Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science

2013 Edition
| Editors: Saul I. Gass, Michael C. Fu

Organization

  • Richard M. Burton
  • Børge Obel
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7_712

Introduction

Organization studies encompass two areas: organization theory as a positive science to explain and understand the structure, behavior, and effectiveness of an organization; and organizational design as a normative science to recommend better designs for increased effectiveness and efficiency. Organization theory attempts to understand and explain; organizational design creates and constructs an organization.

Organizing behavior is evident in history from the earliest of recorded time. Ancient China was a highly organized society, a meritocracy with labor specialization. The Roman Empire, and in particular the Roman army, was efficiently designed. The modern organization is part and parcel to civilization, and its understanding fundamental to modern life. Not only is organization both timely and timeless, its study is basic in management science, political science, economics, sociology, business, and military science, to name a few. Organization study is interdisciplinary...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Argote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36, 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Baligh, H. H. (2005). Organization structures: Theory and design, analysis and prescription. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Baligh, H. H., Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1996). Organizational consultant: Creating a useable theory for organizational design. Management Science, 42, 1648–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1980). A computer simulation test of the M-form hypothesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1984). Designing efficient organizations: Modelling and experimentation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1988). Opportunism, incentives and the M-form hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 10, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1995). The validity of computational models in organization science: From model realism to purpose of the model. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1998, 1995, 2004). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2011). Computation modeling for what-is, what-might-be, what-should-be studies – And triangulation. Organization Science, 22(5), 1195–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carley, K. (1995). Computational and mathematical organization theory: Perspectives and directions. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carley, K., Kjaer-Hasen, J., Newell, A., & Prietula, M. (1992). Plural-soar: A proglegomenon to artificial agents and organization behavior. In M. Masuch & M. Waglien (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in organization and management theory. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Carley, K., & Lin, Z. (1995). A theoretical study of organizational performance under information distortion. Management Science, 43, 976–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carley, K. M., & Prietula, M. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computational organization theory. Hinsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Carley, K., & Prietula, M. J. (1998). WebBots, trust, and organizational science. In M. J. Prietula, K. M. Carley, & L. Gasser (Eds.), Simulating organizations: Computational models of institutions and groups. Menlo Park/Cambridge: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Carroll, T. N., Gormley, T. J., Bilardo, V. J., Burton, R. M., & Woodman, K. L. (2006). Designing a new organization at NASA: An organization design process using simulation. Organization Science, 17(2), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, P. J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 1, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the ‘new’ organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  22. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. A. (2009). Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only A: Complex organization and multiple goals. Organization Science, 20(1), 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organizational design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galbraith, J. R. (1995). Designing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.Google Scholar
  26. Jin, Y., & Levitt, R. E. (1996). The virtual design team: A computational model of project organization. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 2, 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levitt, R. E., Cohen, G. P., Kunz, J. C., Nass, C. I., Christiansen, T., & Jin, Y. (1994). The virtual design team: Simulating how organization structure and information processing tools affect team performance. In K. Carley & M. Prietula (Eds.), Computational organization theory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. MacKenzie, K. D. (1991). The organizational hologram: The effective management of organizational change. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Marschak, J., & Radner, R. (1972). Economic theory of teams. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mihm, J., Loch, C., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2010). Hierarchical structure and search in complex organizations. Management Science, 56, 831–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Prietula, M. J., Carley, K. M., & Gasser, L. (Eds.). (1998). Simulating organizations: Computational models of institutions and groups. Menlo Park/Cambridge: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2006). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark