Political Organization
Introduction
In the problem statement on my homepage, I claimed that contemporary organizational scholarship has been pigeon-holed by business schools and management journals into the study of firms and related economic institutions.
This is both unfortunate and ironic, given that the early foundations of organization theory were built primarily on studies of large political institutions such as bureaucracies, parties and states.
I also claimed that contemporary organizational studies of bureaucracies, militaries, religious organizations, parties, factions, coalitions, confederations and other power-wielding institutions are rare and esoteric. That being said, some of these studies are fantastic, and worthy of emulation.
The following sections summarize notable works of organization theory of political institutions. Summaries and readings have been curated from course syllabi, my personal understanding, and with help from ChatGPT.
Bureaucracies
Foundational Works
Key works in organization theory, particularly on bureaucracies, come from a range of scholars who have explored how large formal organizations function. These works laid the foundation for understanding bureaucracies as complex social systems, with both benefits and challenges in managing large organizations. Some foundational works include:
- Max Weber – “Economy and Society” (1922). Weber’s theory of bureaucracy is a cornerstone of organization theory. He outlined the characteristics of bureaucracy, including a clear hierarchy, formal rules, and a focus on efficiency and rationality. Weber viewed bureaucracy as the most efficient way to organize complex societies.
- Herbert Simon – “Administrative Behavior” (1947). Simon introduced the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making within organizations. He argued that individuals in bureaucracies often make decisions based on limited information and cognitive capacity, rather than perfect rationality.
- Chester Barnard – “The Functions of the Executive” (1938). Barnard emphasized the importance of communication, informal organizations, and the role of the executive in maintaining the balance between efficiency and the human needs of workers within bureaucracies.
- Philip Selznick – “TVA and the Grass Roots” (1949). Selznick developed the concept of “institutionalization,” showing how organizations take on lives of their own beyond their formal structures. His work explored how bureaucratic organizations can become infused with values and goals that go beyond their original mandates.
- Michel Crozier – “The Bureaucratic Phenomenon” (1964). Crozier examined how bureaucratic organizations are marked by rigid structures, leading to inefficiency and resistance to change. His work critiqued the depersonalization and power struggles that often occur within bureaucracies.
- James March and Johan Olsen – “Rediscovering Institutions” (1989). March and Olsen revisited institutional theory by emphasizing how organizations are shaped by rules, norms, and routines that evolve over time, influencing decision-making and behavior.
- Robert K. Merton – “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality” (1940). Merton’s essay highlighted the dysfunctions of bureaucracies, such as rigidity and goal displacement. He argued that strict adherence to rules could lead to inefficiency and a focus on procedure rather than outcomes.
- Alvin W. Gouldner – “Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy” (1954). Gouldner studied the different ways bureaucracies function in industrial settings. He identified patterns of bureaucratic behavior, including a focus on rules, the formalization of roles, and the impact of these structures on organizational effectiveness.
Bureacracies in Democracies
- .
- .
- .
Communist Bureaucracies
- .
- .
- .
Parties and Factions
Foundational Works
- Michels
- Panebianco
Recent Works
- .
- .
The State
Prevailing Models of the State
States are comprised of networks and organizations. What are current models of the state and how do they differ in their organizational structure? How strongly correlated are state typologies with particular organizational forms? My intuition is that this correlation is low. The same categories of states may have vastly different internal organization, and homologous organizational forms may span states of seemingly different categories. How does organizational structure impact state outcomes and capacity?
Michael Mann summarizes six models of the state in Volume 2, Chapter 1 of Power.
- Class-based models, e.g., capitalist, socialist
- Plurality-based models, e.g., democratic, autocratic
- Personalist elite models, e.g.,
- Institutionalized elite models,
- Cock-up models
- Organizational models, e.g., 2-3 examples.
He argues that the first five models emphasize one or another particular aspect of states, at the expense of others. Organizational models, he argues, are the most reducible theories which sufficiently capture the complexity of the state. [Insert some of his quotes.]
Modern Democratic States
- .
- .
- .
Communist States
- .
- .
- .
Military
Foundational Works
Key works of organization theory applied to militaries explore how military institutions are structured, function, and adapt. These works integrate concepts from sociology, political science, and organizational studies. Below are some foundational works and key contributions. ChatGPT provided this list of interesting references; however, read with caution, as I haven’t vetted all of these sources myself:
- “The Soldier and the State” by Samuel P. Huntington (1957): Huntington’s work is foundational in understanding civil-military relations. He introduces the concepts of objective and subjective control over the military and discusses the professionalism of military officers.
- “The Professional Soldier” by Morris Janowitz (1960): Janowitz explores the evolution of the military profession in modern societies. He contrasts Huntington’s views and highlights the changing role of military professionals in liberal democracies.
- “The Military-Industrial Complex” by Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961): While this is more of a political speech, it introduced the idea of the military-industrial complex, a concept that has had a significant impact on understanding how military organizations are influenced by external economic and political forces.
- “Bureaucracy and Military Power” by Raymond Aron (1958): Aron focuses on the bureaucratic structures within military organizations and the tensions between military effectiveness and political control.
- “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis” by Graham Allison (1971): Though focused on a specific historical event, Allison’s work introduces decision-making models (rational actor, organizational process, and bureaucratic politics) that are widely applied in analyzing military organizations.
- “On War” by Carl von Clausewitz (1832): Though not strictly an organizational theory work, Clausewitz’s ideas on strategy, the nature of war, and the “fog of war” remain influential in understanding military operations and organizations.
- “War, Politics and Power: Selections from On War, and I Believe and Profess” by John Keegan (1976): Keegan critiques the Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing the historical and cultural diversity in military organization and the behavior of soldiers.
Theories and Concepts
The following is a list of theories and concepts from organization theory which are relevant to military organization:
- Max Weber’s Bureaucratic Theory: Weber’s ideas on bureaucracy are essential for understanding the hierarchical and rule-based structure of military organizations.
- Contingency Theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967): This theory suggests that the most effective organizational structure is contingent upon the environment. In military settings, it explains how different combat situations require different organizational designs.
- Systems Theory (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, 1968): Military organizations are often viewed as complex systems with interrelated parts. Systems theory helps explain how militaries interact with their external environments and maintain internal stability.
- Network-Centric Warfare (David S. Alberts & Richard E. Hayes, 2003): This theory emphasizes the role of information technology in modern military operations, shifting from traditional hierarchical command structures to decentralized, network-based operations.
- Sociotechnical Systems Theory: This theory looks at the interaction between people (social systems) and technology in organizational settings. In militaries, this is critical for understanding how new technologies affect command, control, and coordination.
Contemporary Studies
These more recent works provide a broad spectrum of perspectives on how military organizations operate, adapt, and are influenced by both internal and external factors.
- “Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle” by Stephen Biddle (2004): Biddle integrates organizational and technological factors to explain why some military forces are more effective than others in battle.
- “The Transformation of War” by Martin van Creveld (1991): Van Creveld discusses the shifting nature of warfare and military organization in the post-industrial era, focusing on non-state actors and asymmetric warfare.
- “Command in War” by Martin van Creveld (1985): This work explores how different command structures have been used throughout history and their implications for military effectiveness.
- “The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics” by Michael Horowitz (2010): Horowitz examines how technological changes impact military organization and the diffusion of power between states.
- “Adaptive Military Forces” by Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn (1999): The focus here is on how military organizations adapt to new threats and challenges, emphasizing flexibility and learning.
Literature and History
In addition to formal organizational theories of military, history and literature both point to interesting organizational aspects of military and war.
- “War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy: Alludes to the near impossibilty for 19th Century commanders to direct field operations in real-time, once the field clouds over with the smoke from cannon fire.
- Histories of the Roman Empire:
Coalitions and Confederations
Decentralized forms of political organization
- .
- .
- .