[Excerpt] In  War and Peace,  Baron, Dobbin, and Jennings provide an integrative analysis of the role of internal organizational requirements and external environmental forces in structuring the personnel function in modern organizations. To appreciate fully the scope of this contribution to organizational theory and research, it is useful to consider briefly the general development of studies of formal organizations over the last four decades

Tolbert, Pamela S

English

[Excerpt] In "War and Peace," Baron, Dobbin, and Jennings provide an integrative analysis of the role of internal organizational requirements and external environmental forces in structuring the personnel function in modern organizations. To appreciate fully the scope of this contribution to organizational theory and research, it is useful to consider briefly the general development of studies of formal organizations over the last four decades.Tolbert27_Comments_on_War_and_Peace.pdf: 270 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Tolbert, Pamela S.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

Comments on "War and Peace"

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Articles and Chapters ILR Collection 
1992 
Comments on "War and Peace" 
Pamela S. Tolbert 
Cornell University, pst3@cornell.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles 
 Part of the Labor Relations Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ILR Collection at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more 
information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Comments on "War and Peace" 
Abstract 
[Excerpt] In "War and Peace," Baron, Dobbin, and Jennings provide an integrative analysis of the role of 
internal organizational requirements and external environmental forces in structuring the personnel 
function in modern organizations. To appreciate fully the scope of this contribution to organizational 
theory and research, it is useful to consider briefly the general development of studies of formal 
organizations over the last four decades. 
Keywords 
organizations, research, institutional theory, groups, structure, variation 
Disciplines 
Labor Relations | Organizational Behavior and Theory 
Comments 
Suggested Citation 
Tolbert, P. S. (1992). Comments on ‘War and peace’ [Electronic version]. In P. J. Frost & R. E. Stablein 
(Eds.), Doing exemplary research (pp. 193-197). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. 
Required Publisher Statement 
Copyright held by SAGE. Reprinted with permission. 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/426 
Commentary 
Comments on "War and Peace" 
Pamela S. Tolbert 
In "War and Peace," Baron, Dobbin, and Jennings provide an integra-
tive analysis of the role of internal organizational requirements and 
external environmental forces in structuring the personnel function in 
modern organizations. To appreciate fully the scope of this contribu-
tion to organizational theory and research, it is useful to consider 
briefly the general development of studies of formal organizations 
over the last four decades. 
Although the historical origins of the sociological study of organi-
zations as a distinctive academic subfield are usually traced to the 
early twentieth century, with Weber's (1946) classic analysis of the 
bureaucratic form of organization and Taylor's (1911) more pragmat-
ically oriented studies of the structure of weak organizations, the 
central impetus behind the contemporary proliferation of systematic, 
comparative analyses of sources of formal organizational structure is 
probably most closely identified with Woodward's (1964) pioneering 
work on organizational structure and technology. Over the approx-
imately 40-year span since Woodward began her research, some 
marked shifts have occurred in work on this problem. 
Probably the most notable change has been a general shift from 
closed systems models of organizations, treating formal structure as 
the result of efforts to manage relations among individuals and groups 
within an organization (e.g., Blau, 1970; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & 
Turner, 1968; Woodward, 1964), to open systems models, premised on 
the assumption that formal structure is driven primarily by problems 
of changing resource flows and relationships with major actors in the 
organization's environment (e.g., Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Thompson 
& McEwen, 1958). Most empirical analyses and explanations of struc-
tural variation have focused primarily on either internal relations or 
193 
194 SEVEN JOURNEYS 
external relations; few have attempted to consider systematically both 
sets of relations or the interplay of internal needs and external de-
mands in shaping structure. 
Despite changes in dominant theoretical views of the primary locus 
of structural variation, a remarkably constant assumption that has 
underpinned the vast majority of post-World War II research on formal 
structure is that organizations can and do adapt their structures fre-
quently in response to immediate problems they face. This implicit 
assumption is evidenced both by researchers' reliance on cross-
sectional data in developing and documenting explanations of struc-
ture and by the notably ahistorical character of such explanations. 
• • We do not mean to imply that such firm-level considerations as scale, 
turnover, and labor unrest were unimportant in shaping modern person-
nel systems; indeed, we have alluded to their effects throughout. Nor do 
we wish to suggest that management and labor were thoroughly passive 
recipients of edicts from above. We do, however, take issue with perspec-
tives that trace changes in the employment relationship to ineluctable 
imperatives shaping organizational behavior, whether those perspectives 
refer to surplus-expropriating capitalists, profit-maximizing managers, or 
utility-maximizing laborers. Such accounts are reductionistic and overly 
simplistic. By sanctioning modern employment practices and by encour-
aging the diffusion of those practices throughout the economy, the state 
has played a major role in the spread of bureaucratic control and internal 
labor markets. 9 9 
(Baron, Dobbin, & Jennings, 1986, p. 379) 
However, the notion of a normally high degree of flexibility and 
responsiveness in structural arrangements runs directly counter to the 
real-life experiences of most individuals in organizations. A common 
response to those who question apparently inefficient and ineffec-
tive organizational practices or policies is some variant of "This is 
the way we do it." Occasionally, such responses are elaborated by 
historical explanations of the origins of the arrangements. Hence, in 
sharp contrast to traditional organizational theory, everyday practical 
experience in organizations is likely to lead to the conclusion that 
structural arrangements often have more to do with historical prob-
lems and inertial forces in organizations than with current problems 
and conditions. 
Major paradigms in organizational theory have begun only recently 
to direct attention to historical and inertial aspects of organizations in 
explaining structure (see, e.g., Hannan & Freeman, 1977; Meyer & 
Rowan, 1977). A central and very valuable contribution of the work of 
Comments on "War and Peace" 195 
Baron and his coauthors on structures for personnel management is 
the provision of a well-developed model of what such explanations 
might look like. 
By examining historical data on the use of various personnel prac-
tices by firms in different industries over a lengthy period, they are 
able to trace the patterns of adoption of personnel structures in the 
context of a carefully developed historical account of critical national 
events, an account that considers a range of corporate actors and 
interests involved in such adoptions. Based on the quantitative data 
and the more qualitative historical record, they argue that the spread 
of personnel structures is not completely compatible with current class 
conflict explanations (which, like traditional closed systems models in 
organizational theory, typically emphasize organizational problems of 
internal coordination and control as the driving force behind structural 
arrangements). Their analysis suggests that in most cases the spread 
also reflects the progressive institutionalization of rationalized person-
nel systems; thus the role of environmental pressures on organizations, 
created both by increasing governmental regulation and proselytiza-
tion by representatives of the new occupation of personnel manage-
ment, is also taken into account in their explanation. 
It is important to note that in developing this argument, they effec-
tively deal with a central criticism of institutional theory: its frequent 
failure to specify the roles of particular agents and interests in instigat-
ing social change. The analysis carefully locates the source of the 
institutionalization of personnel structures in the interwoven interests 
of the state, industrial managers, unions, and an emergent occupa-
tional group. 
I have used this article in courses on occupations, as a well-
articulated case study of the role of organizations in generating new 
professional and managerial occupations, and in courses on organiza-
tions, as an important example of a well-crafted, contextualized anal-
ysis of sources of structure. As an incidental point, it is interesting to 
note that most graduate students in human resource management that 
I have taught are both fascinated with and generally convinced by this 
account of their occupational origins. 
• • In sum, our analyses provide some support for theoretical perspectives 
that link unionization with the evolution of technical and bureaucratic 
control in U.S. industry. However, it is clearly difficult to determine from 
these data whether industrial unions were "co-opted" by management's 
experiments in personnel administration or to estimate precisely the 
magnitude of unions' influence on changes in the employment relation-
ship during this period. As we have seen, management sometimes 
196 SEVEN JOURNEYS 
adopted and extended specialized personnel activities even in the ab-
sence of unions or proximate union threats, especially in the nonmanu-
facturing sector (see, e.g., banking, insurance, and trade in table 1). Also, 
unions genuinely perceived many of these innovations to be beneficial. _ 
The same seniority systems that provided firms with convenient bases 
for administering rewards also protected industrial workers from layoffs 
and capricious treatment. Thus, unions and bureaucratic arrangements 
may have been complementary means of controlling workers in many 
instances (particularly in CIO industries), rather than alternatives, as 
Pfeffer and Cohen (1984) have suggested. Increased accommodation 
between labor and management during this period aided the diffusion of 
modern personnel innovations. 9 9 
(Baron, Dobbin, & Jennings, 1986, p. 368) 
As a model for theoretically integrative research on organizational 
structure, this analysis has a number of implications for future work 
on this topic. First, although a variety of researchers have underscored 
the need to incorporate historical and social context into any explana-
tion of organizational structure, strikingly few studies have heeded 
this injunction. "War and Peace" illustrates the theoretical richness that 
is gained when the historical contexts of structural analyses are explic-
itly taken into account. This work also demonstrates the importance 
of being sensitive to potential alliances of interests among various 
actors, both within and outside of the organization, in constructing 
historically grounded explanations of structure. Another way of put-
ting this is that Baron, Dobbin, and Jennings's analysis highlights the 
frequent problems that beset accounts positing a single dominant 
interest as the driving force of organizational change. More often than 
not, "competing" explanations that point to different interests as the 
locus of structural change are not as competitive as they seem, but 
rather represent partial explanations. 
This approach also points up the need for careful construction and 
mining of historical, archival sources of data on organizations. Because 
longitudinal data—specifically, data that extend over several genera-
tions—are usually necessary to observe changes in structural patterns 
among organizations, researchers need to develop the required meth-
odological skills for locating and using historical sources of organiza-
tional data. It is clear that such data are not without serious problems 
and limitations. This is pointed up by Denk's (1988) criticism of Baron 
et al. 's failure to address directly the issue of sources of inter-
organizational variation in the adoption of personnel structures. The 
kinds of data needed to answer adequately the questions raised by 
Denk are quite different from the data that were available to the 
Comments on "War and Peace" 197 
researchers. Hence the collection and use of archival material require 
not only considerable ingenuity on the part of researchers, but also 
careful recognition of the limitations posed by such data to the docu-
mentation of underlying theoretically causal mechanisms. In some 
cases, it is likely that such limitations could be overcome in part 
through more in-depth historical analyses of a subset of cases designed 
to supplement the analyses of the broader patterns of change. 
Finally, although Baron et al. do not specifically raise the issue of 
processes of population-level change, their research underscores the 
need for empirical research addressing the current theoretical debate 
over respective roles of selection and adaptation in generating changes 
in organizational populations. Did the increasing prominence of for-
mal personnel practices across industries occur primarily through the 
widespread adoption of such practices by extant organizations, or 
through environmental selection of organizations that resisted such 
change? This issue, which has important implications for the research 
agenda of organizational studies, requires the kind of broad-scale, 
longitudinal research exemplified in "War and Peace." 


Comments on  War and Peace

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1433&amp;context=articles

Comments on War and Peace

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR