The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes
Abstract
Written rules in formal organizations are distinctive elements of organizational history; they shape organizational change and are in turn shaped by it. These rules are created, revised, and eliminated in ways that leave historical traces, and they have a visibility and durability that elude non-written rules. They thus provide rich data for an empirical probe into the dynamics of organizational history. This study uses qualitative and quantitative data from the history of a specific organization, Stanford University, to develop speculations about the ways in which written rules change. It contributes both to a theory of rules and to theories of organizational decision-making, change, and learning. Organizations respond to problems and react to internal or external pressures by focusing attention on existing and potential rules. The creation, modification, or elimination of a rule, then, is a response to events in the outside environment (such as new government regulations) or to events within the organization (such as alterations in internal government structures). The authors elaborate a simple set of ideas about written rules and their dynamics, emphasizing the interplay among periodic major shocks to the system from outside, experiences with individual rules as they age and are revised, and the spread of effects through an interconnected set of rules. It is a story in which changes introduced in one part of a rule system create adjustments in other parts, including the same rule later in time, as the consequences of the changes are experienced and as rule-making attention is mobilized, satiated, and redirected. These processes involve the full panoply of political negotiation, symbolic competition, discussion, and problem solving that are typical of organizational decision making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Balancing priorities: decision-making in sustainable supply chain management
Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.10.001 · Cited by 956
Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.3.413 · Cited by 804
“We chose this number of time steps because it is large enough to allow suffi cient opportunities to fl ow into the environment such that any initialization effects on the fi ndings are mitigated (Law and Kelton, 1991), but we also experimented with multiple values for the amount of attention…”
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm—40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact
Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 · Cited by 606
Remembrance of Things Past? The Dynamics of Organizational Forgetting
Holan, P. M. D., & Phillips, N. (2004) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0273 · Cited by 556
A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity
Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0731 · Cited by 556
Metadata
- Authors
- March, J. G., Schulz, M., & Xueguang, Z.
- Venue
- Stanford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Stanford University Press
- Published
- 2000-08-01
- OpenAlex
- W4207077418
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.00
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/9781503618411
- The paper
- March, J. G., Schulz, M., & Xueguang, Z. (2000). The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes. Stanford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503618411
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.