Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory
Abstract
We appreciate the helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper from Charles Fombrun, John Bryson, William Gomberg, and anonymousASQ reviewers. We also appreciate the support of the Center forthe Study of Organizational Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for release time to prepare this paper. The diverse schools of organizational thought are classified according to micro and macro levels of organizational analysis and deterministic versus voluntaristic assumptions of human nature to yield four basic perspectives: systemstructural, strategic choice, natural selection, and collective-action views of organizations. These four views represent qualitatively different concepts of organizational structure, behavior, change, and managerial roles. Six theoretical debates are then identified by systematically juxtaposing the four views against each other, and a partial reconciliation is achieved by bringing opposing viewpoints into dialectical relief. The six debates, which tend to be addressed singly and in isolation from each other in the literature, arethen integrated ata metatheoretical level. The framework presented thus attempts to overcome the problems associated with excessive theoretical compartmentalization by focusing on the interplay between divergent theoretical perspectives, but it also attempts to preserve the authenticity of distinctive viewpoints, thereby retaining the advantages associated with theoretical plura…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Structural approaches do not explain the nature of differences produced from voluntaristic action.
“What such structural approaches do not explain is the nature of differences produced from voluntaristic action (Astley and Van de Ven, 1983), that is, the very nature of agency that entrepreneurship produces.”
From ‘Relationships Mean Everything’; A Typology of Small–Business Relationship Strategies in a Reflexive Context (2002) · cites this paper as Astley and Van de Ven, 1983
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072 · see citing works
Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426 · see citing works
Theories in sustainable supply chain management: A structured literature review
Touboulic, A., & Walker, H. (2015) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-05-2013-0106 · Cited by 688 · see citing works
PROCEDURAL RATIONALITY IN THE STRATEGIC DECISION‐MAKING PROCESS*
Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1993) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00317.x · Cited by 412 · see citing works
Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection-Interrelated Processes of Change
Levinthal, D. A. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.140 · Cited by 401 · see citing works
Wong, C. W. Y., Lai, K.-H., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2011) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222280305 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Theory Assessment and Agenda Setting in Political CSR: A Critical Theory Perspective
Scherer, A. G. (2018) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12137 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
An institutional theory of leadership
Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1987) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/002188638702300401 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox
Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J., & van de Ven, A. H. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12397 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Fuller, T., & Lewis, J. (2002) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00249 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Astley, W. G., & de Ven, A. H. V.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1983-06
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 245
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025308509
- Cited by
- 1,224
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 31.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Administrative Science Quarterly (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 Change
- Keywords
- organizational theory, theoretical approaches, organizational structure, organizational change, managerial roles, theoretical pluralism, metatheory
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