CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,509Management and Organizational StudiesManagement Theory and PracticeOrganizational Management and Innovation

A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations

Perrow, Charles·1967·American Sociological Review
DOI 10.2307/2091811
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Complex organizations are conceptualized in terms of their technologies, or the work done on raw materials. Two aspects of technology vary independently: the number of exceptions that must be handled, and the degree to which search is an analyzable or unanalyzable procedure. If there is a large number of exceptions and search is not logical and analytic, the technology is described as nonroutine. Few exceptions and analyzable search procedures describe a routine technology. Two other types result from other combinations-craft and engineering technologies. Task structures vary with the technology utilized, and are analyzed in terms of control and coordination and three levels of management. Social structure in turn is related to technology and task structure. Finally, the variations in three types of goals are weakly related to the preceding variables in this conceptualization. The perspective provides a basis for comparing organizations which avoids many problems found in other schemes utilizing structure, function or goals as the basis for comparison. Furthermore, it allows one to selectively utilize competing organizational theories once it is understood that their relevance is restricted to organizations with specific kinds of technologies. The scheme makes apparent some errors in present efforts to compare organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2091811

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Variations are often necessary to manage unexpected contingencies and exceptions.

    “Variations are often necessary to manage unexpected contingencies and exceptions (Perrow, 1967); the ability to improvise an effective variation is likely to be a valued skill.”

    From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Perrow, 1967

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perrow, C.
Corresponding author
Perrow, Charles
Venue
American Sociological Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1967-04
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
194
ISSN
0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2091811
OpenAlex
W2016202056
Cited by
2,509
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 79 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 86
FWCI
22.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Innovation
Keywords
organizational comparison, organizational technology, craft technology, engineering technology, task structure, control and coordination, management levels, social structure, organizational goals, organizational theory

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