40227332

8/13/2019 40227332

1/9

Organization Theory: American and European Styles: Why Are We Interested in EuropeanContributions?Author(s): Sami KassemSource: Management International Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (1977), pp. 11-18Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40227332 .Accessed: 04/10/2013 01:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Management International Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 11 1.68.97.189 on Fri, 4 Oct 201 3 01:55:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40227332?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40227332?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

8/13/2019 40227332

2/9

Focus Actualites BlickpunktINTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONTHEORY

SAMIKASSEM

ORGANIZATIONTHEORY:AMERICANANDEUROPEANSTYLES

Why are we interested n European contributions?

My interest n bringing ogether uropean contributions oorganization heory volvedfrompersonal xperience:

I wasborn nEgypt ndwent o college here; hen moved o the United tates or mygraduatework. As a graduate tudent irst t the University f Chicago,then t New York University,gotbored quicklywith he American ocial cience cene n general nd with rganizational it-erature nparticular. foundmost f my eachers rovincial ecause hey ended o stay t homestudying heir wn people, their wn organizations, nd their wn systems. t the Universityof ChicagoI learned lot about Friedman's conomics,but virtually ittle bout Keynesianeconomics.At NYU Drucker aughtme a lot about the practice f management, ut didn'tlearn thing bout the bureaucratic henomenon nFrance r the Glacier nvestigationn Eng-land.As a collegeprofessor n the United tates started eading he iterature n my wn. I soongotthe feeling hat uropean rganizational iterature, lthough mpressive nd valuable, sdiffuseand scattered. When cameto Europeto teach, omy urprise noted hat uropean rganiza-tion hinkers re essorganized nd ess aggressive han heir American ounterparts. hey areunknown oldiers whose works remain elatively nknown, otonly broad but lso at home.There snoprofessional ociety hat rings hem ll together, ordo theywrite or he amema-jor ournals. looked around nd examined heEuropean cene o see who were doing he on-sulting, hewriting, heorganizing: he Americans. was reminded f the "AmericanChal-lenge" nd asked myself hether he Beatles ould have ucceeded withoutAmerican rganiza-tional alent? Why s it they were discovered ot by the British, ut by the Americans?

Finally, s a consultant am alwaysconfronted y the value ssue mplicit n my behaviour.Wherever go in Europeaswellas in the MiddleEast, askmyself: m I justified n mposingmy Western alues on innocent eopleand n applyingmy American deas ndiscriminatelynforeign ands?Am I justified n disturbingmy people and changing heirway of ife? Does itmake ense opreach ontingency odels n classroom, etpractice niversalismn the field? sthe American way necessarily he best way? I often wonder Last summer n Arab executivereacted harplywhen showed him how his employees id on a questionnaire esigned n theU.S.A. by R. Likert 1967).He said,"theseresults emind me of the cores blackpeople get nI.Q. tests n America. The troublewith hat nstrument s that t sdesigned y the white man,

administered ythewhiteman nd cored by thewhiteman. t does not measure ow smart ouare but how white you are."

Professorami assemsAssociaterofessorfManagement,heUniversityfToledo, oledo, hio,U.S.A.

1977/3 11

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/13/2019 40227332

3/9

To summarize, herewere t east hree easons n my mind or writing his aper. The fact hatAmerican rganizational iterature sethnocentric; hefact hat uropean rganizational itera-ture, while mpressives diffuse nd relatively nknown oth broad nd at home;andthe Ang-lo-Saxonbias of organizational nd management ractices. My central bjective s to find ut

whether r not there s a distinct ody of organizational hought hat s truly uropean n ac-cent. n viewof the ime nd space imitations, y nswer o this uestionhasto benecessarilygeneral, istorical nd conceptual.

A Historical Overview of the Field

We know a great eal about what theory s and what ts requirements re; we know relativelylittle bout organizations.Whatkind f beasts re they?How are they esigned,managed, ndcuredwhen hey et ick?Over thepast 70years r so, anumber f ttempts avebeenmade oanswer hese uestions. heseattempts eremadeby Europeans nd Americans like,both n-side and outside cademia. n order o sift ut Europeanfrom American ontribution o the

field, etme outline ome of he major chools f organization heory. he dominant urrents norganizational hinking ince hebeginning f this entury ave taken heform f thesis, nti-thesis, nd synthesis. y contrast o the ynthesis which ravels nder hename f open-systemtheory nd contingency heories), oth die thesis known s classical rganization heory) ndthe nti-thesis known s "human relations" heory)were oncerned with inding he one bestway" to design nd manage n organization.

The classical r machine modelof organization esembles hepyramid n shape. t consists f asetof principles suchasspecialization, nity f command, ertical ommunication) hich redistilled rom ractical xperience, earing n formal rganization tructure.

Bycontrast, he human relations" hool emphasizes eoplerather han tructures', ccomoda-tion rather han machine-like recisions, nd draws ts inspiration rombiological ystemsrather han ngineering ystems. n designing n organization, t uses the group ather han heindividual s the building lock, nteraction ather han uthority s the ement nd starts romthe bottom p rather han rom he opdown. It accepts ormal rganization s given nd em-phasizes uchfactors s: delegation f authority, mployee articipation, roupdecisionmak-ing, nterpersonal rust nd openness, mployee-centered eadership.

The "human relations" chool (or the participative odel)is derived rom hework of be-havioral cientists. While it is closelyassociatedwith the work of American rganizationalpsychologists suchasMayo, Roethlisberger nd Dickson,McGregor, ikert nd Argyris), ts

deepest ootscan be found n ideasdevelopedby European: Kurt Lewin on group dynamics,Freud on the mportance f the unconscious notives nd Pareto on non- ational motives.

Recent Attempts nd Synthesis: Contingency and Open-System Theories

It s obvious hat oth he lassical rganization chool nd thehuman elations choolhaveuse-ful deas to contribute. hey give us guidelines or rganizational esign nd administrative c-tion. Yet they o not take usvery ar. or the guidelines hey ive do not eem owork quallywell nevery ituation.Moreover, oth chools gnore hereality ndfunctionality f ntra- ndinter-organizational onflict. o answer heseobjections, ome recent ttempts t synthesishavebeenmadeboth nEuropeand ntheU.S.A. around he1950's nd especiallyn the 1%0's.

These novel approaches ame to be known s contingency heories nd open-system heories.As with their raditional ounterparts, here s a number f versionswithin ach.

In order o 1) identify hemajor heoretical pproaches o the field; 2)portray henew trendsin organizational nalysis; 3)sift ut American rom uropean ontributions, nd 4)consider

12 1977/3


8/13/2019 40227332

4/9

the organization s an open-system made up of five mutually nterdependent ariables i.e.,structure, eople, technology, oals and environment), havedraw the diagram resented e-low Figure ).As we noted arlier, lassical rganization heory mphasized tructure variable=1=locatedon the upper right andcorner n figure )whereas hehuman elations chool em-

phasizedpeople variable =2).More recent ociological ttempts t synthesis, hilenot dis-counting he mportance f the first wovariables, ave ignaled ut one or more f the remain-ingvariables i. e., technology oals and environment) s more mportant han thers n deter-mining he tructure nd function f organizations.Without etting nvolved n the debate ur-rounding henature nd mpact f eachof these ariables, etmebriefly onsider hem ne at atime.

Figure 1A Schemefor Thinking About OrganizationTheory: European and American tyles

4. Goals A*'Environment^^ i. Structure

/flfc F/ \ Theorywith ts ogic

\ \/ *X /2.Peoplc3.Technology |ftS >II

8/13/2019 40227332

5/9

nology nd ts organization tructure, nd noted hat while here eems o be no "one best wayto organize"manufacturing irms, here eems o be a particular orm f organizationmost p-propriate oeachtechnical ituation. Woodward's findings rebeing eceivedwith onsiderableinterests, articularly mongAmerican heorists ho until ecently ave tended oplay down

the significance f technology, r to ignore t altogether.TheAston Group

Differing romWoodward, nother roup f British esearchersHickson,Pugh, ndPheysey,1969)has attempted odraw the relationship etween echnology nd organization tructure.From ts urvey f the iterature, thassingled ut sixdimensions f tructure, nd five cales oftechnology.When the wo variableswerecorrelated, nd the effect f size was controlled, herelationship isappeared.On the basisof a sampleof 46 manufacturing nd service rganiza-tions he Astongroup oncluded hat here s no "technological mperative". his finding s be-ingquestioned y American ociologistse.g. Aldrich, 972)who feel hat hedatacansupportmodels n which technology ffects tructure nd vice versa.

The Goal Theorists: An American Speciality?

Another ttack n the classical heory amefrom American tudents f organizations ho areconcernedwith organizational oals e.g. Parsons, 1956;Selznick,1957;Perrow, 1961;BlauandScott, 962; Simon, 1964).Thisschoolbelieves hat oals reneither iven or re they in-gular: hey remultiple nd often imes onflicting. hey re et t times npeaceful onsultationand at other imes hrough process fpower truggle etween ompeting epartments ndper-sonalities.Moreover, oals renot what hey eem obe; the mportant nesarequiteunofficial.

Goals represent cardinal ssue n American rganizational iterature or woreasons.First,they re a response o the valuesystem f the American ociety,which mphasizes oal-settingand goal-achievements appropriate orms or veryone. econdly, hey re a reaction gainstthe American evelopment f normative ecisionmodelswhich presuppose he definition fgoalsas criteria or optimization.

The Environmental mperative: Another European Speciality?

Another ine of attack n classical nd human elations heories ame from uropean rganiza-tional cientists ho are concerned with he ongoingbut often-ignored ialoguebetween r-ganizations nd their nvironments. hey feel hat he majority f their American olleagues-grown p in a borderless nvironment ave aken limitedmicro-internal iewoforganizations

and approached hem s "islands unto themselves".

Using a combination f the comparative nd the case methods, heEuropean "institutionalschool" showshow mbedded rganizations re n their wn environments, nd how their e-sign nd functioning re constrained y enrionmental orces.More specifically, tudies evealthat olitical nfluences re pervasive; ultural alues re mportant; here s nothing nevitableor universal bout informal roups n complexorganizations Crozier, 1964);that n a con-stantly hanging nvironment rganic designs re superior o mechanistic nes (Burns andStalker, 961);that n a world f BigBusiness, igLabor, BigGovernment ndBigpolitical ar-ties, conflict s not only rampant ut also natural; nd there s more than one criterion orevaluating rganizational ffectiveness.

Thisemphasis n environmental nfluences o dominant n European iterature eadsto the no-tion of contingency, hich mplies ncertainty s well as dependence n outside actors: hingsmayor maynot happen.Thismeans he ndof he one best way," andalsomeans hepresenceof choices n organization esgin.

14 1977/3


8/13/2019 40227332

6/9

The Open-System Theory

According o Figure 1 we have come full ircle. We have seen that American rganizationalthinkers end o take microscopic iew of organizations nd believe n the existence f "one

bestway" to organize ndmanage eople. Bycontrast, heir uropean ounterparts ake mac-roscopicviewand push t to the point where hey nsist hat no generalizations re possible. twas the ob of new breed f theorists system hinkers to bring hese woviews ogether nacoherent ay one which xplicitly cknowledges otonly hegreat ariability mongpeople,tasks echnologies, oals nd environments but lso the nterrelatedness swellasthe dynamicnature f these variables.

According o the Tavistock heorists, rganizations re opensystems hich mport arious n-puts from nvironment, ransforms hese nd exports hem, nd n the process nteracts ith helarger ystem. he psychological, ociological nd cultural evels f units ll nteract. his viewis explicit n the work of both the nstitutional chool since t tried o study whole organiza-

tions) nd the human elations chool, because twas concerned ith he nteraction f people).Its conceptual asis,however, an be found n the works of von Bertalanffy 1950).

European and American Contributions to Organization Theory: A Comparison

How does American rganization heory ompare with ts European counterpart? havetouched n that uestion hroughout he receding eview f the majorperspectives f the field.In Figure 1havedrawn European xis 1-3)andtheAmerican ne 2-4), indicating hatmostof the mphasis n structure nd technology riginated n Europe, andmost f the mphasis npeopleand goals n the United States.However, there re other ignificant ifferences hichmight lso be considered. or instance, t s nteresting o note that uropean uthors re more

concernedwith dentity nd power than their American olleagues.Identity, nd how to preserve t nour organizational ociety, s a common heme mongmanyEuropean heorists. hey differ ainly n their nit f analysis.Miller nd Rice 1967)developtheir entience oncept o emphasize he fact hatman s a self-managing ndividualwho oc-cupiesrolesboth nside nd outside heorganization. jelholt 1972)talks bout the groups nhis mini-society" nd n arge ocietywhich re dynamicwholeswith n dentity f their wn.Luhmann 1975)andPusic nsocieties hat re more igidly ndvisibly tratified hanAmericanswho ive n anopen-class ociety. he more igid he tratification f nation, hemore vert heemphasis n the xistence f differences mong lasseswithin hat nation nd within ts organi-zations. For improving heir ituations, uropeans are prown to engage n collective ction

through ocialmovements r class-conscious olitical arties.And n the process, heymeetvariety f radical deologies n the variousgovernments f their wn and of neighboring oun-tries.

Another ifference etween uropean ndU.S. organization heories ies n the ersonswho dothe heorizing.WithinAmerican rganization iterature ne can probably istinguish etweenmainly sychological nd amainly ociological chool.However, heformer smuchmore uc-cessful han he atter n gaining ntry nto organizations nd being istened oby their eaders.Even f ts heories aveevolved, t has nherited he raditions f the human elations" eriod.It hasatendency obenormative ather han escriptive ndmore oncerned ith know-how"thanwith know-why", which s understandable nviewof hegeneral ragmatic rientation f

American ociety. Most of what ame across heAtlantic s American rganization heory s aproduct f this sychological choolheadedby such cholars sArgyris, cGregor, Herzberg,Likert, mong thers. t tends o be concernedwith behaviour ather han tructure, ith manin organization ather han rganization-in-society, ith what goeson inside heorganizationrather hanwhat goeson between ystem nd ts environment. n Universities, roponents f

1977/3 15


8/13/2019 40227332

7/9

this chool tend obe associatedwith business chools.An important riterion or heir uccessis the mount f consulting ith business rganizations hey o. Given the American ontext,they re ess ikely o question he entire ystem nd the power relations n it. The Americansociological choolwhich ncludesMerton, Gouldner, Dubin, Blau and Scott, tzioni, mong

others, ffers fairly ifferent icture, nd much f what am saying nmy omparison etweenthe U.S.A. and Europe applies ess to them.

European rganization heorists, scompared o their merican ounterparts, onot have ucha tradition f successful onsultingwith business. Also, there re few business chools inEurope, so the Europeans re more often ound n departments f sociology r n ndependentresearch rganizations.What they do by way of consulting s not necessarily onsulting ormanagement: t may be action research r it may nvolvegiving dvice to public policy-makers.

In order o summarizemy analysis husfar, havetried o outline n Table 1 the majordiffer-encesbetweenAmerican nd

Europeancontributions o

organization heory.Admittedly,he

list n that able epresents n deal typologywhich snecessarily ubject o the ins f over-sim-plifications nd to the dangers f stereotyping. s I noted earlier, here re AmericanswithEuropeanorientations e.g. Perrow). Just s there re Europeanswith American rientations(e.g. Mulder).However, nstressing ariations n the wo systems f thought, ne must neces-sarily glossover the nternal ifferences hat xist within hem.

Besides the aspectsdiscussed arlier, also listed n Table 1 differences n research mphasis(process ersus tructure), nresearchmethodology, nd nfields f pplication. mong he at-ter, n the American ide,we find ob enrichment hich s oriented owards ndividualobs; itsEuropean counterpart s the group-oriented ocio-technical pproach. nformal articipative

managementn

the U.S.A. canbeseenasthe

ounterpartf "industrial

emocracy"n

Europe;the atter, y contrast o the former, s more concerned with changing ower structure hanpower processes.There s a rather triking ifference n the kind of organization evelopmentactivities nvented n both ides of the Atlantic s, for xample, eflected n the difference e-tween ndividual-oriented roups of the National Training Laboratories n the U.S.A. andHjelholt's mini-societies.

Conclusion: Toward a Global Organization Theory

Both European nd American heorists ave needed ach other n the past, nd willcontinue odo so in the future. urope contributed hepioneering deasof the founding athers:Marx,

Freud, Weber, Lewin,Pareto, vonBertalanffy. he United tates rovided living aboratory,a pragmatic ociety pen to try ut new deas and to translate hem nto practical ction pro-grams, nd n theprocessdiscover ew facts o upset heknown heories. n the future, meri-can and European heorists an ointly over he raditional round f the field nd make bal-anced contribution o all of its emerging roblems.

Now it seemsthat lthoughAmerica eads Europe in the application f modern managementmethods nd techniques, ts ead willtend o disappearwhen t omes o the formulation f newtheories nd concepts. n the meantime, urope has been able to try ut someof ts new deasright n the spot, rather hanhaving o wait for he Americans o pick them up.

Different ultures ingled ut different spects f organizations nd their management or pe-cial attention. WhereasAmerican rganizational cientists avetaken human-processual p-proach, heir uropean counterparts aveopted for he technostructural ne. The former p-proachfocuses n peopleand their ollective oalswhereas he atter ocuses n the tructure,the echnology nd the nvironment f organizations. n contrast o the highly ifferential ul-

16 1977/3


8/13/2019 40227332

8/9

Table 1American nd European Organization heory: A Comparison

American European

1. Approach Microscopic behavioral) Macroscopic structural)2. Field of Study Organizational sychology Organizational ociology

3. Focus on People: Their needs and attitudes The organization s a whole

What goes inside the system What s going on between hesystem nd its environment

4. Emphasis Functional Structural(processoriented pproach)

5. Methodology Laboratory xperiments, urveys, Comparative ase studiesobservation, ongitudinal,one-case tudies

6. Ideology Harmony-based; tatus-quo Conflict-based(conservative)Anti-Marxian Marxian

7. Central rientation - Practical heorists - Abstract heoristsof influential riters - Associatedwith business chools Associated with departments

of sociology- Having close ties with the - Having casual ties with the

business ommunity business ommunity- Know-how or technique- - Know-why or theory-orientedoriented, .g., Human ResourcesAccounting, ransactionalAnalysis,MBO, T. Group,Control Graph

- Intent n discovering he - Intent n demolishing he"one-best way" "one-best way"

8. Examples:Approaches o:a) Job design Job enrichment Sociotechnical ystems

Informalarticipative anagement

Industrialemocracyb) Organization Human processual Techno-structural

Development

tures f Europe,American ulture mphasizes quality, chievement nd anatonomy s the p-propriate deal for veryone.Giventhis ultural etting t snot surprising o see American r-ganizational cientists reach uch things s power equalization, trategy ormulation, an-agement y objectives nd organizational ntonomy.

I believe hat uropean ontributions oorganization heory re ess known n the U.S.A, andeven n Europe, than heymerit o be. I hope this paper will spark lasting ialogue, whicheventually ill nvolve ther arts f the world, nd ultimately eadto a truly lobalorganiza-tion theory one that does not recognize ny boundaries etween disciplines r countries.

1977/3 17


8/13/2019 40227332

9/9

Roforoncos

1 Aldrich, A. E. (1972)."Technology nd Organization tructure: Reexamination f the Findings fthe Aston Group'MSQ, 17: 26-43.

2 Blau, P. M. and W. R. Scott 1962).FormalOrganizations: Comparative

pproach. an Francisco:Chandler.

3 Burns,T. and G. M. Stalker 1961).TheManagement f nnovation. London: Tavistock ublications.4 Crozier, M. (1964).The Bureaucratic henomenon. hicago:University f ChicagoPress nd London:

Tavistock Publications.Crozier, M. (1973).The StalledSociety.New York, The Viking Press.

5 Emery, F. and E. Thorsrud 1969).Form nd Content n Industrial emocracy. London: Tavistock.Emery, . and E. Thorsrud 1975). Democracy t Work. Canberra:Center orContinuing ducation.

6 Herbst, P. G. (1974).Socio-Technical esijm. London: Tavistock.7 Hickson, D. J., D. S. Pugh and D. Phesey 1969)."Operations Technology nd Organization truc-

ture: An EmpiricalReappraisal, ASQ" 14: 378-397.8 Hjelholt, G. (1972).Group Training n Understanding ociety:The Mini-Society, Interpersonal e-

velopment. : 140-151.9 Lammers,C. J. and D. J. Hickson (forthcoming). omparative ociology f Organizations.

10 Luhmann, N. (1975)."Interaktion, rganisation, esellschaft: nwendungen erSystemtheorie", nMarlis Gerhardt ed.) Die Zukunft er Philosophic,Munchen, List: 85-107.

11 Mayntz, R. and F. Scharpf 1975).Policy-Making n The German FederalBureaucracy.AmsterdamElsevier.

12 Mulder, N. (1971)."Power EqualizationThrough Participation, ASQ. 16: 31-38.Mulder,N. (1974)." PowerDistanceReduction endencies: roblems fPower nd PowerRelations,"Delft: Foundation for BusinessSciences.

13 Pusic, E. (forthcoming). Variety nd ntegration, rder and Randomness n Cooperative ystems."14 von Bertalanffy, . (1950)."The Theory f Open Systems nPhysics nd Biology," cience.3 23-29.

18 1977/3

Thi t t d l d d f 1 11 68 97 189 F i 4 O t 201 3 01 55 01 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

40227332

Documents