Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Organization

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science

  • 146 Accesses

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Argote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36, 140–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baligh, H. H. (2005). Organization structures: Theory and design, analysis and prescription. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baligh, H. H., Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1996). Organizational consultant: Creating a useable theory for organizational design. Management Science, 42, 1648–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1980). A computer simulation test of the M-form hypothesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 457–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1984). Designing efficient organizations: Modelling and experimentation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1988). Opportunism, incentives and the M-form hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 10, 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1998, 1995, 2004). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. (1995). Computational and mathematical organization theory: Perspectives and directions. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1, 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Carley, K., & Lin, Z. (1995). A theoretical study of organizational performance under information distortion. Management Science, 43, 976–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. M., & Prietula, M. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computational organization theory. Hinsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, P. J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the ‘new’ organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organizational design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4, 28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. (1995). Designing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Y., & Levitt, R. E. (1996). The virtual design team: A computational model of project organization. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 2, 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • MacKenzie, K. D. (1991). The organizational hologram: The effective management of organizational change. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschak, J., & Radner, R. (1972). Economic theory of teams. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihm, J., Loch, C., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2010). Hierarchical structure and search in complex organizations. Management Science, 56, 831–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2006). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2), 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1 Towerview Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA

    Richard M. Burton

  2. Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Alle 4, 8210 Arhus V, Aarhus, Denmark

    Børge Obel

Authors
  1. Richard M. Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Børge Obel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard M. Burton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Saul I. Gass

  2. Robert H. Smith School of Business and Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Michael C. Fu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Burton, R.M., Obel, B. (2013). Organization. In: Gass, S.I., Fu, M.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7_712

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7_712

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1137-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1153-7

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation