Creed & Miles, 1996), which, asnoted by feminist scholars, implicitly legit-imizes gender inequalities and male domi-nation (Acker, 1990).

THE HUMAN RELATIONS APPROACH

One theory accounting for relations amongmanagement, frontline staff, and clients isthe human relations school. It emphasizesthat the job requirements and the conditionsof work have profound psychological conse-quences on staff, especially in terms oftheir ability to fulfill their own needs (rang-ing from physical to self-actualization).These, in turn, influence their attitudestoward their work and their coworkers andultimately affect how they perform theirjobs (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). The

underlying assumption is that organiza-tional effectiveness is a function of the com-plementarity and congruency between thegoals of the organization and the personalneeds of the workers (Argyris, 1962).

There is an accompanying assumption inthe human relations school that states thatthe nature and quality of the organization’sleaders is an important determinant of theperformance and job satisfaction of theirsubordinates (see Schmid on leadership,this volume). Glisson (1989) showed thatthe power, maturity, and intelligence of theleader influence workers’ commitment tothe organization. In general, it is assumedthat leadership that promotes a democraticatmosphere in the organization will improveworkers’ productivity.

The human relations approach is partic-ularly important in the human servicesbecause it is assumed that the attitudes ofthe staff to their work situation and theircoworkers will have direct consequenceson how they relate to their own clients.Trust, positive values, and caring emotionsare assumed to be determined by howworkers feel about their work, how their self-actualization needs are being met, and howthe organization facilitates and supportstheir work.

Perhaps because client-worker relations arecentral to human service effectiveness, muchresearch from the human relations perspec-tive has been done in the human services.Some research on human service workersfinds that role conflict and lack of supportfrom colleagues and supervisors are the maindeterminants of burnout (Maslach &Schaufeli, 1993). Workers who experienceburnout become detached and withdrawnfrom their clients; postpone client contacts;and assume cynical, negative, and inflexibleattitudes toward them. Participatory manage-ment, often recast in the human services asthe empowerment of workers, has beenshown to contribute to organizational effectiveness (Whiddon & Martin, 1989).

Chapter 3 �� Theoretical Approaches to Human Service Organizations 35

Guterman and Bargal (1996) found that thereis a relationship between the sense of empow-erment social workers feel and their per-ceptions of service outcomes. Keller andDansereau (1995) argue that empoweringleadership aligns subordinates in accordancewith the preferences of supervisors. Glisson(1989) showed that the more workers perceivetheir leaders to have power and maturity, thegreater their commitment to the organization.The research on burnout does seem to sup-port the notion that job satisfaction is associ-ated with jobs that provide autonomy,participation, challenge, promotional oppor-tunities, and financial rewards (see Jayaratne& Chess, 1983; Pines & Aronson, 1988).

The linkage between the well-being ofthe staff and of the clients is an importantcontribution of the human relationsapproach. As noted in the previous chapter,the core work of human service organiza-tions occurs through client-worker rela-tions, and undoubtedly, the quality of theserelations is influenced by the morale andjob satisfaction of the workers. There is alsogood evidence to suggest that job satisfac-tion is influenced by the nature of the taskand by an organizational culture that isconstructive (i.e., promotes positive proac-tive behavior and encourages interactionsamong the workers that meet higher satis-faction needs; see, e.g., Glisson & James,2002; Whiddon & Martin, 1989). Indeed,applied to caseworkers in child welfare andjuvenile justice, an organizational interven-tion known as Availability, Responsibility,and Continuity (ARC), which relies onhuman relations strategies such as teambuilding, participatory decision making,conflict resolution, feedback system, andjob redesign, has been shown to reducestaff turnover, role conflict, overload, emo-tional exhaustion, and depersonalization(Glisson, Dukes, & Green, 2006).

Nonetheless, the human relations app -roach suffers from some fundamental limi-tations, mostly because its level of analysis is

social-psychological. The organization isstill viewed as a closed system, and the polit-ical, economic, and institutional dimen-sions of the macro-environment are ignored.Consideration of the impact of the environ-ment on structure and processes is relegatedmainly to the recognition that leaders andworkers bring into the organization theirown personal dispositions and predilec-tions. Furthermore, although the modelplaces importance on worker-client rela-tions, it is silent on the moral choices thatunderlie the service delivery system and thespecification of desirable outcomes.

Most problematic is the potentially mis-placed emphasis on the psychological needsof the workers and on democratic participa-tion as determinants of organizational effec-tiveness. These factors may pale in the face ofstrong environmental factors such as politi-cal and economic constraints. It is hard toimagine, for example, that democratic par-ticipation is going to significantly alter thosefeatures of the welfare department thatworkers find especially alienating, such asextensive paperwork, inability to respond tothe many dire needs of the applicants, pres-sure to reduce error rates, low wages, andpoor working conditions. Nor is it alwayspossible, given the nature of the technologyof the organization, to create job conditionsthat provide for autonomy, creativity, andpromotional opportunities. Indeed, the ARCintervention failed to change organizationalculture that reflects more enduring struc-tural features of the organization (Glisson et al., 2006). Similarly, studies of homecare workers indicate how the inherentattributes of the work itself—low skill,part-time, isolated—coupled with poorwages and benefits create low morale andhigh turnover. Moreover, demonstrationprojects to improve the conditions of homecare work through job enrichment and train-ing and supervision, although having bene -ficial results, ultimately failed to alter theorganization of home care work because of


the basic economic and political forces con-trolling the home care industry (Feldman,1990). Ironically, the democratic ideologyreflected in the human relations approachcould act as a tool of domination by shiftingattention from broader conditions of in -equality in the organization to interpersonalrelations.

CONTINGENCY THEORY

Shifting the focus from a social-psychologicalemphasis to a structural perspective whileaddressing the limitations of the rational-legalmodel, researchers have formulated a contin-gency theory of organizations (Lawrence &Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967). Viewing theorganization as an open system, the impact ofthe environment and the technology on thestructure of the organization is recognized.The fundamental assumption is that the effec-tiveness of the organization is a function ofthe congruency between its internal structureand the exigencies presented by the environ-ment and technology. That is, there is no oneuniversal effective design—as the rational-legal theory or human relations approachwould have it—and an effective design mustrespond to the contingencies presented bythese two external conditions. Donaldson(1987), for example, shows that organizationsthat achieve a fit between a particular contin-gency and an aspect of their structure (e.g.,strategy and structure) outperform organiza-tions that lack such a fit.

The environment, consisting mostly ofother organizations, varies in terms of bothits stability and its heterogeneity. A stableand homogeneous environment requireslimited unit differentiation and standard-ized rules, whereas a turbulent and hetero-geneous environment requires high unitdifferentiation and decentralized decisionmaking (Thompson, 1967, pp. 72–73).There is some limited empirical evidencefrom the human services to suggest that

this proposition is at least plausible (e.g.,Aldrich, 1979; Leifer & Huber, 1977).

Similarly, the effectiveness of the organi-zation’s technical system hinges on thedesign of work units that respond to thetechnological contingencies. Technologiesdiffer by their task difficulty and variability.These dimensions generate four types oftechnologies: (1) routine, (2) craft, (3) engi-neering, and (4) nonroutine (Perrow, 1967).Each technology has different requirementsin terms of workers’ discretion, power, coor-dination, and interdependence. The appro-priate organizational structure for each ofthese technologies, respectively, is (1) formaland centralized, (2) decentralized, (3) flexi-ble and centralized, and (4) flexible and poly-centered. The empirical evidence from thehuman services gives some limited credenceto this idea (for a review, see Scott, 1990).

Recent developments in contingency the-ory relevant to the human services stress themultiplicity of contingencies the organiza-tion needs to address as it designs its struc-ture (for a review, see McGrath, 2006). Theseinclude the embeddedness of the organiza-tion in many networks (see Provan andMilward, this volume), the internal interde-pendencies among units within the organi-zation, and the capacity of the organizationto shift its location in the environment (e.g.,leaving a resource-poor neighborhood oropening a satellite in an emerging neighbor-hood). Moreover, there is greater recognitionthat there is no one best way to accomplishthe organization’s service mission.

The difficulty with contingency theory isits static and mechanistic orientation. Theassociation between the environment, tech-nology, and structure is quite dynamic andis mediated by many factors, not the least ofwhich are the macrolevel changes in institu-tional logics and the shifting political andeconomic interests of groups (includingclients) within and without the organiza-tion. As noted below, changes in the institu-tional logics that legitimate human services


influence what models of services lose orgain in acceptability. Shifting interests andthe power of various interest groups alsoinfluence how services will be structured.Moreover, in the case of human servicetechnologies, we have emphasized how theyrepresent enactments of practice ideologies.Thus, it is quite possible that internal powerrelations and negotiations (i.e., structure)within the organization actually determinethe nature of the technology. Finally, for themost part, the empirical research on therelationship between technology and struc-ture has failed to provide a convincing veri-fication of the theory (Glisson, 1992;Schoonhoven, 1981).

NEGOTIATED ORDER

An alternative to the contingency theory isto view the organization as a dynamic sys-tem in which the nature of the work isevolving and changing and in which thestructures that emerge to handle the workare a temporal reflection of the negotiatedorder among different actors (e.g., staff andclients) who participate in the work(Strauss, Fargerhaugh, Suczek, & Wiener,1985). Because much of the theoreticalmodel was developed through research onhospitals, it has particular import to theunderstanding of human services in gen-eral. The work that the organization has todo on its clients is a fundamental buildingblock for understanding its evolving struc-tural characteristics. The work, as we haveseen, is multifaceted; in the hospital, forexample, it includes machine work, safetywork, body work, information work, andcomfort work, to name a few. Althoughsuch work has objective attributes (Strausset al., 1985), for example, measuring bodyfluids and administering medication, it isalso socially constructed (e.g., who gets pri-ority, how to interpret the client’s reac-tions). Moreover, such work requires the

coordinated participation of various work-ers who have different levels of training andcompetence and different values and inter-ests. Also, as work is being done, it affectsthe service trajectory and hence the natureof subsequent work.

“Negotiation enters into how work isdefined, as well as how to do it, how much ofit to do, who is to do it, how to evaluate it,how and when to reassess it and so on”(Strauss et al., 1985, p. 267). These negotia-tions are influenced not only by the require-ments of the tasks and the skills to carrythem out but also by the interests, power, ide-ologies, and social and professional affilia-tions of the workers and their clients. That is,these negotiations are embedded in thebroader social worlds of these actors. Thesesocial worlds “include occupational worlds(medicine, physics), ethnic worlds, leisureworlds (ski, tennis), industrial worlds (chem-ical, oil), and so on” (Strauss et al., 1985, p. 287). It is in this sense that the organiza-tion is seen as an open system. How the workis done represents the key processes of theorganization, and the emerging yet evolvingnegotiated order represents its structure.

Although the theory adopts an open-systems perspective, its primary focus is onmicrolevel processes, as the emphasis is onnegotiations among individual actors. In anattempt to bring macrolevel factors into theanalysis of negotiated order, recent researchhas examined the influence of organizationalstructure on the form that negotiations willtake. Svensson (1996) shows how changes inthe health care context opened negotiatingspaces for nurses in hospital wards. Theseincluded the increasing reliance on nurses tomanage chronic diseases, the use of teamnursing, and doctor-nurse conferences. Thesenew opportunities for exerting power theninfluenced the patterns of doctor-nurse inter-actions by giving nurses greater influence.Conversely, Allen (1997) highlights the role ofstructural constraints on face-to-face, inter-disciplinary negotiations in the negotiated


order of a hospital. These constraints influ-enced doctor-nurse relations and modifiedthe division of labor between nursing andmedicine. These studies underscore theimportance of structures in enforcing pat-terns of interactions, which greatly limit thecontent and nature of negotiations.

There is much to be commended by thismodel of human service organizations,especially because it was developed in sucha context. In this approach, the clients areprominently included as significant actors.The emphasis on the influence of work onpeople and its socially constructed dimen-sions is also a significant contribution. Theidea that the division of labor reflectsprocesses of negotiations among workerswith different skills, ideologies, and occupa-tional affiliations is equally important.Nonetheless, concepts such as social worldand negotiated order remain quite vague andundifferentiated, and despite the contribu-tions of recent scholars, the role of the insti-tutional and political environment could befurther developed.

POLITICAL-ECONOMY

The political-economy perspective (Wamsley& Zald, 1976) recognizes that for the organi-zation to survive and produce its services, itmust garner two fundamental types ofresources: (1) legitimacy and power (i.e.,political) and (2) production resources (i.e.,economic). We have indicated that legiti-macy is indispensable to the survival ofthe organization, and power is the meansby which authority and influence are dis-tributed in the organization. Production re -sources (e.g., money, clients, personnel) areessential for establishing and operating theorganization’s service delivery system and forsetting the organization’s incentive system.

The political-economy perspective high-lights the importance of the environment,especially the task environment, in shaping

the organization’s service delivery system.The task environment refers to other organi-zations and interest groups (includingclients) who have a potential stake in theorganization either because they controlimportant resources needed by it or becauseit can advance their own interests. A key fea-ture of the theory is the notion of resourcedependence (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). It pro-poses that the more the organization dependson resources controlled by an external ele-ment, the greater the influence of that ele-ment on the organization. Therefore, manyorganizational practices, such as the servicedelivery system, will reflect the constraintsand contingencies imposed by those whocontrol needed resources (Cress & Snow,1996). For example, insofar as hospitalsdepend on Medicare payments, they mustaccept the constraints imposed on themby the prospective payment system (e.g.,Diagnostic Related Groups). This has a signif-icant effect on the delivery of medical ser-vices, such as the reduction in the length ofstay for the elderly.

Moreover, because it is imperative for theorganization to ensure a stable flow of exter-nal resources while preserving its autonomyas much as possible, it engages in a variety of strategies—ranging from competition toco-optation—to manage its external environ-ment (Benson, 1975). These strategies, inturn, will influence the service delivery sys-tem of the organization. For example, it isquite common for social service agencies toobtain governmental contracts to deliver ser-vices such as child protection, drug counsel-ing, and mental health case management. Tosecure these contracts, the agencies mayundertake several strategies, including (a) “creaming” clients, which can demon-strate positive outcomes; (b) using unpaid or low-paid staff to save on costs; and (c) including influential persons on their boardof directors (Kramer & Grossman, 1987).Most important, the handling of the clientsthemselves is part of the organizational


strategy to manage its external relations(Hasenfeld, 1972). The organization may beconcerned that it attracts too few clients andembark on a major public relations cam-paign, or it may find that it attracts “inap-propriate” clients and engage in a form of“dumping” (Kramer & Grossman, 1987, pp.49–50). Thus, as argued by Pfeffer andSalancik (1978), “the underlying premise ofthe external perspective on organizations isthat organizational activities and outcomesare accounted for by the context in which theorganization is embedded” (p. 39).

Power and economic relations within theorganization determine how the service tech -nology is implemented and how decision-making authority is distributed amongorganizational units. The relative power andcontrol over resources that any organiza-tional unit or group possesses is, by andlarge, a function of its importance in man-aging the organization’s external environ-ment. For example, in their research onuniversities, Salancik and Pfeffer (1974)found that the best predictors of depart-mental power were, first, its ability to obtainexternal funding, followed by the numberof graduate students, and then its nationalranking. Some groups wield power becausethey possess personal attributes, controlinternal resources (e.g., information andexpertise), or carry out important functions(e.g., manage the budget) that are not easilysubstituted (Lachman, 1989). The emergingpower relations shape the internal structureand the resource allocation rules. These, inturn, reinforce the power relations (e.g.,Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; Pfeffer, 1992).

The political-economy perspective makesa major contribution to our understandingof how the service delivery systems of humanservice organizations are influenced by bothexternal and internal political and economicforces. Given the high dependence of humanservice organizations on their external envi-ronment, the model is especially cogent inexplaining how adaptive strategies to cope

with such dependence have major impact onorganizational structure and processes. Themodel also recognizes clients as a significantresource and as a potential interest groupand can make predictions about how theorganization will respond to its clients on thebasis of the power and resources they possess(Hasenfeld, 1987).

Nonetheless, the political-economy per-spective tends to understate the importanceof moral values and ideologies that tran-scend calculations of power and money inshaping organizational behavior. This isespecially problematic in the case of humanservice organizations in which values andideologies play a key role. It should also bementioned that political and economicimperatives themselves can be thought of asinstitutionally derived (Friedland & Alford,1991), a perspective that is overlooked bythe political-economy framework.

INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

While the political-economy model tends tooverlook the role of societal and organiza-tional values and norms, the institutionalschool makes them the driving force of itstheory. It proposes that the structure of cer-tain classes of organizations, such as humanservices, is determined not by technologybut by rules emanating from the institu-tional environment. Meyer and Rowan(1977) put it this way:

Many of the positions, policies, programsand procedures of modern organizations areenforced by public opinion, by the views ofimportant constituencies, by knowledgelegitimated through the educational system,by social prestige, by the laws, and by thedefinitions of negligence and prudence usedby the courts. (p. 343)

Key sources of institutionalized rules inmodern society are the state, the professions,and public opinion, but they also emanate


from the network of organizations that con-stitute an “industry” such as the mentalhealth industry (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).In such an industry, there is hierarchy anddominance, and organizations emulate thepractices of the authoritative and powerfulorganizations in the industry. Moreover, asZucker (1988) points out, organizations arealso an important source of institutionaliza-tion when they successfully create new prac-tices or structures. In the human services, thisis often manifested in moral entrepreneurship.

Institutional theorists assume that becauseorganizations want to survive, they are forcedto uphold these institutional rules becausethey are the sources of legitimacy and theavenues to obtain resources. DiMaggio andPowell (1983) suggest three processes bywhich this is accomplished: (1) coercive,through state and legal forces such as theaccreditation of hospitals; (2) imitative ormimetic, following the example of successfulorganizations, such as the adoption of thecurricula of effective schools; and (3) norma-tive, the transmission of professional norms,such as the use of DSM-IV by mental healthorganizations. These processes result in insti-tutional isomorphism. Meyer, Scott, Strang,and Creighton (1988) present data on theincreased bureaucratization, formalization,and standardization of the U.S. public schoolsystems, which they attribute not to the cen-tralization of funding but rather to societalforces such as the professionalization ofteaching, the pursuit of educational equalityas a national norm, and the rise of nationalstandards for the proper credentials of teach-ers and classroom curricula. Thus, institu-tional isomorphism leads to considerablestructural similarity and homogeneity amongthe organizations in the same industry.

Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue thatwhen institutional rules are embedded inthe structure of the organization, the latterbecomes decoupled from the actual work orservice technology. In the case of schools,for example, the formation of curriculum

requirements and the certification of teach-ers are only loosely related to what teachersactually do in their classrooms. Similarly,when mental health professionals use theDSM-IV diagnostic labels, these seldompredict the actual therapy therapists will use(Kirk & Kutchins, 1992). The structure,then, serves as a buffer between the technol-ogy and the environment. This is especiallyimportant for organizations in which tech-nologies are indeterminate and the resultsare uncertain.

In this respect, institutional organiza-tions engage in myths and ceremonies(Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The rules are ratio-nalized myths because they are based onunproven belief systems such as profes-sional ideologies, yet they are viewed asrational means to achieve desired socialends. The ceremonies are periodic affirma-tions of these myths through symbolicactions, such as certification, accreditation,graduation, and the like.

The institutional school also brings intothe analysis the concept of an industry, sec-tor, or field, which Scott and Meyer (1983)define as “all organizations within societysupplying a given type of product or servicetogether with their associated organizationset: suppliers, financiers, regulators and thelike” (p. 129). This is an exceedingly impor-tant concept because it draws our attentionaway from the individual organization tohow a network of organizations—havingresponsibility for the delivery of a servicesuch as public education, mental health, orchild welfare—is organized. Because therelations within a human service sector aredetermined by rules and regulations ratherthan by market exchanges, they are highlyinstitutionalized. These rules will influencehow decision rights within a sector aboutgoals, means, and funding are allocatedamong the constituent parts. Thus, sectorswill vary in their degree of decentralization,fragmentation, and federalization. Sectorswill also vary by how the activities of their


constituent organizations are controlled.Thus, the institutional approach argues thatthe structure of individual organizationscannot be understood without reference tothe structure of the sector in which they arelocated. For example, Hasenfeld and Powell(2004) found that nonprofit organizationsthat contracted to provide welfare-to-workservices experienced a high degree of iso-morphism, in part because of the centralityand authority of the Welfare Department inthe sector.

The institutional perspective adds con-siderable depth to our understanding ofhuman service organizations. As indicatedearlier, because they engage in moral work,human service organizations are the quin-tessential embodiment of institutionalorganizations. Yet, as Mohr (1998) notes,the higher-order systems of meanings thatconstitute the institutional environmenthave largely evaded direct measurementand, hence, analysis. Rather, the lower-orderphenomena of institutionalization—forexample, homogeneity or convergence ofinstitutional fields—are measured, whereascultural structures are simply inferred. Also,as DiMaggio (1988) points out, the theory isquite mysterious about the process of insti-tutionalization that is at the heart of thetheory. He argues that “institutionalizationas a process is profoundly political andreflects the relative power of organizedinterests and actors who mobilize aroundthem” (p. 13). Moreover, as suggested ear-lier, organizations themselves are a majorsource of institutional rules, and theyactively shape the institutional environ-ment. Finally, the institutional approach de-emphasizes the importance of the work tobe done and the effects of the institutional-ized ways of doing it on the organization of work. Put differently, the distinctionbetween the institutional and technologicalenvironments is quite blurred. As noted ear-lier, technological developments influenceinstitutional rules and vice versa. Thus, even

in the human services—in which technolo-gies tend to be indeterminate—there are,nonetheless, socially sanctioned ways ofdelivering the services that are embedded inthe structure of the organization.

The institutional-logics perspective, whichhas emerged as part of the development ofinstitutional theory, attempts to address someof these limitations. For one, it provides aconceptual framework for direct analysis ofthe cultural content of the key institutionsof society and identifies the moral choicesthey reflect. Friedland and Alford (1991)propose that the values that are embeddedin institutions are dually constituted assymbolic systems and material social rela-tions through which action is experiencedas meaningful. These sets of symbolic con-structions and material practices representinstitutional logics that make sense of theparticular social world in which they are rel-evant. Institutional logics define means andends and thus constrain individual andorganizational behavior.

Guetzkow (2006) applies this perspectiveto the study of policy formulation. He notesthat solutions to a given social problem(and the material practices the solutionssuggest) are crafted in response to the per-ceived cause of the problem, and he demon-strates how political elites morally constructtarget populations to create a bridge thatlinks causes to solutions. For example, whenproblems are located in the individualrather than in the environment, solutionsoften focus on behavior change, and targetclient groups are constructed as willfullymaking immoral choices. These framesconstitute logics that are institutionalizedwhen they are embedded in social policies.

At the organizational level, Mohr andGuerra-Pearson (in press) employ aninstitutional-logics framework to demon-strate how the work human service organi-zations do on people reflects and enacts themoral construction of target populations.In turn, these moral categories give meaning


to organizational practices. Studying a sampleof Progressive Era, antipoverty organiza-tions, they show how the combination ofcategories of people served, the kinds ofproblems addressed, and the types of thingsthe agencies did to alleviate those problemscombined to constitute logics that morallyconstructed target client groups.

The institutional-logics perspective alsoaccounts for the political processes of(de)institutionalization by providing a linkbetween the macrostructural perspective ofinstitutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell,1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) and micro-processes that involve situated forms oforganizing. The theory argues that the insti-tutional work of advancing new institutionallogics or dismantling existing ones is enabledby the existence of multiple institutions thatare structured by inherently contradictorylogics (e.g., the market economy and the wel-fare state). Organizations commonly operatewithin the context of multiple institutions:Health care organizations, for example, arepositioned at the intersection of the state, themarket, and the professions. Organizational-level entrepreneurs can exploit institutionalcontradictions in this heterogeneous andcontested environment to further theirinterests. They do so by arranging and re -arranging the discursive building blocks ofinstitutional life to create new meanings(Friedland & Alford, 1991; Hardy & Maguire,2008). Zilber (2002) recounts how a rape cri-sis center was initially founded to reflect afeminist institutional logic, which assumesthat rape is a result of inequality and therepression of women and that the responsemust be through education and social mobi-lization. Reflecting this logic, support to vic-tims was provided by “sister volunteers” whotried to empower the victims to regain con-trol, and the internal structure was highlyegalitarian. Nonetheless, as the centeracquired the status of a nonprofit organiza-tion and gained more recognition, an alter-native logic, that of professional treatment,

began to compete with the original feministlogic and succeeded in replacing it, such thatprofessional therapists gained more power inthe organization.

The ability of institutional entrepreneursto create new logics depends, first, on therange of cultural schema available in theenvironment. As the range of culturalschema expands, opportunities to buildnew logics increase. For example, during the1980s and 1990s, the federal governmentaggressively marketed welfare reformdemonstration projects to the states. Inresponse, some states experimented withnew practices such as time limits and workrequirements (Haskins, 2006). These newschemes were then appropriated by politicalelites and integrated in the landmark legis-lation Temporary Assistance to NeedyFamilies. In turn, the legislation restruc-tured the institutional environment ofhuman service organizations involved in theprovision of welfare benefits.

Second, the ability of institutional entre-preneurs to advance new logics hinges ontheir capacity to convince others of theirviews of society—an endeavor that is inher-ently political. Because institutional logicscreate identities and provide the justifica-tion for the movement and control ofresources, the institutionalization of newlogics or the dismantling of prevailing oneswill be actively resisted by entrenched inter-ests. Thus, the institutional work requiredfor institutional change entails the mobi-lization of power, especially for institutionalentrepreneurs who initially lack cognitivelegitimacy. Institutional work can involvestrategies such as political advocacy and theeducation of actors in the skills and knowl-edge necessary to support new logics(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).

Finally, the institutional-logics model chal-lenges the early institutional view that institu-tional rules and technological imperatives arediscrete organizational elements. It calls intoquestion the notion of an essentialist technical


core, viewing the technology itself as con-stituent of institutional logics in the environ-ment. Because the institutional environmentis a heterogeneous arena of ongoing politicalstruggle, “technical” elements can always becontested and displaced when new repertoiresof possibilities are introduced.

POPULATION-ECOLOGY

The shift in the level of analysis from a sin-gle to a collection of organizations is com-pleted in the population-ecology theory.Here, the emphasis is on a population oforganizations, defined as all organizationsthat have a unitary character, which meansthat (a) they share a common dependenceon the material and social environment, (b) they have a similar structure, and (c) theirstructure and other characteristics are quitestable over time (Hannan & Freeman, 1989).An example might be all the child care or allthe mental health agencies in a given com-munity. The metaphor is that of the biologi-cal evolution of species in which theprocesses of variation, selection, and reten-tion define the attributes of the population.The theory is concerned with three funda-mental issues—that is, the rates, in a givenpopulation, of organizational (1) founding,(2) disbanding, and (3) change. These areimportant issues in understanding the evolu-tion of human services. In areas such as men-tal health or child welfare, we tend to witnesscyclical patterns of rapid expansion followedby periods of contraction. Within thesecycles, we observe the rise of new organiza-tional forms, such as the community mentalhealth center, followed by a period of stagna-tion or inertia. Population-ecology attemptsto account for these patterns.

Singh and Lumsden (1990) state thebasic principle of the theory as follows:“Once founded, organizations are subject tostrong inertial pressures, and alterations inorganizational populations are largely due

to demographic processes of organizationalfounding (births) and dissolution (deaths)”(p. 162). The observed cyclical pattern oforganizational founding is explained by twoprocesses: (1) density dependence and (2) population dynamics. An initial increasein the number of organizations signalslegitimization for their activities and form,thus attracting more founding. But as thenumber of organizations continues toincrease, competition for resources sets in,leading to a decline in founding (Hannan &Freeman, 1989). Moreover, when existingorganizations disband, they create freeresources, which encourage entrepreneur-ship, but as the rate of disbanding continuesto rise, it signals a hostile environment anddiscourages additional new ventures (Singh& Lumsden, 1990).

Why do organizations disband? As in bio-logical evolution, organizational forms dis-appear when they are no longer supported bytheir environment (e.g., the decline of homesfor unwed mothers and orphanages in theUnited States). Organizations with general-ized services are more likely to succeed whenthe environment is variable and experienceslarge, periodic fluctuations. In contrast,organizations with a specialist strategy aremore likely to survive in a relatively stableenvironment experiencing small and regularfluctuations (Hannan & Freeman, 1989).Organizations also disband because of the“liability of newness”—namely, their inexpe-rience and inability to compete with well-established organizations. Similarly, the“liability of smallness” results in a high dis-banding rate because small organizationshave difficulty attracting resources.

Ecological processes are not the only deter-minants of organizational founding and fail-ure. Technological developments influencethe importance of various resources, creatingnew opportunities while rendering the com-petencies of existing organizations obsolete(Tushman & Anderson, 1986). Institutionaldevelopments, such as changing government


policies and funding, will also affect the ratesof founding and failure (Tucker, Baum, &Singh, 1992). Similarly, linkages to commu-nity and public institutions provide resourcesand legitimacy that reduce failure rates(Baum & Oliver, 1991).

Hannan and Freeman (1989) argue thatthe environment favors organizations whosestructures have high inertia. This is becausethe environment tends to select organizationswith a high degree of reliability and account-ability. These are organizations that have awell-defined set of reproducible routines.Thus, the organization is adaptive or success-ful because it has specified which routinesapply to what situation (e.g., hospitals shift-ing from normal to disaster situations). It alsofollows from this argument that as organiza-tions age, they become more inert.

The population-ecology perspective hasbeen criticized not only for inappropriatelyapplying biological evolution models tosocial organizations (Young, 1988) but also,more significantly, for its inarticulate con-ception of the environment. The model, asPerrow (1986) puts it, “tends to be a mysti-fying one, removing much of the power,conflict, disruption, and social-class vari-ables from the analysis” (p. 213). Althoughthere is an implicit recognition that theenvironment is socially constructed, thetheory is silent about how it is constructedand changed over time. This is in sharp con-trast to the institutional and political-econ-omy theories. Aldrich (1979), for example,does recognize the important role of thestate in shaping the environment. In thehuman services, the state is a key player inthe environment, and state ideologies, poli-tics, and economics have probably more todo with the founding and survival ofhuman service organizations than any otherfactor. Indeed, Twombly (2003) has shownhow government initiatives, such as welfarereform, and local philanthropic cultures ofgiving influence both the entry and the exitof nonprofit human service organizations.

Also disturbing is the concept of popula-tion, which refers mostly to organizationswith a similar product. But this presentsonly a slice of the complex network of orga-nizations that have different degrees ofinvolvement in the generation of the prod-uct. Rather, the concept of sectormentionedabove seems more promising.

Recent developments in population ecol-ogy attempt to address these issues. Forexample, some scholars have advanced theidea that institutional and ecological per-spectives are complementary, depicting theinstitutional environment as an importantcontext for ecological selection processes(Aldrich, 2006; Baum & Oliver, 1991, 1992;Hannan & Freeman, 1989). Institutionallinkages are thought to increase the compet-itiveness of organizations, and institutionalrules may favor certain organizational formsover others (Baum & Oliver, 1991, 1992;Miner, Amburgey, & Stearns, 1990; Singh,House, & Tucker, 1986).

In addition, new theoretical work on theconcept of the ecological niche makes stridesin articulating the environmental conditionsunder which an organization can survive.Niche theory asks how organizations fareunder different and changing environmentalconditions and tries to understand their survival capabilities under competitive con-ditions induced by a scarce resource environ-ment (for a review, see Popielarz & Neal,2007). The niche is defined as a market, anaudience, and a set of organizations (definedby identities and organizational form codes)that make offerings to the audience (Hannan,Carroll, & Polos, 2003). Organizational formsthat occupy specific niches are defined interms of social codes with rulelike status thatspecify the characteristics organizations areexpected to have (Hsu & Hannan, 2005;Polos, Hannan, & Carroll, 2002). For exam-ple, social codes might signify that the orga-nization is a hospital or a shelter. Theseorganizational defaults emanate from theinstitutional environment and are reflected in


the expectations, assumptions, and beliefs ofaudiences or “agents with an interest in thedomain and control over material and sym-bolic resources that affect success and failureof the claimants in the domain” (Hsu &Hannan, 2005, p. 476). These audiences,which constitute a key element of the envi-ronment, could represent potential employ-ees, members, board directors, clients,funders, or other input resources. Failure toadhere to social codes can result in with-drawal of support for the organization andlead, ultimately, to organizational failure.Niche theory also considers issues of

power and politics. In the presence of com-petitors, the actual appeal of offerings is afunction of the intrinsic appeal (thematch ofthe properties of an offer to the taste of anaudience) and the intensity of the organiza-tion’s engagement with its environment.Methods of engagement, such as marketingor political advocacy, are thought to translateintrinsic appeal into actual appeal by shapingaudience perceptions about the availability,legitimacy, and authenticity of the offering(Hsu & Hannan, 2005).Finally, niche theory has introduced

sociodemographic variables to the ecologicalapproach by examining the relationshipbetween social networks and niche audi-ences. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook(2001), for example, ask why organizationalforms can attract certain audiences and notothers. They demonstrate that potentialmembers of voluntary associations arerecruited through the social networks ofexisting members. These networks tend to besocially homogeneous, indicating that theniche spaces of volunteer associations have asociodemographic dimension. This modelhas been extended to show that culturalforms (Mark, 2003) and social movements(Stern, 1999) similarly occupy niches insocial space based on social networks. Onecan see how the theorization of alternativeniche spaces—based on geographic, political,or cultural dimensions—could be employedto extend understanding of the environmental

conditions that are conducive or toxic to thesurvival of human service organizations. Forexample, the offerings of nonprofit humanservices that serve devalued and marginal-ized clients may appeal to a limited range ofdonors, as defined by their cultural tastes,ideological beliefs, and sociodemographiccharacteristics.

CRITICAL THEORY

Whereas the political-economy perspectiveemphasizes the role of strategic negotiationin the reconciliation of diverse interests, crit-ical theorists view organizations as exploita-tive instruments of domination in whichconflicting interests are ultimately resolvedthrough the hegemony of powerful con-stituents. And whereas institutional theoryfocuses on human service agencies as social-ized entities that seek legitimacy throughconformity to cultural meaning systems,critical theory is interested in how thesemeanings function as ideologies that ratio-nalize patterns of domination. From a criti-cal perspective, workers are complicit in theirown subordination through their acceptanceof inequitable arrangements and the ideolo-gies that support them. For example, somestudies have shown that managers controlwork processes by providing categories andframes that focus worker perceptions onsome areas of interest and concern and noton others (Astley & Zammuto, 1992).The central goal of critical theory in orga-

nizational studies is to create societies andworkplaces that are free from dominationand where all members have equal opportu-nity to contribute to the production of sys-tems that meet human needs and lead to theprogressive development of all. Given thatpower is a key variable in defining the struc-ture, processes, services, and worker-clientrelations of human service organizations, theemancipatory focus of the critical perspec-tive becomes particularly salient. For exam-ple, a trusting client-worker relationship—a


necessary condition of effective services—ispredicated on some degree of power balancebetween clients and workers. Yet, as men-tioned in the previous chapter, clients gener-ally have much less power than workers.

To uncover systems of domination, thecritical perspective employs an ideologicalcritique. Ideologies play a central role in(a) the moral construction of human ser-vice clients, (b) defining the desired ends,(c) shaping the service technologies, and(d) the socialization and control of the staff.They uphold certain forms of knowledgeand define appropriate forms of organi -zational action. For example, several studiesdemonstrate how the “new” public manage-ment ideology encourages organizations toadopt businesslike management practicesemphasizing the values of efficiency, econ-omy, effectiveness, and accountability,sometimes at the expense of values such ascaring or social justice (Alexander, 2000;Dart, 2004).

An ideological critique entails a carefulexamination of the organizational vocabu-laries and taxonomies through which ide-ologies are enacted. Alvesson and Willmott(1996), for example, tried to show howstrategic management is actually a form ofdomination because strategic discourse andthe decision-making process are controlledby the managerial elite, thus legitimizing itshegemony. Other research has investigatedaccounting and budgeting language as aform of organizational control (Berry et al.,1985; Dent, 1991).

From a critical perspective, these “rational”discourses mask power differentials becausedifferences in interests are framed as technicalproblems best resolved by professional man-agers rather than as political issues requiringthe input of workers or clients. When politi-cal interests are suppressed, the working con-ditions that are all too common in humanservice organizations—lack of control overthe conditions of work, wages that do notreflect the real value of workers’ efforts,and the subjection of workers to extensive

bureaucratic controls—may remain unad-dressed. Clients, who are often the most pow-erless interest group of human serviceorganizations, lack the capacity to challengethe ideological frames that determine themoral labels that are applied to them and theservices they receive.

The feminist critique of human serviceorganizations is rooted in critical theory, withan emphasis on patriarchal domination. It iswell suited to an understanding of humanservices because much of the work done inthese organizations is gendered. For example,women constitute the majority of human ser-vice workers, and yet men are more likely toassume the key administrative positions.There are several feminist approaches toexplain and remedy gender inequality inorganizations; each offers a different perspec-tive on the organization itself (for a review,see Calas & Smircich, 1996).

Liberal feminism, for example, does notchallenge mainstream conceptions of orga-nizations but acknowledges that inequalityis a result of stereotypes and discriminatorypractices that block job and advancementopportunities. Hence, legal-rational reme-dies, such as (a) antidiscrimination and sex-ual harassment policies, (b) equal worthpay, (c) gender-free performance appraisals,and (d) unbiased promotion criteria, arepromoted (e.g., Kanter, 1977; Powell, 1992;Reskin & Hartmann, 1986).

In contrast, radical feminism maintainsthat organizations are inherently genderedand subordinate women via hierarchicalstructural arrangements and power relations.These attributes give primacy to male domi-nance while suppressing feminist values, suchas egalitarianism, cooperation, nurturance,and peace (Acker, 1990; Taylor, 1983). Hence,radical feminism argues that it is necessary tocounter hierarchies of power through thedevelopment of alternative organizationalforms that are imbued with feminist values(Acker, 1990). Such organizations includeattributes such as (a) participatory decisionmaking, (b) flexible and interactive job


designs, (c) equitable distribution of income,and (d) interpersonal and political account-ability (Koen, 1984, cited in Calas & Smircich,1996). Feminist organizations that haveemerged in the human services include femi-nist health centers (Hyde, 1992; Schwartz,Gottesman, & Perlmutter, 1988), rape crisiscenters (Martin, DiNitto, Byington, &Maxwell, 1992), and schools (Rothschild &Whitt, 1986). These organizations haveshown that alternative structures can pro-mote relations among workers and betweenworkers and clients that are caring and basedon mutual responsibility and accountability(Iannello, 1992; Rothschild & Whitt, 1986).

Nonetheless, research suggests that femi-nist structures may conflict with organiza-tional survival, growth, and competitiveness(Aschraft, 2001; Bordt, 1998; Zilber, 2002).For example, power sharing, teamwork, andrelations built on mutual respect become lesstenable as organizations grow past the pointwhere all members can develop close rela-tions with one another (Clegg, Courpasson,& Phillips, 2006). As a result, feminist orga-nizations are rare and, if they do exist, tend toassume a hybrid form that combines hierar-chical and egalitarian modes of power(Aschraft, 2001, p. 1303). Such hybridizationhas been shown to produce a dialectic ten-sion between inequality/equality and cen-tralization/decentralization (Aschraft, 2001,p. 1305). For example, Aschraft’s (2001)study of a feminist organization to assist sur-vivors of domestic violence showed that themembers were reluctant to challenge theauthority and expertise of their supervisorsdespite an ideology that encouraged equaland open communication.

POSTMODERNISM

Postmodernism shares much in commonwith other theories discussed in this chapter.Like the political-economy perspective, itemphasizes the role of power in structuringorganizational relations. Like institutional

theory, it proposes that culture influencesorganizational structures and practices andis a major source of organizational control.And like critical and feminist perspectives, itargues that hegemonic ideologies perpetuatepatterns of dominance in organizations. Thepostmodern critique, however, questions alltruth claims, arguing that “facts” are alwayssituated and historically contingent.

Analysis thus shifts from explanation tothe deconstruction of prevailing understand-ings of the organization (Derrida, 1976),showing “how artificial are the ordinary,taken-for-granted structures of our socialworld” (Cooper & Burrell, 1988, p. 99).Dominant meanings, such as rationality, areunderstood as social constructions that givepreference to certain culturally defined dis-courses over others. In fact, consistency ofthe symbolic order signals the suppression ofmultiple, diverse, and contradictory rational-ities. Knowledge is produced through lan-guage, which is value-laden and emerges viapower dynamics that result in the ascendanceof hegemonic discourses and the silencing ofsubordinate perspectives. Consequently,power is always deployed in the constructionof organizational realities. As stated byAlvesson and Deetz (1996), “Power resides inthe discursive formation itself—the combi-nation of a set of linguistic distinctions, waysof reasoning and material—practices thattogether organize social institutions and pro-duce particular forms of subjects” (p. 208).

The postmodern perspective provides apowerful lens for understanding humanservice organizations. These organizationswork on people, and in so doing, theyengage in a moral discourse that becomesobjectified through technical language. Thisrational discourse masks the moral choicesthat must be made. The choice of servicetechnology, for example, reinforces certainmoral constructions of clients, at the sametime that these moral judgments rationalizethe service technology employed. Onlywhen they are deconstructed can we studythe dynamics of how certain meanings have


become dominant, how they exclude alter-native conceptions, and how they controlthe language used by professionals.

Indeed, professional knowledge and lan-guage can be seen as powerful tools of socialcontrol, or what Foucault (1977) sees as adisciplinary mode of domination. Schram(1995), for example, showed how foodshelves, unable to meet the flood of peopleasking for food, embraced prevailing defin-itions of dependency. As Schram puts it,

Food shelf personnel must invoke discursivepractices that enable them to shiftresponsibility for hunger back onto the poorthemselves. Imputing deficiencies to the poorallows food shelf staff the room to justify theregulations of clients’ behavior and therationing of food and to maintain a sense ofcontrol over their own operation. (p. 64)

As a result, the food shelves adopted thedominant moral assumptions of “blamingthe victim.”

Therefore, the language that is used inthe organization becomes an instrument ofmanagerial control over both staff andclients. Following Bourdieu and Wacquant(1992), the organization can be viewed as acontested relational and stratified field inwhich different actors compete and strugglefor access to valued resources by using theireconomic, social, and cultural capital. Theclassification and categorization schemasembedded in organizational language (e.g., how service goals and objectives areexpressed, how clients are defined, and howworkers rationalize their work) result fromclassificatory struggles and negotiationsbetween actors and interest groups with dif-ferential access to power. Those in the orga-nization that gain greater power alsoaccumulate symbolic capital, which pro-vides legitimacy to their worldview. Theypromote certain versions of reality throughthe use of language that excludes certainideas as unthinkable and inculcates othersas self-evident (Everett, 2002). Hence, pow-erful actors in the organization acquire a

common “habitus,” which is a set of inter-nalized mental schemata and structureddispositions that make their status andoppressive relations within the organizationappear natural. Those who are controlledcan be understood as complicit in their ownsubordination when they incorporate intheir habitus hegemonic taxonomies andschemes that reproduce the structures ofdomination in which they occupy a disad-vantaged position. Hence, for Bourdieu andWacquant (1992), such hegemony amountsto symbolic violence because it involves “thepower to impose (or even inculcate) thearbitrary instruments of knowledge andexpression (taxonomies) of social reality—but instruments whose arbitrary nature isnot realized as such” (p. 168).

Although Bourdieu seems better able toexplain the reproduction of power andinequality than to explain organizationaltransformation, he does assert that changecan emerge from the mismatch betweenmembers’ habitus and their location in theorganizational field of positions (Bourdieu,2005). When habitus and the dispositionsembedded in it are generated under condi-tions discordant with the current field posi-tion, the actor may perceive windows ofopportunity that are less visible to otherswho experience consonance between theirhabitus and field position (Emirbayer &Johnson, 2008). For example, when com-pared with dominant-group managers,executives who share the same ethnic orsociodemographic background as minority-group clients may have a worldview thatmore closely reflects the interests of thoseclients, which may then be expressedthrough organizational goals and practices.Meier and Stewart (1992) found that inschools with more teachers from ethnicminorities, minority students perform bet-ter. Thus, having more African American teachers results in fewer African Americanstudents being tracked into cognitively dis-abled classes and more being tracked intogifted classes.


Giddens’s (1984) structuration theoryalso accounts for change and stability viathe microprocesses found in the interactionbetween human agency and social struc-ture. Based on the notion that structureand agency are mutually determined, thetheory views social structure as bothenabling and constraining human agentswhose actions produce and reproduce thestructure. From this perspective, organiza-tional members exercise their agencythrough their capacity for reflexive actionand their ability to be knowledgeable aboutthe conditions and consequences of whatthey do in their daily lives (p. 281). In par-ticular, agents are not only able to observeand understand what they are doing, butthey can also adjust their observation rules.For example, workers knowing that theirdecisions about their clients are affected bytheir own moral beliefs can modify suchdecisions. When agents do so, they caneffect change in the social structure.Structure is conceptualized as recursivelyorganized rules and resources that agentsdraw on and reconstitute in their dailyactivities. Therefore, “structure has no exis-tence independent of the knowledge thatagents have about what they do in theirday-to-day activity” (p. 26). As a result “thestructural properties of social systems areboth the medium and outcome of the prac-tices they recursively organize” (p. 25). Thisimplies that structure is not somethingexternal to human agents but is bothenabled by them and constrains them. Animportant element of the theory is the ideaof modalities—interpretative schemes thatinclude meaning, normative elements, andpower—that agents draw on in the repro-duction of social interactions that alsoreconstitute their structural properties.

Structuration theory can provide animportant analytic approach to understandhuman service organizations. It draws atten-tion not only to how workers in their dailyactivities reproduce and reify organizational

assumptions and conceptions about theclients, but also to how they change them(see Sandfort, this volume). It pays closeattention to the interpretative schemes thatworkers use because these determine howclients are morally constructed, how actionsare justified, and how they become repro-duced in the structural properties of theagency. At the same time, the theory also pro-vides important insights into the processes oforganizational change—especially in thecapacity of workers to be knowledgeable andreflexive about the rules they use—and howreflexive action can bring about change inorganizational structure.

PROMISING DIRECTIONS

It is clear, even from this cursory review,that no one theory is adequate to explainthe structure and processes of organizationsin general, let alone human services in par-ticular. Rather, the efficacy of each theorydepends on the nature of the organizationalphenomena being addressed. Rational theo-ries have a contribution to make if we wishto understand how efficiency is pursued;human relations theories are appropriatefor understanding the nature of interper-sonal relations in organizations; contin-gency theories are significant for exploringthe impact of technology on structure;the negotiated-order perspective providesinsight into how individuals and groupsnegotiate and carry out their work; political-economy is useful in understanding therole of power dynamics and negotiations inresource mobilization; institutional theoryis important in understanding how organi-zations attain legitimacy; an institutional-logics perspective helps us examine thepolitical dynamics underlying institutional-ization; population-ecology is appropriatefor exploring the rates of founding and dis-banding of organizations; niche theory paysattention to the environmental conditions


under which an organization can survive;critical theories draw attention to humanservices as systems of domination or eman -cipation; and postmodernism provides alens for uncovering the socially constructednature of organizations and the processesthrough which these constructions areproduced.

However, an appropriate theory on humanservice organizations should account fortheir specific attributes. As noted above,human service organizations are distin-guished from other organizations in manyways: (a) their work is profoundly moral,(b) they must seek legitimacy for the moral

choices they make from the institutionalenvironment, (c) interest groups that controlvital resources have a stake in what they doand may try to influence them, (d) servicesare delivered through client-staff relations,(e) emotional work is involved in the deliveryof services, (f) they are gendered, and, related,(g) they uphold ideologies of domination/emancipation.

As shown in Table 3.1, some of the theo-ries reviewed here do a better job than oth-ers when it comes to accommodating theseattributes. We propose that the most nuancedand comprehensive understandings arefound at the intersection of theories relevant


Table 3.1 Organizational Theories and Attributes of Human Service Organizations

MoralDimensionof Work

InstitutionalEnvironment

PowerandResources

Client-StaffRelations

EmotionalWork Gender

Ideologies ofDomination/Emancipation

Rational-legalmodel

Humanrelationsapproach

√ √

Contingencytheory

√

Negotiatedorder

√ √

Political-economy

√ √

Institutionaltheory

√

Institutionallogics

√ √ √

Population-ecology

Niche theory √ √ √

Critical/feministtheories

√ √ √ √ √

Postmodernism √ √ √ √ √

to human service organizations. Put anotherway, there is a synergy between several ofthese theories—particularly political-economy,institutional, ecological, critical, and post-modern perspectives. Some models, such asinstitutional logics and niche theories,exploit these synergies in a way that enablesthem to account for multiple attributes ofhuman service organizations.

The institutional-logics approach inte-grates elements of institutional and political-economy perspectives to highlight thepower dynamics that underlie institutional-ization. In addition, the theory brings themoral choices made by human service orga-nizations into sharp relief because it focusesattention on the specific cultural meaningsthat the organization must accommodate—meaning systems that include moralassumptions about categories of clients,human problems or needs, desirable out-comes, and prevailing understandingsabout effective and efficient practice. Insti -tutional logics constituted from variouscombinations of these elements provide thebase for theories of social provision. Whentranslated to practice, these theories havedirect implications for the nature, quality,and availability of services and resources forclients. The ascendancy of new logics andthe de-legitimization of others is enabled bya heterogeneous, contradictory, and con-tested institutional environment that insti-tutional entrepreneurs can exploit, giventhe political resources needed to challengeentrenched interests and advance new pub-lic theories. Service technologies are, there-fore, the outcome of power struggles andnegotiations among various interest groups,including organization-level institutionalentrepreneurs and the state.

Niche theory also provides an integrativeapproach. It extends the institutional-logicsperspective by positing an ecology of com-peting institutional logics whereby environ-mental selection pressures—includingmarket forces and changes in the relative

prevalence of societal-level institutionallogics—favor certain organizational formsthat are compatible with their institutionalenvironment. For example, research byScott, Ruef, Mendel, and Caronna (2000) onthe Bay Area health care system demon-strates how regulatory systems introduced astate logic that undermined the prevailingprofessional logic, disempowering physi-cians and creating the opportunity for theintroduction of a corporate logic that gen-erated new service delivery systems such ashealth maintenance organizations andpoint-of-service organizations. This approachhelps account for moral systems that areembedded in human service organizationsby examining the institutional, ecological,and political dynamics that allow these sys-tems to arise and cause them to disappear.

Critical theories (including feminist the-ories) can contribute to institutional andpolitical-economy perspectives by showingnot just how logics or ideologies rise and fallbut also how they enable structures of dom-ination. Hence, institutional logics—andthe moral assumptions they reflect—upholdspecific systems of exploitation that pro-mote certain interests at the expense of oth-ers. Because they are represented as simplefact, however, hegemonic logics and ideolo-gies can be difficult to uncover.

Postmodernism helps reveal the con-structed nature of privileged narratives.Like critical theories, it reminds us that pre-vailing understandings of organizations arefrequently determined by powerful inter-ests, which manipulate narratives to servetheir own interests. Like the institutional-logics perspective, it attributes much exp -lanatory power to the institutional field inwhich the organization is embedded.However, it pays closer attention to the rela-tions of power through which conformityto societal-level institutional logics is gener-ated and upheld. For example, Bourdieu’s(1991) concept of capital provides a usefulheuristic that identifies the specific “stakes


that are at stake” in political struggle. Hisfocus on language as a medium of powerand control helps trace this political strug-gle back to the sociohistorical conditionsfrom which the taxonomies and schema ofvaluation emerge. Finally, his concepts ofsymbolic violence and habitus enhanceunderstanding of how hegemonic perspec-tives are internalized by subordinate actorsand reproduced through their practices androutines.

Finally, postmodern perspectives thatfocus on microlevel processes, such asstructuration theory, extend the above the-ories by showing how workers in their dailyactivities reproduce and reify organiza-tional assumptions and conceptions aboutclients and also how they change theseassumptions. By focusing on the embeddedagency of organizational actors, suchmicrolevel theories help us understandclient-worker relations within the contextof larger organizational and societal struc-tures, power dynamics, and systems ofmeaning.

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: Atheory of gendered organizations. Gender& Society, 4, 139–158.

Aldrich, H. (2006). Organizational evolutionand entrepreneurship (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations andenvironment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Alexander, J. (2000). Adaptive strategies ofnonprofit human service organizations inan era of devolution and new publicmanagement. Nonprofit Management &Leadership, 10, 287–303.

Allen, D. (1997). The nursing-medicalboundary: A negotiated order? Sociology ofHealth & Illness, 19(4), 498–520.

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theoryand postmodernism approaches toorganizational studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy

& W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizationstudies (pp. 191–217). London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Makingsense of management. London: Sage.

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competenceand organizational effectiveness.Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Aschraft, K. L. (2001). Organized dissonance:Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form.Academy of Management Journal, 44,1301–1322.

Astley, W. G., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984).Structural sources of intraorganizationalpower: A theoretical synthesis. Academy ofManagement Review, 9(1), 104–113.

Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1992).Organization science, managers, andlanguage games. Organization Science, 3(4),443–460.

Baum, J. A., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutionallinkages and organizational mortality.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,187–218.

Baum, J. A., & Oliver, C. (1992). Institutionalembeddedness and the dynamics oforganizational populations. AmericanSociological Review, 57, 540–559.

Benson, J. K. (1975). The interorganizationalnetwork as a political economy.Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 229–249.

Berry, A. J., Capps, T., Cooper, D., Ferguson, P.,Hopper, T., & Lowe, E. A. (1985).Management control in an area of theNCB: Rationales of accounting practices ina public enterprise. AccountingOrganizations and Society, 10(1), 3–28.

Bordt, R. L. (1998). The structure of women’snonprofit organizations. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolicpower. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of theeconomy.Malden, MA: Polity.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). Aninvitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfarecontract: Discretion and accountability instate welfare administration. Social ServiceReview, 71(1), 1–33.


Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1996). From “thewoman’s” point of view: Feministapproaches to organizational studies. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.),Handbook of organizational studies(pp. 218–257). London: Sage.

Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006).Power and organizations. London: Sage.

Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Nord,W. R. (Eds.). (2006). The Sage handbook oforganization studies (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism,postmodernism and organizationalanalysis: An introduction. OrganizationStudies, 9, 91–112.

Creed, W. E., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust inorganizations. In R. M. Kramer & T. R.Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations(pp. 16–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cress, D., & Snow, D. A. (1996). Mobilizing atthe margins: Resources, benefactors, andthe viability of homeless social movementorganizations. American SociologicalReview, 61, 1089–1109.

Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in anonprofit organization: A grounded andinductive typology. Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290–310.

Dent, J. F. (1991). Accounting andorganizational cultures: A field study of theemergence of a new organizational reality.Accounting Organizations and Society,16(8), 705–732.

DeParle, J. (2004). American dream: Threewomen, ten kids, and a nation’s drive to endwelfare. New York: Viking.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (1stAmerican ed.). Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency ininstitutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.),Institutional patterns and organizations(pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Balinger.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). Theiron cage revisited: Institutionalisomorphism and collective rationality inorganizational fields. American SociologicalReview, 48, 147–160.

Donaldson, L. (1987). Strategy and structureadjustment to regain fit and performance:

In defense of contingency theory. Journalof Management Studies, 21(1), 1–24.

Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieuand organizational analysis. Theory andSociety, 37(1), 1–44.

Everett, J. (2002). Organizational research andthe praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu.Organizational Research Methods, 5,56–80.

Feldman, P. (1990). Who cares for them?Workers in the home care industry. NewYork: Greenwood Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: Thebirth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).New York: Pantheon Books.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringingsociety back in: Symbols, practices, andinstitutional contradictions. In W. W.Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The newinstitutionalism (pp. 232–263). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society:Outline of the theory of structuration.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glisson, C. (1989). The effect of leadership onworkers in human service organizations.Administration in Social Work, 13, 99–116.

Glisson, C. (1992). Structure and technology inhuman service organizations. In Y. Hasenfeld(Ed.), Human services as complexorganizations (pp. 184–204). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Glisson, C., Dukes, D., & Green, P. (2006). Theeffects of the ARC organizationalintervention on caseworker turnover,climate, and culture in children’s servicesystems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(8), 855–880.

Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate inhuman service teams. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 23(6), 767–794.

Guetzkow, J. (2006). Constructing welfare andcriminal justice policies. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the AmericanSociological Association, Montreal,Quebec, Canada, 2006.

Guterman, N. B., & Bargal, D. (1996). Socialworkers’ perceptions of their power andservice outcomes. Administration in SocialWork, 20, 1–20.


Handler, J. F., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2007). Blamewelfare, ignore poverty and inequality. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Hannan, M. T., Carroll, G. R., & Polos, L.(2003). The organizational niche.Sociological Theory, 21(4), 309–340.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989).Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutionalentrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C.Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.),Organizational institutionalism (pp. 198–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hasenfeld, Y. (1972). People-processingorganizations: An exchange approach.American Sociological Review, 37, 256–263.

Hasenfeld, Y. (1987). Power in social workpractice. Social Service Review, 61(3),469–483.

Hasenfeld, Y., & Powell, L. E. (2004). The roleof non-profit agencies in the provision ofwelfare-to-work services. Administration inSocial Work, 3–4, 91–110.

Haskins, R. (2006). Work over welfare: Theinside story of the 1996 welfare reform law.Washington, DC: Brookings InstitutionPress.

Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. T. (2005). Identities,genres, and organizational forms.Organization Science, 16(5), 474–490.

Hyde, C. (1992). The ideational system of socialmovement agencies: An examination offeminist health centers. In Y. Hasenfeld(Ed.), Human services as formalorganizations (pp. 121–144). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Iannello, K. P. (1992). Decisions withouthierarchy. New York: Routledge.

Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. A. (1983). Jobsatisfaction and burnout in social work. InB. A. Farber (Ed.), Stress and burnout in thehuman service professions (pp. 129–141).New York: Pergamon Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of thecorporation. New York: Basic Books.

Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership andempowerment: A social exchange perspective.Human Relations, 48(2), 127–146.

Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R., & Martin, L. L.(2008). Designing and managing programs:

An effectiveness-based approach (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirk, S., & Kutchins, H. (1992). The selling ofDSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Kramer, R., & Grossman, B. (1987).Contracting for social services: Processmanagement and resource dependencies.Social Service Review, 61(1), 32–55.

Lachman, R. (1989). Power from what?Reexamination of its relationships withstructural conditions. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 34(2), 231–251.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967).Organization and environment: Managingdifferentiation and integration. Boston:Harvard University, Graduate School ofBusiness Administration. (cf. Pfeffer, 1992)

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006).Institutions and institutional work. In S.Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. Nord(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies(pp. 215–254). London: Sage.

Leifer, R., & Huber, G. P. (1977). Relationsamong perceived environmentaluncertainty, organizational structure, andboundary spanning behavior.Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2),235–247.

Mark, N. P. (2003). Culture and competition:Homophily and distancing explanationsfor cultural niches. American SociologicalReview, 68(3), 319–345.

Martin, P. Y., DiNitto, D., Byington, D., &Maxwell, M. S. (1992). Organizational andcommunity transformation: The case of arape crisis center. Administration in SocialWork, 16, 123–145.

Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993).Historical and conceptual development ofburnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, &T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout:Recent developments in theory and research(pp. 1–16) (Series in Applied Psychology:Social Issues and Questions). Washington,DC: Taylor & Francis.

McGrath, R. G. (2006). Beyond contingency:From structure to structuring in the designof the contemporary organization. In S. R.Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R.Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of


organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 577–597).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M.(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily insocial networks. Annual Review ofSociology, 27, 415–444.

Meier, K. J., & Stewart, J., Jr. (1992). The impactof representative bureaucracies:Educational systems and public policies.American Review of Public Administration,22(3), 157–171.

Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalorganizations: Formal structure as mythand ceremony. American Journal ofSociology, 83, 340–363.

Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., Strang, D., &Creighton, A. L. (1988). Bureaucratizationwithout centralization: Changes in theorganizational system of U.S. publiceducation, 1940–1980. In L. G. Zucker(Ed.), Institutional patterns andorganizations (pp. 139–168). Cambridge,MA: Ballinger.

Miner, A. S., Amburgey, T. L., & Stearns, T. M.(1990). Interorganizational linkages andpopulation dynamics: Buffering andtransformational shields. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 35, 689–713.

Mohr, J. W. (1998). Measuring meaningstructures. Annual Review of Sociology, 24,345–370.

Mohr, J. W., & Guerra-Pearson, F. (in press).The duality of niche and form: Thedifferentiation of institutional space in NewYork City, 1888–1917. In W. Powell & D.Jones (Eds.), How institutions change.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for thecomparative analysis of organizations.American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.

Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: Acritical essay (3rd ed.). New York: RandomHouse.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politicsand influence in organizations. Boston:Harvard Business School Press. (cf.Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967)

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The externalcontrol of organizations: A resource

dependence perspective. New York: Harper& Row.

Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout.New York: Free Press.

Polos, L., Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R.(2002). Foundations of a theory of socialforms. Industrial and Corporate Change,11(1), 85–115.

Popielarz, P. A., & Neal, Z. P. (2007). The nicheas a theoretical tool. Annual Review ofSociology, 33, 65–84.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, J. R.(1975). Behavior in organizations. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Powell, G. N. (1992). Women and men inmanagement (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reskin, B. F., & Hartmann, H. I. (1986).Women’s work, men’s work: Sex segregationon the job.Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

Rothschild, J., & Whitt, A. J. (1986). Thecooperative workplace. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The basesand use of power in organizationaldecision making: The case of a university.Administrative Science Quarterly, 19,453–473.

Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems withcontingency theory: Testing assumptionshidden within the language of contingency“theory.” Administrative Science Quarterly,26, 349–377.

Schram, S. (1995). Words of welfare: The povertyof social science and the social science ofpoverty.Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Schwartz, A. Y., Gottesman, E. W., & Perlmutter,F. D. (1988). Blackwell: A case study infeminist administration. Administration inSocial Work, 12, 5–15.

Scott, W. R. (1990). Technology and structure:An organizational level perspective. In P. S.Goodman & L. S. Sproull (Eds.),Technology and organizations (pp. 109–143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizationsand organizing: Rational, natural, and opensystems perspectives (1st ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.


Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1983). Theorganization of environments: Network,cultural, and historical elements. In J. W. S.Meyer, W. R. Scott, B. Rowan, & T. E. Deal(Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritualand rationality (pp. 129–154). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna,C. A. (2000). Institutional change andhealthcare organizations: From professionaldominance to managed care. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Singh, J. V., House, R. J., & Tucker, D. J. (1986).Organizational change and organizationalmortality. Administrative Science Quarterly,31, 587–611.

Singh, J. V., & Lumsden, C. J. (1990). Theoryand research in organizational ecology.Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 161–195.

Stern, C. (1999). The evolution of social-movement organizations: Nichecompetition in social spate. EuropeanSociological Review, 15(1), 91–105.

Strauss, A., Fargerhaugh, S., Suczek, B., &Wiener, C. (1985). Social organization ofmedical work. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Svensson, R. (1996). The interplay betweendoctors and nurses: A negotiated orderperspective. Sociology of Health & Illness,18(3), 379–398.

Taylor, V. (1983). The future of feminism in the 1980s: A social movement analysis. In L. Richardson & V. Taylor (Eds.), Feministfrontiers: Rethinking sex, gender and society(pp. 434–451). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organization in action.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tucker, D., Baum, J., & Singh, J. (1992). Theinstitutional ecology of human serviceorganizations. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.),Human services as complex organizations(pp. 47–72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986).Technological discontinuities andorganizational environments. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 31, 436–465.

Twombly, E. C. (2003). What factors affect theentry and exit of nonprofit human serviceorganizations in metropolitan areas?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,32(2), 211–235.

Wamsley, G. L., & Zald, M. N. (1976). Thepolitical economy of public organizations.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Whiddon, B., & Martin, P. Y. (1989).Organizational democracy and workquality in a state welfare agency. SocialScience Quarterly, 70, 667–686.

Young, R. C. (1988). Is population ecology auseful paradigm for the study oforganizations? American Journal ofSociology, 94, 1–24.

Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplaybetween actions, meanings, and actors: Thecase of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academyof Management Journal, 45, 234–254.

Zucker, L. (1988). Where do institutionalpatterns come from? Organizations asactors in social systems. In L. Zucker (Ed.),Institutional patterns and organizations(pp. 23–52). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.


HEORETICAL UMAN SERVICE O - SAGE - the natural home for

Documents

Transcript of HEORETICAL UMAN SERVICE O - SAGE - the natural home for