The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory
Abstract
Organizations act, but what determines how and when they will act? There is precedent for believing that the organization is but an extension of one or a few people, but this is a deceptively simplified approach and, in reality, makes any generalization in organizational theory enormously difficult. Modern-day organizations manufacturing firms, hospitals, schools, armies, community agencies are extremely complex in nature, and several strategies, employing a variety of disciplines, are needed to gain a proper understanding of them.Organizations in Action is a classic multidisciplinary study of the behavior of complex organizations as entities. Previous books on the subject focused on the behavior of people in organizational contexts, but this volume considers individual behavior only to the extent that it helps explain the nature of organizations. James D. Thompson offers ninety-five distinct propositions about the behavior of organizations, all relevant regardless of the culture in which they are found. Thompson classifies organizations according to their technologies and environments. That organizations must meet and handle uncertainty is central to his thesis.Organizations in Action is firmly grounded in concepts and theories in the social and behavioral sciences. While it does not offer an actual theory of administration, the book successfully extends the scientific base upon which any emerging administrative theory must rest. This classic work is of continuing value to organizational and management specialists, behavioral scientists, sociologists, administrators, and policymakers.
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
(2000) · Cited by 2,531
Environmental risk management and the cost of capital
Sharfman, M. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.678 · Cited by 1,530
Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms
George, G. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17843944 · Cited by 1,254
Institutional Sources of Practice Variation: Staffing College and University Recycling Programs
Lounsbury, M. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667124 · Cited by 699
Amezcua, A. S., Grimes, M. G., Bradley, S. W., & Wiklund, J. (2013) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0652 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Thompson, J. D., Zald, M. N., & Scott, W. R.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-07-05
- OpenAlex
- W2335126140
- Cited by
- 2,306
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.58
- 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: Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781315125930
- The paper
- Thompson, J. D., Zald, M. N., & Scott, W. R. (2017). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315125930
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.