Advertisement

Structure and Organisation

  • Patricia Hillebrandt
  • Jacqueline Cannon

Abstract

Table 1.2 shows that of the top thirty-five firms with major building and civil engineering interests, excluding subsidiaries of conglomerates, seven were private limited companies. Among these firms, half were ‘family-type’ either in the sense that the combined family-related shareholdings of large shareholders effectively gives them financial control, or in the sense that a number of directors are members of the same family and hold management control. This is a quite remarkable situation, when compared with the ownership and control met in other industries.

Keywords

Family Firm Construction Company Head Office Construction Firm Plant Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Cannon, J. and Hillebrandt, P.M., ‘Diversification’ in Hillebrandt, P.M. and Cannon, J. (eds) The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of Theory (London: Macmillan, 1989) ch. 3, p. 40.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williamson, U.E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-trust Implications — A Study in the Economics of Internal Organisation (New York: Free Press and Collier Macmillan, 1975).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Male, S. and Stocks, R., ‘Managers and the Organisation’ in Hillebrandt, P.M. and Cannon, J. (eds) The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of Theory (London: Macmillan, 1989) ch. 7. This source is often quoted and is indicated simply by Male and Stocks and page or section numbers.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mintzberg, H., The Structuring of Organisations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1979) p. 106.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buckley, P.J. and Enderwick, P., ‘Manpower Management’ in Hillebrandt, P.M. and Cannon, J. (eds) The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of Theory (London: Macmillan, 1989) ch. 8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    These are mentioned in Cannon, J. and Hillebrandt, P.M., ‘Theories of the Firm’ in Hillebrandt, P.M. and Cannon, J. (eds) The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of Theory (London: Macmillan, 1989) ch. 1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See note 2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D. and Coleman, H.J. Jr., ‘Organisational Strategy, Structure and Process’, Academy of Management Review (July 1978) pp. 552, 554 and 556.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parsons, T. Structure and Process in Modern Societies (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960) pp. 60–96.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kast, F.E. and Rosenzweig, J.E., ‘The Modern View: a Systems Approach’ in Systems Behaviour, 3rd edn, Open Systems Group (London: Harper & Row, 1981) pp. 52–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, P. ‘Social Technology and Structure’ in Hillebrandt, P.M. and Cannon, J. (eds) The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of Theory (London: Macmillan, 1989) ch. 6. This source is often quoted and is indicated simply by Clark and page or section numbers.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The differentiation between work units in the same firm and the problems of integration are addressed very fully in Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J., Organisation and Environment: Matching Differentiation and Integration (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1967).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The University of Reading 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Hillebrandt
  • Jacqueline Cannon

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations