Size and Structure in Complex Organizations

Gillespie, David F.; Haas, J. Eugene

doi:10.2307/2577422

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Author(s) N Rs a Date b Type of organization Greenwood and Hinings (1976a) 84 6 1973 Local government agencies Grinyer andYasai-Ardekani (1980) 45 6 1976 Electrical engineering companies Hall (1963) 10 1 1961 Manufacturing and service organizations Heydebrand (1973) 122 1 1964 Private welfare agencies Hinings and Lee (1971) 9 15 1967 Engineering and electrical goods firms Hinings et al (1976) 9 6 1972 Churches Holdaway et al (1975) 23 6 1970 Colleges and technological institutes Hull and Collins (1987) 110 6 1973 Manufacturing plants in different industries Inkson et al (1970a) 40 1 1968 Manufacturing and service organizations Inkson et al (1970b) 25 1 1968 Manufacturing organizations Inkson et al (1970b) 21 2 1968 Manufacturing organizations Jennings and Seaman (1994) 99 1 1983 Savings and loan associations Kazanjian and Drazin (1990) 105 3 New ventures in high technology industries Khandwalla (1974) 79 1 1970 Manufacturing organizations Khandwalla (1977) 103 1 1973 Manufacturing and service organizations Lincoln et al (1978) 54 6 Japanese manufacturing and service firms McMillan et al (1973) 24 1 1969 Manufacturing firms in different industries Mahmoudi and Miller (1985) 10 1 Hospitals Marsden et al (1994) 688 3 1991 Manufacturing and service organizations Marsh and Mannari (1981) 50 6 1976 Manufacturing firms in different industries Meyer and Brown (1977) 215 2 1966 Finance departments in local governments Mileti et al (1977) 28 1 Functions in state and federal agencies 97 3 1984 Manufacturing and service firms Moch (1976) 450 3 Hospitals Montanari and Freedman (1981) 220 3 Manufacturing and ser...…”

Section: Appendix 1 Continuedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-analysis of Weber’s Model of Bureaucratic Control

Walton¹

2005

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The model of bureaucratic control is an enduring part of modern organizational theory. This study draws on almost four decades of empirical research in assessing the general validity of the model. Meta-analytical techniques are used for estimating the general relationships among key aspects of bureaucratic control, removing the effects of statistical artefacts and exploring the relative persistence of the model. The results provide substantial support for the model of bureaucratic control. The average correlation among the structural variables is .54. Overall, the paper concludes that there are reasons to see the bureaucratic model of control as generalizable and of continuing relevance to discussions of organizational structures.

show abstract

Section: Appendix 1 Continuedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-analysis of Weber’s Model of Bureaucratic Control

Walton¹

2005

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an area that has been called a "theoretical wasteland" 1976: 573), Blau's (1970) theory of structural differentiation in provided a major theoretical statement concerning the effects tional size on structure. This theory has inspired considerable debate (e. g., Mileti, Gillespie, & Haas, 1977;Miller & Conaty, 1980). The theory has also influenced many studies of formal organizational structure not directly concerned with testing the theory's propositions, probably because of the emphasis given to organizational size and the causal priority the theory grants to size over other dimensions of structure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blau's Theory of Structural Differentiation Revisited: A Theory of Structural Change or Scale?

Cullen¹,

Anderson²,

Baker

1986

AMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major objective of this study was to determine if Blau's (1970 theory of structural differentiation better captures differences in s between organizations or structural changes within organizations. D gathered on 134 Ph.D.-granting universities over nine years permi us to compare results of within-organizations tests of Blau's theory those from both cross-sectional and longitudinal between-organiza tests. The findings suggest that the theory's power lies in explain structural differences between organizations rather than in explai structural change. 203

show abstract

“…Therefore, one avenue for future research may be to identify competing predictors of administrative intensity and incorporate them into the analysis. Such theoretical development could draw upon the determinants of structure as outlined by Mileti et al (1977). To put their argument in simplest terms, they state that besides growth and size there are three other major determinants of system structure: complexity, technology, and culture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Non-proportional Model of Growth and Administrative Intensity of Nations: A Reanalysis

Clarke

1982

The Sociological Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nonproportional model of change as applied by Kasarda (1974) to explain the administrative intensity of societies is examined. In applying this theory to nations, we argue that the relationship between system size and administrative intensity should be much stronger in developed nations than in developing nations. Results from sample.~ of both types of nations support this prediction. In addition, we consider Kasarda's operationalization of the nonproportional model of change and propose a modification, suggesting that growth should be incorporated into the analysis. Comparing cross-sectional estimates against longitudinal evidence, we find among developed nations a strong systematic relationship between system growth and changes in administrative intensity and little evidence of the hypothesized relationship between system size and changes in administrative intensity. We interpret these findings as providing mixed support for the nonproportional model of growth.The study of the structural implications of system size is overwhelmingly focused on the formal organizational setting. In a recent bibliography on system size, only one of the eighty listed publications dealt with nations (Kimberly, 1976). This is surprising, given the assumption basic to the classical work of Spencer ( 1877), Durkheim ( 1933), Maine ( 1888), and Tonnies ( 1957) that the size of a nation influences its social structure. Since Kasarda's (1974) article is the first piece of research to examine the effect of system size on the internal structure of nations, the implications of his theoretical model and tests of the exploratory hypotheses must be examined carefully.Building upon Kasarda's effort, the major purpose of this paper is to sharpen the scope and to increase the logical consistency of the nonproportional model of change. To do this, we reexamine the theory of nonproportional change and extract propositions relating system size and growth to patterns of structure. Second, we specify the conditions which must be met in nations if the theory is expected to operate. Finally, data representing developed and developing nations are analyzed in order to determine the explanatory power of the nonproportional model of change. Theoretical FrameworkThe nonproportional model of change. Kasarda's important contribution placed the structural implications of system size within the nonproportional growth 01982 by The Sociological Quarterly. All rights reserved. oo38-0253/82/16oo-oo67500.75

show abstract

Size and Structure in Complex Organizations

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-analysis of Weber’s Model of Bureaucratic Control

The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-analysis of Weber’s Model of Bureaucratic Control

Blau's Theory of Structural Differentiation Revisited: A Theory of Structural Change or Scale?

A Non-proportional Model of Growth and Administrative Intensity of Nations: A Reanalysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About