Organization Theory(GE 721)
| Course Code | Course Name | Semester | Theory | Practice | Lab | Credit | ECTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GE 721 | Organization Theory | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 |
| Prerequisites | |
| Admission Requirements |
| Language of Instruction | Turkish |
| Course Type | Elective |
| Course Level | Doctoral Degree |
| Course Instructor(s) | Türker BAŞ turkerbas@hotmail.com (Email) |
| Assistant | |
| Objective | The goal of the course is to familiarize students with major conceptual frameworks, debates, and developments in contemporary organization theory. |
| Content | Main management theories. |
| Course Learning Outcomes |
Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able: 1.to be familiar with major conceptual frameworks, debates, and developments in contemporary organization theory 2.to identify the commonalities and differences in implicit assumptions that underlie the various readings and to integrate them using an analytical framework 3.to write a paper that should either reconcile some aspects of conflicting theories or advance a new theory in OT 4.to socialize into the journal review process 5.to internalize academic integrity. |
| Teaching and Learning Methods | Lecture, article analysis and research |
| References |
M.J.Hatch (2006) Organization Theory Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch 1. W. R. Scott (2003), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (5th edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, ch. 1. M. Reed (1996), ‘Organizational theorizing: A historically contested terrain’ in S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. R. Nord (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 31-56. M.J.Hatch (2006) Organization Theory Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives Oxford: Oxford University Press, chap 2. Y. Shenhav (2003), ‘The historical and epistemological foundations of organization theory: Fusing sociological theory with engineering discourse’ in H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 183-209 W. H. Starbuck (2003), ‘The origins of organization theory’ in H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 143-182. W. R. Scott (2003), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (5th edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, chaps. 2 and 3. W. R. Scott (2003), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (5th edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, chap. 4. L. Donaldson (2000), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, chaps. 1, 2 and 3. Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S., Hinings, C.R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1175-1195. L. Donaldson (2000), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, chap. 5. J. Child (2002), ‘Strategic choice’ in A. Sorge (ed.), Organization, Thomson Learning: London, 107-126. R. Emerson, "Power-Dependence Relations." American Sociological Review 27 (1962): 31-41. J. Pfeffer and G. R. Salancik (1978/2003), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, chaps 1, 2, 3 and 10 and the Introduction, xi-xxix (available as e-book) M. S. Mizruchi and M. Yoo (2002), ‘Interorganizational power and dependence’ in J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, 599-620. D. J. Brass (2002), ‘Intraorganizational power and dependence’ in J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, 138-157. W. Ocasio (2002), ‘Organizational power and dependence’ in J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, 363-385. Gulati, R., Dialdin, D. A. , & Wang, L. 2002. Organizational Networks. Pp. 181-303 in J. Baum (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. 1997. Resources and relationships: social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62: 673-693. Burt, R. Chapter 1 in Structural Holes, 8-49. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. ISBN: 067484372X. Granovetter, M. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973): 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness." American Journal of Sociology 91 (1985): 481-510. Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 35-67. Burt, R.S. 2000. The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22: 345-423. R. Swedberg (2003), ‘Economic versus sociological approaches to organization theory’ in H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 373-391. J. B. Barney and W. Westerly (1996), ‘Organizational Economics: Understanding the rtelationship between organizations and economic analysis’ in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, London, Sage, 115-147. B. S. Silverman (2002), ‘Organizational economics’ in J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, 467-493. Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. – Chapters 1, 5 DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W., 1991. Introduction. Pp. 1-38 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160. Friedland, R. & Alford, R.R. 1991. Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. Pp. 232-266 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Meyer and Rowan, 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-63. Tolbert, P.S., Zucker, L. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 22-39. Zucker, L.G. 1987. Institutional theories of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 443-464. Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35-67. R. Whitley (1999/ 2002), ‘The nature of business systems and their institutional structuring’ in R. Whitley (ed.), Competing Capitalisms: Institutions and Economies, Vol. 1, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 161-194. A. Sorge (1991/2002), ‘Strategic fit and the societal effect: Interpreting cross-national comparisons of technology, organization and human resources’ in R. Whitley (ed.), Competing Capitalisms: Institutions and Economies, Vol. 2, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 354-383. R. Whitley (1998/2002), ‘Internationalization and varieties of capitalism: The limited effects of cross-national coordination of economic activities on the nature of business systems’ in R. Whitley (ed.), Competing Capitalisms: Institutions and Economies, Vol. 2, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 317-353. R. Whitley (2005)‘How National are Business Systems? The Role States and Complementary Institutions in Standardizing Systems of Economic Coordination and Control at the National Level’ in G. Morgan, R. Whitley, and E. Moon (eds) Changing Capitalisms? Internationalization, Institutional Change, and Systems of Economic Organization,. 190-231. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haake, Sven. 2002. National business systems and industry-specific competitiveness. Organization Studies, 23 (5) 711-736. H. Aldrich (1999), Organizations Evolving, London: Sage, chaps. 9 and 10. J. A. C. Baum and T. L. Amburgey (2002), ‘Organizational Ecology’ J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, 304-326. S.D. Dobrev, & Kim, T.Y. 2006. Positioning among Organizations in a Population: Moves between Market Segments and the Evolution of Industry Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(2): 230-261. R. C. Young. 1988. Is population ecology a useful paradigm for the study of organizations? American Journal of Sociology, 94: 1-24 J. Freeman, and Hannan, M.T. 1989. Setting the record straight on organizational ecology: Rebuttal to Young. American Journal of Sociology, 95: 425-439. H. Aldrich (1999), Organizations Evolving, London: Sage, chaps. 2 and 3. T. L. Amburgey and J. V. Singh (2002), ‘Organizational Evoution’ in J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford, Blackwell, 327-343. H. R. Greve (2002), ‘Interorganizational evolution’ in J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford, Blackwell, 557-578. S.Clegg and D.Dunkerly (2005) Critical issues in Organizations in C. Grey and H. Willmott (eds) Critical Management Studies Oxford:Oxford University Press, 46-50. M.Alvesson and S. Deetz (2005) Critical theory and postmodernism: Approaches to organizational studies in C. Grey and H. Willmott (eds) Critical Management Studies Oxford:Oxford University Press,60-106 M. Parker (1992), "Post-Modern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory", Organization Studies, 13, 1-18. M. Kilduff and A. Mehra (1997), “Postmodernism and Organizational Research”, Academy of Management Review, 22, 453-481. Deetz, S. (1996) ‘Describing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy’, Organization Science, 7 (2): 191-207. S.R.Clegg, M. Kornberger & T. Pitsis (2005). Managing and Organizations, London :Sage |
Theory Topics
| Week | Weekly Contents |
|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction |
| 2 | Overview: Organizations and organization theory |
| 3 | Foundations and origins of organization theory |
| 4 | Systems theory and the contingency perspective |
| 5 | Critiques, controversies and debates |
| 6 | The resource dependence perspective |
| 7 | Power perspectives |
| 8 | Social Networks |
| 9 | Transaction Costs, Agency Theory and the Resource-based view |
| 10 | Institutional Theory |
| 11 | Societal effects and national business systems |
| 12 | Population Ecology |
| 13 | Organizational Evolution |
| 14 | Critical perspectives and postmodernism |
Practice Topics
| Week | Weekly Contents |
|---|
Contribution to Overall Grade
| Number | Contribution | |
|---|---|---|
| Contribution of in-term studies to overall grade | 5 | 60 |
| Contribution of final exam to overall grade | 1 | 40 |
| Toplam | 6 | 100 |
In-Term Studies
| Number | Contribution | |
|---|---|---|
| Assignments | 0 | 0 |
| Presentation | 4 | 20 |
| Midterm Examinations (including preparation) | 0 | 0 |
| Project | 1 | 40 |
| Laboratory | 0 | 0 |
| Other Applications | 0 | 0 |
| Quiz | 0 | 0 |
| Term Paper/ Project | 0 | 0 |
| Portfolio Study | 0 | 0 |
| Reports | 0 | 0 |
| Learning Diary | 0 | 0 |
| Thesis/ Project | 0 | 0 |
| Seminar | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 0 | 0 |
| Toplam | 5 | 60 |
| No | Program Learning Outcomes | Contribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 1 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to understand the fundamentals and the development of scientific thought. | X | ||||
| 2 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to analyze and interpret existing theoretical approaches, and to achieve a new synthesis. | X | ||||
| 3 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to develop expertise in the field through information and experience from different sectors, such as production, marketing, management, accounting and finance. | X | ||||
| 4 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to have a critical mind and to preserve intellectual independence. | X | ||||
| 5 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to combine both advanced level and up to date theoretical and practical knowledge in his/her work. | X | ||||
| 6 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to produce original scientific research. | X | ||||
| 7 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to use qualitative and quantitative research methods expertly. | X | ||||
| 8 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to innovate scientific methods by developing new ones or by applying known scientific methods to new areas. | X | ||||
| 9 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to publish and present own work at reputable international conferences and in indexed journals. | X | ||||
| 10 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to collaborate for research and education purposes with experts from different nationalities and disciplines. | X | ||||
| 11 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to demonstrate sensitivity to the problems between society and the business community, and be proactive in the understanding, investigating and solving of these issues. | X | ||||
| 12 | Upon successful completion of the course the student should be able to regard the scientific ethics with uppermost importance while pursuing their future work. | X | ||||
| Activities | Number | Period | Total Workload |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Workload | 0 | ||
| Total Workload / 25 | 0,00 | ||
| Credits ECTS | 0 | ||