Criticisms of the Dominant Perspective on Organizations

Abstract

The major criticisms of the dominant comparative structural and structural contingency approaches to organizations were examined and found to possess at least ten major limitations. These structural approaches have resulted in an emphasis on organizational efficiency, goals, consensus, statics, and constraints of the environment, size, and technology which perpetuate the status quo; but the analysis of power, change, conflicts of interest, and individual volition have been obscured. Although structural analysis has resulted in some limited abstract generalizations concerning the form of organizations, these generalizations do little to contribute to understanding organizational processes, strategic choice, and power relationships. These important aspects of organizations could be unmasked by viewing organizations as arenas of micro-individual and group interests as well as arenas through which macrosocietal, class, and multinational interests and conflicts are played out. To minimize these limitations in the analysis of organizations, triangulations of perspectives, levels of analysis, sources of data, and methodologies are suggested.