The Reorganization of Work
Social Institutions
Work and the Economy
Charles Heckscher,
Charles Heckscher
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCharles Heckscher,
Charles Heckscher
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Search for more papers by this authorFirst published: 15 May 2015
Abstract
In recent decades, the bureaucratic organization of work in stable hierarchies of “jobs” and “offices” has come under increasing fire, seen as unresponsive and resistant to innovation. Practice has turned to two major alternatives: freeing individual “stars” to take independent initiative and building cooperative teamwork. Academic research has lagged far behind practice, often stuck in narrow positivist frames that miss the systemic and evolving nature of these organizational shifts. The emerging paradigm is not yet clear, but it certainly involves major modifications of the Weberian principles of bureaucratic efficiency.
References
- Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2010). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. Handbook of labor economics, 4, 1043–1171.
-
Adler, P. S. (2009). The Oxford handbook of sociology and organization studies: Classical foundations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199535231.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1997). Ergonomics, employee involvement, and the Toyota Production System: A case study of Nummi's 1993 model introduction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50(3), 416–437.
- Appelbaum, E., & Berg, P. (2000). High-performance work systems: Giving workers a stake. In M. Blair & T. A. Kochan (Eds.), The new relationship: Human capital in the American corporation (pp. 102–144). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
- Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.
- Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Beer, M., Cannon, M. D., Baron, J. N., Dailey, P. R., Gerhart, B., Heneman, H. G., …, Locke, E. A. (2004). Promise and peril in implementing pay-for-performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 3–48. doi:10.1002/hrm.20001
- Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education (Carnegie Perspectives). Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
- Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, England: Tavistock.
- Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Colfer, L., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2010). The mirroring hypothesis: Theory, evidence and exceptions (HBS Working Paper No. 10–058). Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6361.html
- Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Donnellon, A. (1993). Crossfunctional teams in product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(5), 377–392.
- Drucker, P. F. (1946). Concept of the corporation. New York, NY: John Day.
- Galbraith, J. R. (2008). Designing matrix organizations that actually work: How IBM, Proctor & Gamble and others design for success. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
- Gouldner, A. W. (1964). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York, NY: Free Press.
-
Groysberg, B. (2010). Chasing stars: The myth of talent and the portability of performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.1515/9781400834389 Google Scholar
- Gulati, R. (2010). Cisco Business Councils (2007): Unifying a functional enterprise with an internal governance system (Harvard Business School Case No. 5-409-062). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
- Heckscher, C. (2007). The collaborative enterprise. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
-
Jensen, M. C. (1994). Self interest, altruism, incentives, and agency theory. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, VII(2), (pp. 40–45). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5566
10.1111/j.1745-6622.1994.tb00404.x Google Scholar
- Mintzberg, H. (1998). The innovative organization. In H. Mintzberg & J. B. Quinn (Eds.), Readings in the strategy process (pp. 309–323). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.
- Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization's health. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 248–259.
- Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
- Roethlisberger, F. J., Dickson, W. J., Wright, H. A., Pforzheimer, C. H., & Western Electric Company (1939). Management and the worker: an account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Rubinstein, S. A., & Kochan, T. A. (2001). Learning from Saturn: possibilities for corporate governance and employee relations. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
- Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper Brothers.
- Trist, E. L., & Murray, H. (1993). The Social engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology. 2, The socio-technical perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Weber, M. (1924). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society. New York, NY: Bedminster.
- Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. London, England: Bloomsbury Press.
Browse other articles of this reference work:
