The Concept of Meta‐Organization: Issues for Management Studies

Berkowitz, Héloïse; Dumez, Hervé

doi:10.1111/emre.12076

Cited by 74 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In doing so, it might 'unbound' itself from its more stringent assumptions, and tolerate a more diverse set of characteristics of the form. Berkowitz and Dumez (2016) also suggest the criterion of similarity may need further thought.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their specification is that members "perform similar tasks and strive for similar things" (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008, p. 60). Berkowitz and Dumez (2016) found that the membership of oil and gas organizations in meta-organizations shows significant variety with membership commonly from different sectors and hence different types of organizations (public, private, non-governmental organizations, etc.). Similarity, may then be found more in identification with the purpose of the meta-organization than in performing similar tasks or, as Ahrne and Brunsson suggest, some other 'family resemblance'.…”

Section: Membership Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The (relatively limited) literature on organizational federations and associations does contain some studies of importance (e.g., Lowndes and Skelcher 1998;Selsky 1998;Traxler 2002). However, insights into the specific character of meta-organizations remain limited and fragmentary (Berkowitz and Bor 2018;Berkowitz and Dumez 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

(Un)bounding the Meta-Organization: Co-Evolution and Compositional Dynamics of a Health Partnership

Cropper

Bor

2018

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In their treatise on meta-organization, Ahrne and Brunsson theorize a distinctive organizational form, the association of organizations. Meta-organizations have the properties of formal organizations-boundaries set by determinations of membership, goals, a centre of authority, and ways of monitoring and sanctioning member behaviors. The theory draws a strong distinction between meta-organizations and networks, suggesting that similarity among members is the primary characteristic of meta-organizations, whereas networks signify complementarity and difference. Meta-organizations serve and are governed by their members, though the meta-organization itself may develop its own agency and may regulate its members. It is on this basis that Ahrne and Brunsson develop an account of the dynamics of meta-organizations, placing less emphasis on external sources of change than on the internal relationships between members and the meta-organization itself. This paper appraises the theory of meta-organizations, using a case study of Partners in Paediatrics, a subscription association of health care organizations, as the empirical reference point. Data about this partnership's membership and its activities are drawn from 12 'annual reports' covering a 17-year period. Focusing, particularly, on the membership composition of the Partnership and its relationship to the changing environment, the case analysis traces the changing character and circumstances of the Partnership, identifying four distinct phases, and raising questions for meta-organization theory and its account of meta-organization dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Membership Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

(Un)bounding the Meta-Organization: Co-Evolution and Compositional Dynamics of a Health Partnership

Cropper

Bor

2018

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The notion of ‘meta‐organizations’ was first coined by Ahrne and Brunsson () and further developed in a book on the topic (Ahrne and Brunsson ). It was also the subject of a recent review (Berkowitz and Dumez ). As the authors indicate, since Organizations , the seminal book by March and Simon (), organizational studies have focused mostly on ‘individual‐based organizations’, while organizations with organizations as members (i.e.…”

Section: Organization Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pluralism in Organizations: Learning from Unconventional Forms of Organizations

Brès

Raufflet

Boghossian

2017

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bureaucratic organization is still regarded as the conventional organizational form, but is ill-suited to an increasingly pluralistic world. Research on the variety of organizational forms has increased dramatically over the past three decades and offers the potential to understand better how pluralism is manifested and managed within organizations. However, this research remains fragmented. The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesize research on unconventional organizations to explore how organizations resolve or attenuate the tensions related to pluralism. Drawing from research in leading management journals, it covers seven distinct literatures: 'referent organization', 'temporary organization', 'pluralistic organization', 'metaorganization', 'bridging organization', 'hybrid organization' and 'field-configuring event'. For each literature, the authors trace the genealogy of the key concepts and review their distinct insights regarding organizational pluralism. They then synthesize and discuss their collective contributions and conclude with avenues of research for pluralism in organizations. Rise and fall of theories of traditional bureaucracyOrganization theory initially emerged with an interest in the bureaucratic organizational form as a means to achieve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Fayol and Taylor, generally credited as the field's founding fathers, sought to identify best practices based on the 'rational-bureaucratic' model. The 1950s saw the appearance of contingency theory,

show abstract

“…Внедре-ние ОМУ всегда связано с некоторой ор-ганизационной инновацией, диффузия которой сопровождается постепенной заменой применявшихся ранее новыми реализациями более современных ме-тодов управления. При этом должно от-мечаться повышение интегральных по-казателей эффективности деятельности предприятия или нескольких предпри-ятий, если отношения между ними до-пускают тиражирование инновационных методов управления, перенесение их с одного предприятия на другое [19].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified