Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bacharach (1989)
Bacharach (1989)
Bacharach (1989)
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Organizational Theories:
Some Criteria for Evaluation
SAMUELB. BACHARACH
Cornell University
A set of ground rules and vocabulary to facilitate focused discussion
about the structure of organization and management theories are
proposed. The many previous efforts at defining and evaluating the-
ory help establish criteria for theory construction and evaluation. In
the establishment of these criteria, description is distinguished from
theory, and a matrix of criteria for evaluating the variables, con-
structs, and relationships that together compose a theory is devel-
oped. The proposed matrix may be useful both for defining the nec-
essary components of good theory and for evaluating and/or com-
paring the quality of alternative theories. Finally, a discussion of the
way theories fit together to give a somewhat broader picture of em-
pirical reality reveals the lines of tension between the two main cri-
teria for evaluating theory.
In order to talk about the nature of the universe Students of theory construction have tried to
and to discuss questions of whether it has a be- develop a set of rules for the examination of the
ginning or an end, you have to be clear about constructs and variables which are the units of
what a scientific theory is. (Hawking, 1988,p. 9)
theoretical statements (cf. Dubin, 1969; Chron-
A theory is a statement of relations among bach & Meehl, 1955; Blalock, 1968; Schwab,
concepts within a set of boundary assumptions 1980). They also have attempted to develop a set
and constraints. It is no more than a linguistic of rules for the examination of the relationships
device used to organize a complex empirical among these units (cf. Blalock, 1969; Cohen,
world. As Hall and Lindzey (1957, p. 9) pointed 1980; Nagel, 1961; Hempel, 1965; Stinchcombe,
out, the function of a theory "is that of preventing 1968; Popper, 1959; Dubin, 1976; Gibbs, 1972).
the observer from being dazzled by the full- Nevertheless, the diversity of these perspectives
blown complexity of natural or concrete events." suggests the need for a more specific examina-
Therefore, the purpose of theoretical statements tion of their rules as applied to organizational
is twofold: to organize (parsimoniously) and to studies.
communicate (clearly).
Many current theories in organizational be- What Theory Is Not:
havior fail to accomplish this purpose, primarily Data, Typologies, and Metaphors
because they ignore certain generally accepted Description, the "features or qualities of indi-
rules about theoretical statements. Just as a col- vidual things, acts, or events" (Werkmeister,
lection of words does not make a sentence, a 1959, p. 484) must be distinguished from theory.
collection of constructs and variables does not As Hempel (1965) pointed out, the vocabulary of
necessarily make a theory. science has two basic functions: (a) to ade-
496
497
498
G
E
N
E |/|PROPOSMTONSll
R |
A / | CONSTRUCTS CONSTRUCTS
LAA
I
A |
B HYPOTHESES
VARIABLES 4 VARIABLES
I
T
y
plicit debate over values if not ideology. During pany that is often held up as a shining model of
the early resurrection (by organizational theo- the positive normative impact of culture, un-
rists) of the concept of culture (Schein, 1985; Deal veiled a story of oppression where others told a
& Kennedy, 1982), most theorists chose to view it tale of productivity. While these two orientations
as an integrative normative device. In doing so toward culture are not inherently inconsistent,
they implicitly drew on the values that underlie they do show the effects of different values
functionalist theorizing by scholars such as Rad- on the construction of theories about organiza-
cliffe-Brown (1949), Malinowski (1962), and tions.
Durkheim (1933). Therefore, their implicit func- While values often can only be revealed by
tional orientation (placing emphasis on sustain- psychoanalytic, historical, and ideological stud-
ing the organization as a whole) may make ies of the theorist (e.g., Gay's work on Freud,
them vulnerable to criticism that they serve the 1988; Mintzman's work on Weber, 1970), spatial
interests of management. In more recent work and temporal assumptions are often relatively
from the conflict theory perspective, culture is apparent. Spatial boundaries are conditions re-
viewed as an organizational mechanism for the stricting the use of the theory to specific units of
normative coercion of the individual worker. For analysis (e.g., specific types of organizations).
example, Kunda (in press), in studying a com- Temporal contingencies specify the historical
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
Falsifiability Utility
510
511
512
References
Aldrich, H. (1979) Organizations and environments. Engle- Brodbeck, M. (1959) Models, meaning, and theories. In L.
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gross (Ed.), Symposium on sociological theory (pp. 373-
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) Structural equation 403). New York: Harper & Row.
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two- Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959) Convergent and discrimi-
step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. nant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psy-
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1977) Theory in practice: In- chological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
creasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jos- Chamberlain, N. W., & Kuhn, J. W. (1965) Collective bar-
sey-Bass. gaining (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Axelrod (1984) The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Child, J. (1972) Organizational structure, environment, and
Books. performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1),
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. (1979) Bargaining. San Fran- 1-22.
cisco: Jossey-Bass. Chronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) Construct validity in
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. (1980) Power and politics in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, B. (1980) Developing sociological knowledge: Theory
Bailey, K. D. (1970) Evaluating axiomatic theories. In E. F. and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Borgatta & G. W. Bohrnstedt (Eds.), Sociological method- Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972) A garbage can
ology (pp. 48-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. model of organizational choice. Administrative Science
Bamberger, P. (in press) Re-inventing innovation theory: Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
Critical issues in the conceptualization, measurement and
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982) Corporate cultures.
analysis of technological innovation. In S. Bacharach
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
(Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations, Vol. 8.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dubin, R. (1969) Theory building. New York: Free Press.
Beehr, T., & Newman, J. (1978) Job stress, employee health, Dubin, R. (1976) Theory building in applied areas. In Marvin
and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis model D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-
and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699. tional psychology (pp. 17-40). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bierstedt, R. (1959) Nominal and real definitions in sociolog- Durkheim, E. (1933) The division of labor in society. New
ical theory. In L. Gross (Ed.), Symposium on sociological York: MacMillan.
theory (pp. 121-144). New York: Harper & Row. Dyer, L., & Holder, G. W. (1989) Toward a strategic perspec-
Blalock, H. M. (1969) Theory construction: From verbal to tive of human resource management. In L. Dyer (Ed.),
mathematical formulations. New York: Prentice-Hall. Human resource management: Evolving roles and re-
Blalock, H. M. (1968) The measurement problem: A gap be- sponsibilities (pp. 1-46). Washington, DC: Bureau of Na-
tween the languages of theory and research. In H. M. Bla- tional Affairs.
lock, Jr., & A. B. Blalock (Eds.), Methodology in social re- Emerson, R. M. (1962) Power-dependence relations. Ameri-
search (pp. 5-27). New York: McGraw-Hill. can Sociological Review, 27, 31-40.
Blau, P., & Scott, R. (1962) Formal organizations. San Fran- Etzioni, A. (1975) A comparative analysis of complex orga-
cisco: Chandler. nizations. New York: Free Press.
513
Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957) Theories of personality. New Malinowski, B. (1962) Sex, culture, and myth. New York: Har-
York: Wiley. court, Brace & World.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977) The population ecology of Merton, R. K. (1957) Social theory and social structure. New
organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929- York: Free Press.
964. Miller, D. (1986) Configurations of strategy and structure.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984) Structural inertia and or- Strategic Management Journal, 7, 233-250.
ganizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, Miller, D. (1987) The genesis of configuration. Academy of
149- 164. Management Review, 12, 686-701.
Hawking, S. (1988) A brief history of time: From the big bang Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1977) Strategy making in context:
to black holes. New York: Bantam. Ten empirical archetypes. Journal of Management Stud-
Heise, D. R., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1970) Validity, invalidity, ies, 14, 259-280.
and reliability. In E. F. Borgatta and G. W. Bohrnstedt Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984) Organizations: A quantum
(Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 104-129). San Fran- view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mills, C. Wright (1956) The power elite. New York: Oxford
Hempel, C. (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation. New University Press.
York: Free Press.
Mintzman, A. (1970) The iron cage: An historical interpreta-
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948) The logic of expla- tion of Max Weber. New York: Knopf.
nation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135-175.
Nagel, E. (1961) The structure of science: Problems in the
Hrebiniak, L., & Joyce, W. (1985) Organizational adaptation: logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace
Strategic choice and environmental determinism. Admin- and World.
istrative Science Quarterly, 30, 336-349.
Newton, T. & Keenan, A. (1987) Role stress reexamined: An
Kaplan, A. (1964) The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: investigation of role stress predictors. Organizational Be-
Chandler. havior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 346-368.
Kemery, E., Bedeian, A., Mossholder, K., & Touliatos, J. Parsons, T. (1962) The social system. Glencoe, IL:Free Press.
(1985) Outcomes of role stress: A multi-sample constructive
replication. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 363- Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966) Scientists in organiza-
375. tions. New York: John Wiley.
Kemery, E., Mossholder, K., & Bedeian, A. (1987) Role stress, Pen, J. (1952) A general theory of bargaining. American Eco-
physical symptomology, and turnover intentions: A causal nomic Review, 42, 24-42.
analysis of three alternative specifications. Journal of Oc- Perrow, C. (1986) Complex organizations: A critical essay
cupational Behaviour, 8, 11-23. (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973) Foundations of behavioral research Popper, K. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. New York:
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Harper & Row.
514
515