Organization Theory(G529)
| Course Code | Course Name | Semester | Theory | Practice | Lab | Credit | ECTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G529 | Organization Theory | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 |
| Prerequisites | |
| Admission Requirements |
| Language of Instruction | Turkish |
| Course Type | Elective |
| Course Level | Masters Degree |
| Course Instructor(s) | Belgin BAHAR belginkaygan@gmail.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 |
|---|
Practice Topics
| Week | Weekly Contents |
|---|
Contribution to Overall Grade
| Number | Contribution | |
|---|---|---|
| Contribution of in-term studies to overall grade | 1 | 40 |
| Contribution of final exam to overall grade | 1 | 60 |
| Toplam | 2 | 100 |
In-Term Studies
| Number | Contribution | |
|---|---|---|
| Assignments | 1 | 30 |
| Presentation | 1 | 30 |
| Midterm Examinations (including preparation) | 1 | 40 |
| Project | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 3 | 100 |
| No | Program Learning Outcomes | Contribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 1 | At the end of the program successful students, Will have a good command of the concepts and theories of different areas of Business Administration such as Production, Marketing, Accounting/Finance, Management and Organizational Behavior and will have an integrative point of view to understand the interaction between these domains. | X | ||||
| 2 | Will be able to grasp the operation of different functions (Accounting /Finance, Marketing, Human Resources, and Management) of organizations and also will be able to create hypotheses for research proposals. | X | ||||
| 3 | Will be able to do research for determining changes, diagnosing problems and developing solutions in business world. | X | ||||
| 4 | Will have a command of qualitative and quantitative research methodology. | X | ||||
| 5 | Will be able to conduct statistical analyses and interpret the results. | X | ||||
| 6 | Will have a command of scientific studies (writing articles, presenting papers) | X | ||||
| 7 | Should have mastery of at least one foreign language at a scientific level to be able to realize cross-cultural studies. | X | ||||
| 8 | Should be able to update his/her professional knowledge and skills continuously to be able to adapt to changes in scientific area. | X | ||||
| 9 | Should be able to do team work in researches and studies and contribute to information flow. | X | ||||
| 10 | Will be able to have a holistic approach to Business Administration and prepare a thesis on a special area of the field. | X | ||||
| 11 | être en mesure d’avoir une perspective globale de la gestion et de fournir une thèse en se spécialisant dans une des sphères de ce domaine. | X | ||||
| Activities | Number | Period | Total Workload |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class Hours | 14 | 3 | 42 |
| Working Hours out of Class | 10 | 2 | 20 |
| Assignments | 2 | 5 | 10 |
| Presentation | 1 | 10 | 10 |
| Midterm Examinations (including preparation) | 1 | 15 | 15 |
| Final Examinations (including preparation) | 1 | 20 | 20 |
| Total Workload | 117 | ||
| Total Workload / 25 | 4.68 | ||
| Credits ECTS | 5 | ||