Syllabus So0109 2006 Spring

Theories of Organizational Dynamics and Decision-Making Sociology 109, Spring 2006 Instructor: Prof. Ann Dill Organizations and groups link social structure and individual action. Sociological theory studies how behavior and activities within organizations are largely a matter of context rather than character or personality. The purpose of this course is to help students understand organizations and take effective action in them by understanding the social dynamics and contexts shaping organizational life. The course provides a strong foundation of recent research and knowledge on organizational dynamics and decision-making. It emphasizes the main theories, models and approaches related to topics such as: group processes and dynamics; rational and non-rational models of problem solving; group composition, cooperation and conflict; the organizational dynamics of diversity; formal and informal models of leadership; organizational culture; and organizational learning and development. Educational objectives include: 1. To provide a solid foundation in theoretical perspectives on organizational dynamics and decision-making. 2. To link theoretical concepts, models and approaches to concrete analyses of individual and group behavior within organizations. 3. To increase student understanding of factors such as diversity, cooperation and conflict, organizational learning and culture, and leadership and authority in relation to organizational performance. 4. To increase student awareness and appreciation of ethical and governance issues in organizational behavior and decision-making. 5. To practice and sharpen students’ analytical, critical and creative thinking skills with regard to organizational dynamics and problemsolving. 6. To develop students’ ability to accept and deal more effectively with the complexity and uncertainty involved in living and working within organizations.

2 7. To develop students’ skills in written and oral communication, organizational research, and teamwork. Assignments: Exams: There will be a mid-term and a final exam, each with fixed response and short essay questions based on readings and lectures. There will also be an option for a take-home final of essay questions. The grade for the mid-term will constitute 15%, and that for the final, 25% of the final grade. Discussion group reports: Students will be assigned into ten- to twelveperson discussion groups that will meet weekly during one portion of the class time. Groups will discuss specific questions applying course concepts to an analysis of the readings. Each group will deliver a brief report of their conclusions to the instructor before the next class session. Each member of the group who is present will, under normal circumstances, receive the same grade for this assignment. Together, these reports will make up 20% of the total grade. Team projects: Students will form four- to five-person research teams. Teams will produce a joint research paper evaluating an issue faced by a particular local organization. Examples of topics that may be considered include change in management, introduction of innovation, diversity in work groups, restructuring, and intra-organizational conflict. Structured exercises will encourage reflexivity on teams’ own thinking, discussion, dynamics, and decision-making, and team self-evaluations will be incorporated into the grade for this assignment. This will make up 20% of the final grade. Case analyses: Students will be required to write two short essays assessing organizational studies in the light of theories, concepts, and approaches presented in the course. The basis for the essay can be any of the “additional readings” (see below), for a topic, with the exception of a case study. The essay should discuss the contributions and limitations of understanding the reading using at least one of the “frames” discussed in the main text. The first of these essays must be turned in before the mid-term exam; the second, before the end of classes. Each essay will make up 10% of the final grade (total, 20%). Readings: A. The main text for the course is Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, 3rd Edition, by Bolman and Deal.

3 The field of organization theory currently includes a number of different major conceptual perspectives. Some view the field as fragmented. Others prefer to see it as pluralistic. Many courses on organizational theory present only one or two perspectives or fail to acknowledge how different theories have similar underlying assumptions and frameworks. Initially, that approach may be simpler and less confusing, but in the long run it will be less valid and less helpful. This course will develop four major theoretical perspectives on organizations – what Bolman and Deal refer to as “frames” - that subsume much of the existing theory on organizational dynamics: 1. A structural frame, which emphasizes goals, roles, formal relationships, and the rational side of organization. 2. A human resource frame, which focuses on human needs, attitudes, and skills and emphasizes the human side of organization. 3. A symbolic frame, which explores how organizations create meaning and belief through symbols, including myths, rituals and ceremonies. 4. A political frame, which examines power, conflict, and coalitions among those who have vested interests to protect and want to advance within a context of scarce resources. The course will begin by viewing organizations through each of the four frames separately and continue by examining the ways in which each illuminates different aspects of organizational activity. In the long run, the goal is to be able to use all four frames in order to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of organizations. B. Case studies: drawn primarily from the Harvard Business School, case studies of corporate, non-profit, and public institutions will be used to analyze the applications of the theoretical frames. C. “Additional Readings” are drawn from the organizational research literature. These articles and review essays expand on the ways theories are used by sociologists and other social scientists to examine organizational issues. They will form the basis for essay assignments (see below). Readings may be changed at the instructor’s discretion. D. Recommended readings will provide further insight into both the theories and their applications. Beyond the text, readings can be found in different ways: Those with an asterisk * before the first author’s name will be in a readings packet at Allegra printers. Those labeled “ON-LINE” can be accessed through the electronic journals in Brown’s libraries. Case studies will be put together in a separate readings packet or may be acquired individually through the Harvard Business School website.

4

Topics and Course Schedule: Week 1, 1/26: Introduction to course and assignments Week 2, 1/31, 2/2: 1/31: Reframing Organizations: Structure, Human Resources, Politics, and Symbols Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapters 1 and 2 Recommended: C. Perrow, “The Short and Glorious History of Organization Theory.” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 1: 3-15, 1973. 2/2: Discussion group formation and case discussion Reading: Case: Lyric Dinner Theater (A) Week 3, 2/7, 9: The Structural Frame Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapters 3, 4, and 5 Case: First National Citibank Operating Group (A) and (B) Additional readings: *K. A. Jehn and C. Benderfsky. “Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25: 187-201, 2003. *M. Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980), Chapters 2, 3, and 11. Recommended C. Perrow, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd ed. (New York: Random House, 1986), Chapters 1, 4, 5, and 6 Week 4, 2/14, 16: Social Dynamics: The Human Resource Frame Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapters 6, 7, and 8 Cases: 1. Southwest Airlines: Using Human Resources for Competitive Advantage

5 2. Midstate University http://bloch.umkc.edu/classes/bolman/midstate_university.htm Additional readings: D.C. Feldman. “The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms.” Academy of Management Review, 9: 47-53, 1984. ON-LINE B. Mullen and C. Copper. “The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 115: 210-227, 1994. ON-LINE *A.M. Isen and R. A. Baron. “Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13: 1-53, 1991. Week 4, 2/23: Diversity in Organizations Reading: D. Ancona and D. Caldwell. “Bridging the Boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665, 1992. ON-LINE *D. Izraeli. “Sex Effects or Structural Effects? An empirical test of Kanter’s theory of proportions,” Social Forces, 62: 153-165, 1983. *L. M. Moynihan and R. S. Peterson. “A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23: 327-78, 2001. W. Watson, K. Kumar and L. Michaelson. “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups,” Academy of Management Journal, 36: 590-602, 1993. ON-LINE *K. Williams and C. O’Reilly III. “Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77-140, 1998. *L. M. Moynihan and R. S. Peterson. “A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23: 327-78, 2001. Weeks 5, 2/28, 3/2: Power and Politics in Organizations Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapters 9, 10, and 11 Cases: 1. Jonah Creighton (A)

6 2. Alpha Airlines Additional reading: D. J. Brass. “Power in organizations: A social network perspective.” Research in Politics and Society, Vol. 4: 295-323, 1992. ON-LINE *F. Lee and L. Z. Tiedens. “Is it lonely at the top?: The interdependence and interdependence of power holders.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23: 43-91, 2001. *G. Salancik and J. Pfeffer. “Who gets power – and how they hold onto it: A strategic-contingency model of power.” Organizational Dynamics, ???, 1977. E. J. Zajac and J. D. Westphal. “Director reputation, CEO-Board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41: 507-529, 1996. ON-LINE Recommended: C. Perrow, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd ed. (New York: Random House, 1986), Chapter 8, “Power in Organizational Analysis.” Weeks 6, 3/7, 9: Organizational Ambiguities and Culture: The Symbolic Frame Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapters 12, 13, and 14 Cases: 1. West Point: The Cheating Incident (A) 2. Charlotte Beers at Ogilvy & Mather (A) Additional readings: *Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen (1972). “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1-25. *I. Janis. (1980), “Groupthink,” in Leavitt, H., L. Pondy and D. Boje (Eds.), Readings in Managerial Psychology 3rd Edition. University of Chicago Press. *J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 30: 431-50, 1977.

7 Weeks 7 & 8, 3/14, 16, 21, 23: Reframing Leadership Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapters 17 and 20 Case: Job Corps Additional reading: *J. R. Hackman and R. Wageman. “When and how team leaders matter.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26: 37-74, 2005. *D. van Knippenberg and M. A. Hogg. “A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25: 243-295, 2003. *J. R. Meindl. “On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12: 159-203, 1990. *J. M. Podolny, R. Khurana, and M. Hill-Popper. “Revisiting the meaning of leadership.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26: 1-36, 2005. *B. Robnett. “African American Women in the Civil Rights Movement: Gender, Leadership and Micromobilization.” American Journal of Sociology 101 (6): 1161-1193. ON-LINE 3/23: Midterm Exam (in class) Spring Break Week 9, 4/4, 6: Integrating the Frames Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapters 15 and 16 Additional reading: *B. E. Ashforth and V. Anand. “The normalization of corruption in organizations.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25: 1-52, 2003. *C. D. Cramton and P. J. Hinds. “Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning?” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26: 231-264, 2005. *D. Maines. “In search of mesostructure: Studies in the Negotiated Order.” Urban Life, Vol. 11: 267-79, 1982. *J. Sanchez-Burks. “Protestant Relational ideology: The cognitive underpinnings and organizational implications of an American anomaly.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26: 265-306, 2005.

8 Week 10, 4/11, 13 Applying the Frames I: Organizational innovation and change Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapter 18 Additional reading: *R.M. Kanter, “When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organization.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10: 169-211, 1988. M. S. Kraatz and E. J. Zajac. “Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 61: 812-836, 1999. ON-LINE D. J. Minkoff. “Bending with the wind: Strategic change and adaptation by women’s and racial minority organizations.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104 (6): 1666-1703, 1999. ON-LINE *R. I. Sutton. “Organizational decline processes: A social psychological perspective.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12: 205-53, 1990. Week 11, 4/18, 20 Applying the Frames II: The soul of an organization Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapter 19 Additional reading: *J. Greenberg. “Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12: 111-157. *R. M. Kramer. “Organizational paranoia: Origins and Dynamics.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23: 1-42, 2001. *A. Rafaeliand R. I. Sutton. “The expression of emotion in organizational life.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11: 1-42, 1989. *J. Van Maanen and G. Kunda. “’Real feelings’: Emotional expression and organizational culture.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11: 43-103, 1989. Week 12, 4/25, 27 Summing up Reading: Bolman and Deal, Chapter 21 Team Research Papers due, 4/27 Final exam: Saturday, May 13, 9 a.m.

9

Summary of Exam and Assignment Due Dates: Discussion Group reports: No later than the day before the next class session. Team Research Papers: 4/27 Short Essays: One is due before the mid-term; the second, before 4/27. Midterm exam: 3/23 Final exam: 5/13, 9 a.m. Take-home option for the final will be made available 4/27 and is due no later than Saturday, May 13 at noon. Reaching Prof. Dill: The best ways to reach me are to come to my office hours (OH) or to email me. My office hours for this semester are, normally, after class: 3-5 Thursday. I am also available by appointment. My office is room 401 Maxcy Hall. Please don’t feel you have to have a specific question, let alone crisis, to come to my OH. While a lot of people come to see me at the beginning and end of the semester (and around exam times), there are many days when I sit alone, just waiting for someone to appear. I really do enjoy talking with you and would like each of you to come see me at least once this semester. My email address is [email protected] I attempt to respond to all messages from students within 48 hours. The one exception is over the weekend, when I often do not receive email. Please indicate “Soc. 109” in the subject line, and use the “urgent” icon if it needs my attention asap. If you do not hear back from me within 48 hours, please assume that something went wrong in the ether and send your msg again. The worst way to reach me is to drop by my office at times other than office hours or an appointed time. Leaving messages on my office phone (863-1114) is ok, but I only tend to pick them up when I’m in the office. Email is better.