Organizational Analysis Readings

Organizational Analysis Reading List

Daniel A. McFarland

Stanford/Coursera – Fall 2012

10

Course Readings

Most of our readings are articles and chapters, but I will also rely on a few books. I have

always preferred assigning primary readings as opposed to using secondary compilations. I think

primary texts retain more of their voice when assigned on their own, and that textbook

compilations tend to massage the readings into the editor / author’s argument. I want you to walk

away with a toolkit of theories that you feel have some distinctiveness from one another.

The four books I am assigning are as follows:

Goldsmith, Stephen and William Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the

Public Sector. (or get full-text electronic copy available via Stanford library)

Hula, Kevin W. 1999. Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics.

Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, second edition. Longman.

Kunda, Gideon. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech

Corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

In the ensuing pages, I will relate the readings and guiding questions of each week. I look

forward to seeing and learning with you in class!


Daniel A. McFarland


11

WEEKLY READINGS

INTRODUCTION

Week I. Organizational Elements and Organizing Narratives (73pp)

Theory: (27pp)

Scott, Richard. 2003 (5th

ed). “The Subject is Organizations,” Chapter 1 (pp. 3-30) of

Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. (Link)

Case: (46pp)

Metz, Mary Haywood. 1986. “Adams Avenue School for Individually Guided Education.”

Chapter 4 (pp. 57-103) in Different by Design: The Context and Character of Three

Magnet Schools. Routledge: New York.

Guiding questions:

How do these readings fit your experiences in organizations? Think about your experiences in

educational, governmental, non-profit, and for-profit organizations. Think about the elements of

these organizations – their goals, technology (curriculum), social structure (roles and rules),

participants, and salient environment. What seemed to matter most?

Many organizations try to change or reform how organizing is done. Think about how various

reforms treat and characterize organizations. What organizational elements are seen as central to

a reform? What level / unit of analysis is of concern? What is the boundary to an organization

and a reform effort? Who and what matters in the environment? What makes for a successful or

unsuccessful reform?

What kind of account would you give for an organization and its reforms? Would you

characterize the organization as rational, natural, or open system?

Example paper question:

Consider Metz’ account of a magnet school and its organization. How do Scott’s organizational

elements and rational-natural-open models apply? Do they help you think more richly about the

context?


Daniel A. McFarland


12

PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING

Week II – Decisions by Rational and Rule-Based Procedures (98pp)

Theory: (25pp)

March, James G. 1999. "Understanding How Decisions Happen in Organizations." Chapter 2 in

The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence, pp. 13-38. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers.

Application: (29pp)

Allison, Graham T. 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The American

Political Science Review 63, 3:689-718.

Case: (44pp)

Dorothy Shipps, “The Businessman’s Educator: Mayoral Takeover and Nontraditional

Leadership in Chicago,” in Powerful Reforms with Shallow Roots, ed. Larry Cuban and

Michael Usdan, pp. 16-34 (NY: Teachers College Press).

Bryk, Tony. 2003. “No Child Left Behind, Chicago-Style.” In Peterson, P. W., and West, M. The

Politics and Practice of School Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution

Press, pp. 242-268.

Guiding Questions:

Many decisions were probably made in the organizations you belonged to. In your experience,

how many of those decisions were based on a logic of consequence (means-end rational

calculations) or a logic of appropriateness (principle-based decisions)? Who made decisions in

these organizations, when, and in what situations? What went into making them? Was there a

succession of interrelated decisions or even stages to organizational decision-making? Did actors

learn and adapt from experience or forget and make the same mistakes?

Compare the rational actor model to the organizational behavior model. What are the main tenets

of each theory according to Allison? What organizational elements does each emphasize? Do

they focus on different units of analysis? What consequences and preferences matter? What

rules, identities, or values matter? How do the rational actor model and the organizational

behavior model apply to the Chicago cases? Who is doing the decision-making? What influences

the decision process? Are options weighed? What occurs and what does not? What theory would

take a lot of extra data, a different perspective, etc, to have a better hold?

As a manager, how would you use rational actor and organizational behavior models to

successfully manage an organization? What is the danger of using only these models?

Example Paper Question:

Apply the rational actor model and/or the organizational behavior model to one (or both) of the

Chicago reform cases OR compare and contrast the applicability of the two theories using the

Chicago case(s). Note their strengths and weaknesses.


Daniel A. McFarland


13

Week III. Decisions by Dominant Coalitions (124pp)

Theory: (7pp)


ed). “The Dominant Coalition” (pp. 296-303) of Organizations:

Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Application (Allison from last week): (104pp)

Hula, Kevin W. 1999. Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics.

Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press (chapters 1-5, 7, and 9 [pp.1-77, 93-107,

122-135]).

Allison, Graham T. 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The American

Political Science Review 63, 3:689-718 – review 3rd

model from last time.

Case: (13pp)

Quinn, Rand. 2005. “The Politics of School Vouchers: Analyzing the Milwaukee Parental

Choice Plan.” Stanford University School of Education Case.

Witte, John. 1999. “The Milwaukee Voucher Experiment: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”

Phi Delta Kappan, September: 59-64.

Hurricane Katrina -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

Guiding questions:

Compare the organizational behavior model to the governmental politics / coalition model.

Apply them to the Chicago, Milwaukee, and Hula cases (esp. education lobbying). How can a

coalition form when multiple actors have inconsistent preferences and identities? How is

agreement even tenuously accomplished? Is school and non-profit governance the result of

strange bedfellows? What about home-schooling advocates (secular and fundamentalist groups)

and voucher programs (Milwaukee’s African American community and Republican politicians)?

Can coalitions have extended lives? If you are a manager of a coalition, what can you do to

manage it successfully?

Example Paper Question:

Use the coalition/conflict approach to analyze the Milwaukee case or one like it. Be critical and

discuss the strengths and weaknesses afforded by this theoretical perspective in elucidating the

case.


Daniel A. McFarland


14

Week IV. Decisions by Organized Anarchies (144pp)

Theory & Application: (144pp)

Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, second edition. Chapter 4-8

(pp. 71-195 [Chapter 9 (pp. 196-209) is optional, but recommended]). Longman.

Birnbaum, Robert. 1989. “The Latent Organizational Functions of the Academic Senate: Why

Senates Do Not Work But Will Not Go Away?” Journal of Higher Education 60

(July/August) 4: 423-443.

Case (same as last week): (0pp)

Quinn, Rand. 2005. “The Politics of School Vouchers: Analyzing the Milwaukee Parental

Choice Plan.” Stanford University School of Education Case.

Witte, John. 1999. “The Milwaukee Voucher Experiment: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”

Phi Delta Kappan, September: 59-64.

Guiding Questions:

Is Garbage-Can Theory merely a descriptive theory or can it be used to improve management?

How can you better manage in a world of organized anarchies? Can we take Kingdon’s

argument and better understand why certain issues in education are more salient to policy makers

than others? What would we need to know to apply Kingdon’s model? Reflect on all the issues,

policies, and shifting participants shaping educational policy at the national level. Which ones

have languished? Which have reached the public agenda only briefly? Which remain there or

arise repeatedly? Who and what make them salient or ignored? From your experience which

actors and what meetings serve to establish the education policy agenda – is it the bureaucrats,

the elected officials, or the lobbyists? Is it a yearly meeting, an unscheduled crisis, or an election

issue? What other issue streams compete and push educational policy issues off the legislative

radar? How are faculty senates much like an organized anarchy?

Can we apply Garbage-Can Theory to the Milwaukee Voucher case? What’s missing? What

kinds of things do we need to know in order to apply it? How can managers get issues heard and

decided upon in these circumstances?

Paper Question:

How does GCT apply to the Milwaukee choice plan? Where does it find support? What other

information is needed? What does it suggest about how the choice plan could be managed? Or –

select another case of policy-making where coalitions arise. Apply the theory critically,

identifying its limits and strengths.


Daniel A. McFarland


15

Week V. Organizational Learning and Intelligence (98pp)

Theory: (55pp)

Brown, John Seely and Paul Duguid. 2000. “Practice Makes Process,” and “Learning in Theory

and Practice.” Chapters 4-5 (pp. 91-146 [and endnotes appended]) in The Social Life of

Information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Applications: (43pp)

Leithwood, Kenneth and Karen S. Louis. 1998. “Organizational Learning in Schools: An

Introduction.” Chapter 1 (pp. 1-8) in in Organizational Learning in Schools. Tokyo:

Swets & Zeitlinger.

Louis, Karen Seashore and Sharon D. Kruse. 1998. “Creating Community in Reform: Images of

Organizational Learning in Inner City Schools.” Chapter 2 (pp. 17-46) in Organizational

Learning in Schools. Tokyo: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Lieberman, Ann. 2000. “Networks as Learning Communities: Shaping the Future of Teacher

Development.” Journal of Teacher Education 51, 3: 221-227.

Case:

Read about the World of Warcraft and information on guilds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft

http://www.wowwiki.com/Guild

View the BigThink video of John Seely Brown discussing the World of Warcraft (this is also

posted as a lecture on Coursera) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhuOzBS_O-M

Guiding questions:

How do organizations remember what works, identify problems, and then solve them? Where is

organizational learning in an organization like a school? What would be considered improvement

and signs of adaptation for the better? How are these adaptations transferred and diffused? How

does Lieberman’s notion of learning communities try to relate to organizational learning? How

does this compare to Lieberman’s case? How can culture facilitate learning as well? How does

the organizational learning / adaptation perspective differ from others? What unit of analysis and

organizational elements does it focus upon?

Paper Question:

Use the organizational learning approach and explain how it would apply to an organization like

schools or the World of Warcraft. Be critical and consider how other theories may better apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft

http://www.wowwiki.com/Guild

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhuOzBS_O-M


Daniel A. McFarland


16

VI. Organizational Cultures (~140pp)

Theory:

Martin, Joanne and Debra Meyerson. 1988. “Organizational Cultures and the Denial,

Channeling and Acknowledgment of Ambiguity.” Chapter 6 (pp. 93-125) in Managing

Ambiguity and Change, L. Pondy, R. Boland, and H. Thomas (Eds).

Application:

Kunda, Gideon. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech

Corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. (Read chapter 1, skim 2, and

then read intro/concluding sections of chapters 3-5 as well as the text following every

section heading within those chapters. We suggest this because the examples get

redundant and we prefer you get a feel for how Kunda illustrates his points and

establishes his claims. Skim chapter 6.)

Case: (+10 pp, Metz is same reading from week 1)

Diehl, David. 2006. “The Mill Town Case and Small Schools Reform.” Stanford University

School of Education Case.

Metz, Mary Haywood. 1986. “Adams Avenue School for Individually Guided Education.”

Chapter 4 (pp. 57-103) in Different by Design: The Context and Character of Three

Magnet Schools. Routledge: New York.

Guiding Questions:

In section, you will be asked to imagine how an organizational culture can be engineered and

managed so as to serve the goals of schooling (imagine a classroom or school culture engineered

in the “Kunda-way”). How could it be engineered at the Mill Town High School?

How is culture and its interpretation relevant to the study and management of organizations?

How do managers create and alter organizational cultures? How do members negotiate and

adapt to them? What are examples of codified ideologies in schools? How do actors engage in

presentation rituals that generate an organizational culture? How do individual persons relate to

an organization’s culture? Reflect on schools that appear to have a real mission, ideology, and

set of ritual practices (e.g., private religious schools, Deborah Meier’s school, etc) and imagine

how Kunda’s concepts apply. Can we translate Kunda’s ideas so as to engineer positive school

cultures? Why or why not? How does the organizational culture view speak to small school

reform efforts?

Paper Question:

How can we use the culture approach to engineer a more productive organizational culture?

Think about the cases and organizations that interest you – how do we create a healthy, effective

organizational culture that helps accomplish organizational goals?


Daniel A. McFarland


17

PART II. ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

Week VII. Resource Dependencies (58pp)

Theory: (27pp)

Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. Selection from “Organization-Environment

Relations” (pp. 315-326). In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Vol 3 (2nd

ed.). Eds. Marvin D. Dunnette and Leaetta M Hough. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists. (Focus on resource dependence parts and ignore references to

transaction cost economics and population ecology [if such theories interests you, those

pages/refs can be found in the reserves copy of the chapter])(reader).


ed). “Resource Dependence” (pp. 118-119) and “Managing Task

Environments” (pp. 197-212) of Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th

Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Case: (31pp)

Sarah V. Barnes. 1999. “A Lost Opportunity in American Education? The Proposal to Merge the

University of Chicago and Northwestern University.” American Journal of Education,

Vol. 107, No. 4:289-320.

Guiding questions:

What are the resources in the Barnes example? What/who is dependent on whom for those

resources? Think about Channel 1 and vending machine contractors coming into schools, what

kind of compromises are made in such alliances? What about universities and big donors? Is

there a potential for cooptation or unwilling compromises in these instances? How can reformers

co-opt local participants without losing sight of the mission/goals? Isn’t that something the

public sector is doing with philanthropic organizations (Gates) and non-governmental

organizations? How do resource dependence relations play a role in all this? How does a

manager behave if they believe resource dependence is key to organizational survival and

success? Can you imagine how and why school districts can merge? Why would schools merge

and how would that alleviate interdependence?

Paper Question:

Use resource dependence theory to explain the University of Chicago and Northwestern case.

What does it help explain? Where does it fail to hold? Would other theories we have covered

apply better? Where would successful management have focused in the Barnes case? Or – select

a case that interests you and apply resource dependence theory to it in a critical fashion.


Daniel A. McFarland


18

VIII. Network Models of Organizing (145pp)

Theory: (7pp)

Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. Selection from “Organization-Environment


Vol 3 (2nd


Consulting Psychologists. (Focus on network approaches to interorganizational relations

and ignore references to transaction cost economics and population ecology [if such

theories interests you, those pages/refs can be found in the reserves copy of the

chapter])(reader).

Application: (118pp)

Stephen Goldsmith and William Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the

Public Sector (read Ch.1-5 or pp. 3-119, 156, 178]).

Case: (20pp)

Smith, Andrew K. and Priscilla Wohlstetter, 2001. “Reform Through School Networks: A New

Kind of Authority and Accountability.” Educational Policy 15, 4:499-519.

Guiding Questions:

How does the network form of organization relate to resource-dependency arguments? What’s

the difference between network forms of organization, hierarchical arrangements, and markets?

What are the coordination problems of network forms of organization, especially within and

between schools? How can we use networks to diffuse technologies (or new curricula) and make

them stick? How do we manage network forms of organization?

Paper Question:

Consider how a network form of organizing can help elaborate what Lieberman is trying to

accomplish. What else could be said about the case? Extrapolate and discuss what kind of data

would help establish a network form of teacher community. Or – select a case that interests you

and answer the same questions above.


Daniel A. McFarland


19

Week IX. Institutional Perspective (63pp)

Theory: (20pp)

Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. A selection from “Organization-Environment

Relations” (pp. 342, 354-365). In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, Vol 3 (2nd

ed.). Eds. Marvin D. Dunnette and Leaetta M Hough. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists. (Focus on institutional perspectives discussion and ignore

references to transaction cost economics [if such theories interests you, those pages/refs

can be found in the reserves copy of the chapter]).


ed). “Institutional Theory” (pp. 119-120) and “Managing Institutional

Environments” (pp. 213-220) of Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th

Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Applications: (27pp)

Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan. [1978] 2004. “The Structure of Educational Organizations.”

Pp. 201-212 in Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education. Eds. Jeanne

Ballantine and Joan Spade. Canada: Wadsworth.

Metz, Mary Haywood. 1989. “Real School: A Universal Drama Amid Disparate Experience.”

Politics of Education Association Yearbook 1989:75-91.

Case: (16pp)

“Intelligent Design Rears it’s Head.” The Economist, July 28, 2005.

“Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive.” New York Times, August 21, 2005.

Bai, Matt. “The Framing Wars.” NY Times Magazine, July 17, 2005 (pp. 1-8).

Guiding Questions:

How can rationalization in the environment influence organizations? What does it mean for an

organization to have institutional legitimacy? How does neo-institutional theory differ from

cultural explanations? Are educational organizations following dynamics of resource

dependence or neo-institutional theory? Think about universities, high schools, and then the

recent development of charters, vouchers, and schools within schools. What kind of research

would establish one theory over another? How do you manage an organization if environmental

myths are what matter most?

Paper Question:

How can we use neo-institutional theory to explain the intelligent design debates? What does it

help elaborate? What is missing? Or - compare the culture approach to the neo-institutional

approach in discussing the intelligent design debate. Which seems more applicable? What are

their key differences?


Daniel A. McFarland


20

Week X. Course Summary (38pp)

Theory: (12pp)

Davis, Gerald F. and Walter W. Powell. 1992. A selection from “Organization-Environment


Vol 3 (2nd


Consulting Psychologists.(reader)

Application / Case: (26pp)

Renzulli, Linda. 2005. "Organizational Environments and the Emergence of Charter Schools in

the United States." Sociology of Education 78: 1-26. (nice demonstration of how multiple

theories can be brought to bear on a case)

Guiding questions:

Is this a case best described by resource dependence, organizational culture, neoinstitutional

theory, or population ecology? Assuming cases can be explained by a variety of theories, how

do you assess which applies or not, and which does a better job explaining the observed

phenomena?

Reflect back on these and the applications for discussion section.

(1) Magnet school reform (Metz)

(2) Chicago public school reforms (Bryk, Shipps)

(3) Milwaukee parental choice plan (Quinn, Witte)

(4) Learning community reforms (Lieberman)

(5) University of Chicago – Northwestern merger effort (Barnes)

(6) Charter school networks (Smith & Wohlstetter)

(7) Intelligent design and teaching of evolution debate (NY Times)

(8) The U.S. charter school movement

Does each theory apply to certain levels of analysis far better than others? When would we want

to focus on one level of analysis over another? Do these theories apply to certain types of

organizations more than others (sector)? Do they concern different stages of “organizing” better

than others? Can we integrate them in our explanations of multi-level, multi-staged

organizational phenomena? Which narratives would act as an umbrella / connector for these

types of explanations? How can a manager know when to pay attention to one view over

another?

Organizational Analysis Readings

Documents

Transcript of Organizational Analysis Readings