¹ See, for example, Cohen, Michael D., March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P., “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (March, 1972), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin, “Motivational Processes in Groups: Introduction,” in Group Dynamics, 3rd ed., ed. Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), pp. 403–407.Google Scholar

³ Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. Henderson, A. M. and ed. Parsons, Talcott (New York: Oxford, 1947), pp. 337–341.Google Scholar

⁴ Michels, Robert, Political Parties, trsans. Eden, and Paul, Cedar (New York: Dover, 1959).Google Scholar

⁵ Parsons, Talcott, “Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations—I.” Administrative Science Quarterly 1 (June, 1956), 64–67.Google Scholar

⁶ Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure, 3rd ed. (New York: Free Press, 1968), pp. 114–115.Google Scholar

⁷ Etzioni, Amitai, “Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion,” Administrative Science Quarterly 5 (Sept., 1960), 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Etzioni, Amitai, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1964).Google Scholar

⁹ Seashore, Stanley and Yuchtman, Ephraim, “Factorial Analysis of Organizational Performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (Dec., 1967), 377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yuchtman, Ephraim and Seashore, Stanley, “A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness,” American Sociological Review 32 (Dec., 1967), 891–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Etzioni, , “Two Approaches,” p. 261.Google Scholar

¹¹ Etzioni, , “Two Approaches,” p. 262.Google Scholar

¹² Etzioni, , Modern Organizations, p. 19.Google Scholar

¹³ Etzioni, , “Two Approaches,” p. 270.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Etzioni, , Modern Organizations, p. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Etzioni, Modern Organizations.

¹⁶ Etzioni, , Modern Organizations, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Etzioni, Modern Organizations.

¹⁸ Yuchtman and Seashore, p. 898.

¹⁹ Yuchtman and Seashore, p. 901.

²⁰ Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G., A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 26–43Google Scholar; Simon, Herbert A., “On the Concept of Organizational Goal,” Administrative Science Quarterly 9 (June, 1964), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Simon, p. 7.

²² Cyert and March.

²³ March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A., Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1958), pp. 125–126.Google Scholar

²⁴ Simon, p. 13.

²⁵ Etzioni, , Modern Organizations, p. 6.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin, “Individual Motives and Group Goals: Introduction,” in Group Dynamics, 2nd ed., ed. Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin (New York: Row, Peterson, 1960), p. 349.Google Scholar

²⁷ Warner, W. Keith, “Problems in Measuring the Goal Attainment of Voluntary Organizations,” Journal of Adult Education 19 (Fall, 1967), 5.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Thompson, James D., Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 127–128; Simon, p. 1.Google Scholar

²⁹ Thompson, p. 128.

³⁰ See March, James G., “The Power of Power,” in Varieties of Political Theory, ed. Easton, David (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), p. 70.Google Scholar

³¹ Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Menzel, Herbert, “On the Relation Between Individual and Collective Properties,” in Complex Organizations, ed. Etzioni, Amitai (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), pp. 422–440.Google Scholar

³² Thompson, pp. 28–29.

³³ Cyert, and March, , A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (p. 28)Google Scholar, reject the idea of consensus, but only because, undoubtedly, there is rarely if ever a common preference ordering among organizational members. Surely, this is asking too much. Even an individual may well not have a clear preference ordering among his values, yet each value in the list is undeniably a value nonetheless. In the same sense, there may be a consensus on several goals within a group, but little interpersonal consensus on their ranking.

³⁴ Perrow, Charles, “The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations,” American Sociological Review, 26 (Dec., 1961), 855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ Deniston, O. L., Rosenstock, I. M., and Getting, V. A., “Evaluation of Program Effectiveness,” Public Health Reports 83 (April, 1968), 325–326.Google ScholarPubMed

³⁶ Deniston.

³⁷ Warner, p. 5.

³⁸ Deniston, p. 330.

³⁹ Gross, Edward, “The Definition of Organizational Goals,” British Journal of Sociology 20 (Sept., 1969), 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Cartwright, and Zander, , “Motivational Processes,” Group Dynamics, 2nd ed., p. 401.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Perrow, Charles, “Organizational Goals,” in Inter national Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. Sills, David (New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968), Vol. 11, pp. 306–309.Google Scholar These ideas have been substantially elaborated by Perrow, in his recent book, Organizational Analysis: A Sociological Review (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1970), pp. 133–174.Google Scholar

⁴² Gross, pp. 282–286.

⁴³ Gross, p. 287.

⁴⁴ Gross, pp. 282–283.

⁴⁵ Gross, Edward, “Universities as Organizations: A Research Approach,” American Sociological Review, 33 (Aug., 1968), 518–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gross suggests that these two types of goals are co-equal (“Organizational Goals,” pp. 291–292), but his discussion in general, especially as it includes the label “support goals,” implies that these latter are subordinate and instrumental to the output goals. What is lacking is explicit recognition of what may be deduced by careful scrutiny of the goals he investigated, viz., that the “support goals” are in fact oriented toward benefitting the members of the organization itself.

⁴⁶ See Bales, Robert F. and Slater, Philip E., “Role Differentiation in Small Decision-making Groups,” in Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, ed. Parsons, Talcott and Bales, Robert F. (Glencoe: Free Press, 1955), pp. 259–306Google Scholar; Barnard, Chester I., The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), pp. 55–56Google Scholar; Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin, “Leadership and Performance of Group Functions: Introduction,” in Cartwright, and Zander, , Group Dynamics, 3rd ed., pp. 306–307Google Scholar; Deutsch, Karl W., The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963), pp. 92–93Google Scholar; Dent, James K., “Organizational Correlates of the Goals of Business Management,” Journal of Personnel Psychology 12 (Autumn, 1959), 365–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Etzioni, Amitai, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press, 1961), pp. 89–126Google Scholar; Friedlander, Frank and Pickle, Hal, “Components of Effectiveness in Small Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly 13 (Sept., 1968), p. 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L., The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1966), p. 66.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The usage of the terms “transitive” and “reflexive” here is somewhat closer to their application in grammar than in mathematics. “Transitive” has the sense of a verb taking a direct object—the organization has an impact on something else. “Reflexive” refers to what the organization does for itself.

⁴⁸ Deniston, , “Evaluation of Program Effectiveness,” pp. 325–330.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Kaplan, Abraham, The Conduct of Inquiry (San Francisco: Chandler, 1964), pp. 394–396.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See March, and Simon, , Organizations, pp. 83–88.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Perrow, , Organizational Analysis, pp. 133–174.Google Scholar

⁵² Gross, , “Organizational Goals,” p. 287.Google Scholar

⁵³ Wildavsky, Aaron, The Politics of the Budgetary Process (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. Gross, pp. 291–292.

⁵⁵ See Dent.

⁵⁶ See Simon, Herbert A., Smithburg, Donald W., and Thompson, Victor A., Public Administration (New York: Knopf, 1950), pp. 269–272.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Gross, , “Organizational Goals,” p. 290.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cartwright, and Zander, , “Motivational Processes,” in Group Dynamics, 3rd ed., pp. 409–411Google Scholar; Etzioni, , Modern Organizations, p. 5Google Scholar; March and Simon, pp. 155–156; and Zald, Mayer N., “The Comparative Analysis and Measurement of Organizational Goals: The Case of Correctional Institutions for Delinquents,” Sociological Quarterly, 4 (Summer, 1963), 206–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Likert, Rensis, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 71–76Google Scholar; Merton, pp. 249–260; and Warner, W. Keith and Havens, A. Eugene, “Goal Displacement and the Intangibility of Organizational Goals,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (March, 1968), 545–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁰ Cohen, Kalman J. and Cyert, Richard M., “Simulation of Organizational Behavior,” in Handbook of Organizations, ed. March, James G. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), pp. 308–314.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Etzioni, , Modern Organizations, p. 6Google Scholar; Warner, , “Problems in Measuring,” p. 8Google Scholar; and Warriner, Charles K., “The Problem of Organizational Purpose,” Sociological Quarterly 6 (Spring, 1965), 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² For example, see Perrow, , “The Analysis of Goals,” p. 856.Google Scholar

⁶³ Warriner, p. 142.

⁶⁴ See Zelditch, Morris Jr., “Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies,” American Journal of Sociology 67 (March, 1962), 569–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁵ Gross, , “Universities as Organizations,” p. 523.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Campbell, Donald T., “Reforms as Experiments,” American Psychologist 24 (April, 1969), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁷ Deniston, “Evaluation of Program Effectiveness.”

⁶⁸ Cf. Banfield, Edward C., “Ends and Means in Planning,” in Mailick, Sidney and Ness, Edward Van, eds., Concepts and Issues in Administrative Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962), pp. 75–79.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Cf. the term “appropriateness” as used by Deniston, pp. 323–324.

⁷⁰ Seashore and Yuchtman, “Factorial Analysis of Organizational Performance”; Yuchtman and Seashore, “System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness.”

⁷¹ Gross, “Universities as Organizations.”

⁷² Dalton, Melville, Men Who Manage (New York: Wiley, 1959).Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. Burns, Tom, “The Comparative Study of Organizations,” in Methods of Organizational Research, ed. Vroom, Victor (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967), pp. 132–133.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Zander, Alvin, “The Purposes of National Associations,” Research Center for Group Dynamics, The University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: 1970).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Michels.

⁷⁶ Lipset, Seymour M., Trow, Martin, and Coleman, James S., Union Democracy (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1956).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Gross, , “Universities as Organizations,” p. 529.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Dent, pp. 365, 366, 369, 388, 391.

⁸⁰ Seashore and Yuchtman, p. 395.