The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The Case of a University Budget
Abstract
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Janice Barton, Karen Riley, and Ray Zammuto in the data collection and the support of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Illinois. The effect of subunit power on resource allocation decisions in one university is examined. Measures of departmental power in a university are found to be significantly related to the proportion of the budget received, even after statistically controlling for such universalistic bases of allocation as work load of the department, national rank, and number of faculty. Subunit power in the organization is also related to the correlation between a subunit's resources-budget and instructional staff-and work load over time. The more powerful the department, the less the allocated resources are a function of departmental work load and student demand for course offerings. Subunit power is measured by both interviews of department heads and the analysis of archival records of departmental representation on major university committees. Intercorrelations between these measures of subunit power indicate that it is possible to obtain unobtrusive measures of organizational political systems without direct interviewing.
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
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
Carlile, P. R. (2004) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094 · Cited by 3,101
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning
Ebrahim, A. (2005) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764004269430 · Cited by 617
Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/096317903321208907 · Cited by 362
Markets, Morals, and Practices of Trade: Jurisdictional Disputes in the U.S. Commerce in Cadavers
Anteby, M. (2010) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.606 · Cited by 261
2. Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and interdependence of power holders
Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23003-2 · Cited by 174
Cooperative and Competitive Relationships Between Leaders and Subordinates
Tjosvold, D., Andrews, R., & Jones, H. (1983) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872678303601203 · Cited by 79
Tensions across the scales: planning infrastructure for the long-term
Ribes, D., & Finholt, T. A. (2007) · Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Conference on supporting group work - GROUP '07 · doi:10.1145/1316624.1316659 · Cited by 55
Harper, C. L., & Schulte-Murray, R. K. (1998) · Review of Religious Research · doi:10.2307/3512297 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1974-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2107026363
- Cited by
- 798
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.00
- Type
- journal article
- 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
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.