MGMT 607: Seminar in Organization Theory

Class Meetings: Professor: Office Hours:

Thursdays, 2-4:50pm Andrew Nelson By appointment
McKenzie 471 541-346-1569
[email protected]

Course Overview

This Ph.D. seminar is designed to introduce students to the study of organizations. Most organizational
research in the social sciences is grounded in theory, and a primary reason that editors of top journals
reject research articles is “lack of theoretical contribution.” In this seminar, we will explore theories
stemming from various disciplines and approaches within the social sciences, alongside the development
of organization theory over time. My goals are to familiarize you with some major theoretical and
empirical traditions in organization theory; to enable you to understand the role of theory in organization
studies; and, ultimately, to empower you to identify new directions in organization theory and potential
contributions that you might make through your own research.

Course Requirements

Students will share the responsibility for discussing materials and for raising questions. Students
are expected to do all of the required reading and to be prepared to discuss the materials in
class on the schedule indicated in the syllabus. Final grades are based on four requirements:

1) Class participation. We have the advantage of a small class, which facilitates some
unique pedagogical approaches. As such, we’ll make use of debates, panels, and role
plays as we engage with various articles, authors, and schools of thought. The success
of this approach depends on each student’s preparation and full participation. As such,
I expect all students to arrive at class having thoroughly engaged with the readings and
having primed a number of questions, topics, and issues to be raised for discussion.
Twenty-percent of the course grade is based on class participation.

2) Weekly memos. All students are asked to prepare brief memos (1-2 pages) relating to
the reading for each week. The purpose of the memos is to grapple with the readings
and to respond with questions, criticisms, and new ideas. Formats may vary, but it is
useful to include:
a. Ideas, concepts, and arguments that you found stimulating, worth
remembering and building on. In other words, what prompted an “a-ha”?
b. Questions, concerns, and disagreements with ideas encountered.
c. Connections, linkages, and contradictions between one idea or approach and
another. Specify how you would take this work and build on it.

Memos are due via email ([email protected]) by 9am on the day of class. Weekly
memos constitute twenty-five percent of the course grade.

MGMT 607 (2019) 1

 3) Article review. All students will write a “review” of an article that I will hand out. I will
provide specific guidelines on the review process and areas on which to focus. The
review constitutes twenty percent of the course grade.

4) Research proposal. All students will write a ten- to fifteen-page paper applying one of
the lines of research to a specific empirical case. This research proposal should read like
the detailed “front end” of an empirical paper, reviewing the appropriate literature,
identifying a promising and important research gap, and proposing an empirical setting
and dataset through which this gap might be addressed. (There is no need to actually
collect and analyze data, though I strongly encourage you to write on a topic of interest
such that you could leverage this paper into an actual research publication.) You should
be prepared to present and discuss your paper during our final class session (December
5), though the final paper is not due until December 11 (the scheduled day for our final
exam – though there is no final exam for this class). This paper constitutes thirty-five
percent of the course grade.

Readings

Given the breadth of organization theory, I’m unable to cover every topic. I have deliberately
left out topics covered in other UO PhD seminars. Even within specific topics, there are many
more readings than we have time to consider. As a general approach, I strive to expose you to
some key “classic” readings for a given topic, alongside a more contemporary article or articles
that demonstrate empirical applications. I also take the opportunity to highlight some of my
own work, partially out of interest and partially since one of our goals is to learn how to craft
theory and I can best speak to the process underlying my own studies.

I am also requiring several books, only a couple of which we’ll read in their entirety. For the
others, I’ve personally found it most useful for future research and reference to own the
original book as opposed to a photocopied excerpt. To save you money, however, I’ve
suggested older editions, and all of these books are available used through Amazon at
reasonable prices.

Required Books:

Becker, H. S. 2008. Tricks of the Trade: How to think about your research while you're doing it. University
of Chicago Press.

Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent. U. of Chicago Press.

Powell, Walter W., and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
University of Chicago Press.

Scott, W. Richard. 2007. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, 3rd ed.

Taylor, Frederick Winslow. 1916. The Principles of Scientific Management.

MGMT 607 (2019) 2

Course Calendar

Date Topic

1. Oct 3 Introduction and Course Overview

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 371-384.

Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 385-390.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 391-
397.

Davis, Murray S. (1971). “That’s Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of
Phenomenology.” Philosophy and Social Science 1: 309-44.

Elster, J. (1998). A plea for mechanisms in Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory
(Hedstrom and Swedberg, eds.). Cambridge University Press.

2. Oct 10 Historic Origins

Taylor, Frederick Winslow. (1916). The Principles of Scientific Management.

Bendix, R. (1947). Bureaucracy: The problem and its setting. American Sociological Review, 12(5), 493-507.

Thompson, E. P. (1967). Time, work discipline, and industrial capitalism. Past and Present, pp. 56-97.

Chandler, A. D. (1984). The emergence of managerial capitalism. Business History Review, 58(4), 473-503.

3. Oct 17 Informal Organization

Roy, Donald. (1952). Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. American Journal of Sociology
57: 427-442.

Roy, D. F. (1960). ’Banana time’: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization 18(4): 158-
168.

Blau, Peter (1954). Cooperation and Competition in a Bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology 59(6):
530-535.

Burawoy, Michael. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. U. of Chicago Press. Read Chs. 4 and 5, pp. 46-94.

MGMT 607 (2019) 3

Kellogg, Katherine. (2009). “Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery.”
American Journal of Sociology 115(3):657-711.

Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J., & Siino, R. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine:
Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 136-168

4. Oct 24 The "New" Institutional Theory

Scott, W. Richard. (2007). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, 3rd ed. Read Chs. 1-4 and 6.

Powell, Walter W., and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds. (1991). “Introduction” in The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-38. Read this introductory chapter only.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational
institutionalism, 840, 99-128.

Tilleman, Suzanne, Michael Russo, and Andrew Nelson. (2019). Institutional Logics and Technology
Development: Evidence from the Wind and Solar Energy Industries. Organization Science,
forthcoming.

5. Oct 31 Networks and Organizations

Powell, Walter W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in
Organization Behavior, 12: 295-336, Barry M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, eds. JAI.

Padgett, John F. and Christopher K. Ansell. (1993). Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434.
American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1259-1319.

Powell, Walter W., K. Koput, and L. Smith-Doerr. (1996). Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of
Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 116-45.

Uzzi, Brian. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of
Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 35-69.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2): 349-399.

6. Nov 7 Organizational Learning

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14(1), 319-338.

Cohen, Wesley and Daniel Levinthal. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation.” ASQ 35: 128-52.

MGMT 607 (2019) 4

March, James G. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science
2(1): 71-87.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified
view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization science, 2(1), 40-57.

Waisberg, I., & Nelson, A. (2018). When the General Meets the Particular: The Practices and Challenges of
Interorganizational Knowledge Reuse. Organization Science, 29(3), 432-448.

7. Nov 14 Special Topic I: Categories

Zuckerman, Ezra. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the legitimacy discount.
American Journal of Sociology 104: 1398-1438.

Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy,
identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3),
439-471.

Grodal, S., Gotsopoulos, A., & Suarez, F. F. (2015). The coevolution of technologies and categories during
industry emergence. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 423-445.

Anthony, C., Nelson, A. J., & Tripsas, M. (2016). “Who Are You?… I Really Wanna Know”: Product Meaning
and Competitive Positioning in the Nascent Synthesizer Industry. Strategy Science, 1(3), 163-183.

Zhao, E. Y., Fisher, G., Lounsbury, M., & Miller, D. (2017). Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface
between institutional theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 93-113.

8. Nov 21 Special Topic II: Occupations and Professions

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1982). Occupational communities: Culture and control in
organizations (No. TR-ONR-10). Research in Organizational Behavior / Office of Naval Research.

Barley, Stephen. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence form Observations of CT
Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 78-108.

Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of

understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312-330.

Evans, J. A., Kunda, G., & Barley, S. R. (2004). Beach time, bridge time, and billable hours: The temporal
structure of technical contracting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 1-38.

MGMT 607 (2019) 5

Nelson, A. J., & Irwin, J. (2014). “Defining what we do—all over again”: Occupational identity,
technological change, and the librarian/Internet-search relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 57(3), 892-928.

Howard-Grenville, J., Nelson, A. J., Earle, A. G., Haack, J. A., & Young, D. M. (2017). “If Chemists Don’t Do It,
Who Is Going To?” Peer-driven Occupational Change and the Emergence of Green
Chemistry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 524-560.

9. Nov 28 Thanksgiving Holiday (No class)

Becker, H. S. (2008). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you're doing it. University
of Chicago press.

We have no class meeting today, but please read this book and prepare a memo prior to our Dec. 5 class.

10. Dec 5 Discussion of student papers and Becker

Each student will present her/his paper to the class today and will engage in Q&A. Thus, please come
prepared to present and discuss your paper. We’ll reserve time at the end of class to discuss Becker’s Tricks
of the Trade. (The associated memo is due at 9am today.)

Your final paper is due at 12:30pm on Wednesday, December 11.

Lundquist College of Business Academic Policies & Resources

Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
The University Student Conduct Code (see http://dos.uoregon.edu/conduct) defines academic
misconduct. Students are prohibited from committing or attempting to commit any act that constitutes
academic misconduct. By way of example, students should not give or receive (or attempt to give or
receive) unauthorized help on assignments or examinations without express permission from the
instructor. Students should properly acknowledge and document all sources of information (e.g.
quotations, paraphrases, ideas) and use only the sources and resources authorized by the instructor. If
there is any question about whether an act constitutes academic misconduct, it is the students’ obligation
to clarify the question with the instructor before committing or attempting to commit the act. Additional
information about a common form of academic misconduct, plagiarism, is available at
researchguides.uoregon.edu/citing-plagiarism.

Lundquist College of Business Code of Conduct

The Lundquist College of Business learning community is committed to a set of core values that guide our

MGMT 607 (2019) 6

interactions with one another. Our values are as important within our Lundquist College community as
within the business community. Our values help define both how we aspire to act and what it means to be
a business professional. (See https://business.uoregon.edu/code-of-conduct.)

Integrity
Members of our community act with integrity and honesty. These qualities are essential in providing a
basis for trust and go to the core of what is expected from business professionals.
Respect
Our community conveys respect for the dignity of all people. Our relationships are based on mutual
respect. Differences of opinion are discussed openly and civilly. These discussions focus on issues and
are presented in a courteous manner. We are sensitive to the impacts of both our words and actions
on others.
Openness
We encourage all members of our community to exchange ideas freely within the bounds of
reasonable behavior. We recognize that learning requires an open environment.
Responsibility
We act publicly and accept responsibility for our actions. We understand that the community will keep
us accountable for our dealings. We deliver on the commitments and promises we make to others.
Teamwork
Our community is stronger when we work as a team. We foster attitudes encouraging members of the
community to give and receive constructive criticism, and develop creative solutions to challenges.

Accessible Education
The University of Oregon is working to create inclusive learning environments (see
https://aec.uoregon.edu/) Please notify me if there are aspects of the instruction or design of this course
that result in disability-related barriers to your participation. You are also encouraged to contact the
Accessible Education Center in 164 Oregon Hall at 541-346-1155 or [email protected].

Help for Victims and Survivors

If you are a victim or survivor of sexual assault, sexual harassment, dating or domestic violence, gender-
based harassment or bullying, and/or stalking and need help, start here: https://safe.uoregon.edu/. There
is staff available 24-hours a day for confidential advice and assistance. Even if you are unsure what to do,
call 541-346-7233 (SAFE) and you’ll be connected with somebody who will listen to you and help guide
you as you figure out what you want to do next. We are here to support you and help provide the
assistance and services you need.

Bias Education and Response Team

The University of Oregon Bias Education and Response Team (BERT), http://dos.uoregon.edu/bias, based
in the Office of the Dean of Students, works to provide those who have witnessed, or themselves become
a target of an act of bias, an opportunity to be heard and supported. The fundamental role of BERT is to
respond to situations that affect the larger University of Oregon community through education about
current and historical issues surrounding bias. Utilizing best practices in our field, the BERT provides
services to witness(es), bystander(s), targeted individual(s), offender(s), or a member(s) of the community
in order to create change in a timely, effective, and comprehensive way. It is through our education
services and initiatives that we hope to eliminate acts of bias within our community.
If you have witnessed or experienced bias and would like more information or would like to report it,

MGMT 607 (2019) 7

please visit http://dos.uoregon.edu/bias.

Title IX
If you or someone you know (student, faculty, or staff) has experienced gender discrimination, sexual
harassment, or sexual violence, the university can offer assistance, support, and resources:
http://titleix.uoregon.edu/how-report

Prohibited Discrimination and Harassment Reporting

Any student who has experienced sexual assault, relationship violence, sex or gender-based bullying,
stalking, and/or sexual harassment may seek resources and help at safe.uoregon.edu. To get help by
phone, a student can also call either the UO’s 24-hour hotline at 541-346-7244 (SAFE), or the non-
confidential Title IX Coordinator at 541-346-8136. From the SAFE website, students may also connect to
Callisto, https://uoregon.callistocampus.org/, a confidential, third-party reporting site that is not a part of
the university.

Students experiencing any other form of prohibited discrimination or harassment can find information at
respect.uoregon.edu or aaeo.uoregon.edu or contact the non-confidential of Affirmative Action and Equal
Opportunity (AAEO) office at 541-346-3123 or the Dean of Students Office at 541-346-3216 for help. As
UO policy has different reporting requirements based on the nature of the reported harassment or
discrimination, additional information about reporting requirements for discrimination or harassment
unrelated to sexual assault, relationship violence, sex or gender-based bullying, stalking, and/or sexual
harassment is available at Discrimination & Harassment.

Specific details about confidentiality of information and reporting obligations of employees can be found
at titleix.uoregon.edu.

Emergency Response
Active shooter
In the unlikely event of an active shooter on campus, all students should “run – hide – fight.” Our first line
of defense will be to run from the classroom and away from campus. (You are to get yourself to safety.
There will be no class meeting spot in this emergency.) If running is not an option, we will attempt to hide
in the classroom by turning off the lights and getting on the ground. If hiding is not an option, we will fight
the active shooter by throwing objects at his/her eyes (books, laptops, water bottles, etc.) and then
tackling him/her until help arrives.

Earthquake or fire
Students should leave the building by the nearest, safe exit and gather on the north side of Lillis by the
wind sculpture.

MGMT 607 (2019) 8