SW N390R10: Introduction to Human Service Administration

11 June 1998

Organizational Theory

Organizational theory is not a single theory. Rather it is a loosely knit set of paradigms and metaphors developed from many different disciplines through the use of many approaches to organizational analysis. The development of organization theory has not evolved as an orderly progression of ideas or a unified body of knowledge in which each development builds carefully on and extends the one before it. Rather, theoretical developments and practice prescriptions often show disagreement about the purposes and uses of a theory of organizations, the issues to which is should address itself, and the concepts and variables that should enter into such a theory. As one reviews the historical development and contemporary formulations of organization theory, one is struck by the great diversity in themes, questions, methods, and explanatory modes encompassed under the umbrella called organization theory.

The multi-disciplinary character of the field is probably the most important source of this diversity. Most of the social sciences have contributed and continue to contribute to organization theory. In addition, the major professions such as social work, business, law, etc. have drawn heavily from the theoretical formulations developed in the major social sciences. Generally more concerned with the practical application of organization theory, the professions have made their own unique contributions to organization theory. This variety has contributed to the richness and complexity of our understanding of organizations. At the same time, it has produced little conceptual agreement on the fundamental assumptions about the nature of organizations or the uses and purposes of organizational theory.

As an introduction to organization theory, I have produced the following list of social science disciplines that have contributed to our understanding of organizations and a few of the central questions driving their interest in organizations.

Sociology: The science of society, social institutions, and social relations; specifically, the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of people.

Questions: What is the relationship between the formal organizations and the informal social life of the organization? How are organizational activities coordinated and controlled? What are the key social institutions, roles, and values in the organization? How are they related to external institutions and values? How do organizations interact? How are they linked?

Psychology: The social science that examines personality, cognition, emotional life, and behavior.

Questions: How are we motivated? What attitudes or personality types lead to behavior that is valued in organizations? How do perception and learning influence organizational behavior such as work motivation and productivity? What are the processes of effective communication?

Social Psychology: The social science concerned with attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors in social settings and the interaction of people.

Questions: What is leadership and what are the most effective forms of leadership? How are attitudes formed in organizations, and how do they influence work behavior? How do cohesive groups form, how do members interact, and what are the implications for organizational functioning?

Anthropology: Social science concerned with the origins of humankind and its physical, social, and cultural development.

Questions: What are the cultural norms of the organizations and how are they manifested in stories, rituals, and symbols? How are organizational norms related to the norms of the larger culture? How do they affect implementation of policies and the political strategies of the organization?

Economics: The social science concerned with the analysis of markets and the systems by which goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed.

Questions: What are the differences in market relations and economic motivation between public and private organizations? What economic conditions are necessary for the formation of a public agency? How is decision making linked to the economic characteristics of organizations?

Political Science: Social science concerned with the institutions and processes of government, public policy, and politics.

Questions: What is the role of bureaus in government? What are the political responsibilities of bureaus? How are power and influence exercised within bureaus and in their relations with other actors, government bodies, and constituencies?

Images of Organizations

Different theoretical perspectives can be thought of a windows into the organization. That is, they allow us to see inside the organization and provide us with an image of a particular facet of organizations. One way to represent those images is by using methaphors.

The Randon House Dictionary defines metaphor as "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance." For example, several years ago when my 2 year old son first noticed a full moon he said "ball." When he first saw the advertisements for the movie Lion King, he said "kitty." In essence, he was using metaphors whereby familiar elements from his experience (ball and cat) are used to understand unfamiliar elements (moon and lions).

Metaphors are common in our everyday language. For example, the metaphor "Ivory Tower" is sometimes used to refer to the University. A few years ago when the U.S. Congress was debating a crime bill, Newt Gingrich referred to it as a "Trojan Horse." Metaphors are useful elements of our language because they help us gain insight into things of which we may have only limited understanding. For this reason, metaphors are often used to produce images of organizations.

A few years ago Gareth Morgan wrote a book called Images of Organizations in which he used metaphors to develop images of complex organizations. Some of the metaphors he used include:

Organizations as machines
. . . as organisms
. . . as brains
. . . as cultures
. . . as political systems
. . . as psychic prisons
. . . as flux and transformation
. . . as instruments of domination

These metaphors conjures up different "images" of organizations. However, they can also constrain us by focusing our attention on a single facet, or narrow range of facets, of what is for all practical purposes a multifacets social system. Therefore, we must be cautious in using metaphors to help us understand complex organizations. At the same time, as we read about and discuss organizations throughout this course, we will sometimes find it helpful to use metaphors to help us gain insight into different dimensions of organizations.

Level of analysis in organizational theory

As complex social systems, organizations cut across levels of analysis. For example, some theories help us understand the behaviors, attitudes, and motivations of individual members of the organization. Other theories are more concerned with the characteristics of some aspect or segment of organizational structure and therefore focus on the organization as the unit of analysis. Still other theories are concerned with the characteristics or actions of the organization as a collective entity or of a network (system) of interacting organizations. Some questions attempt to cut across levels of analysis where independent variables at one level are used to explain dependent variables at other levels. For example, research has been done to help us understand how the individual attributes, backgrounds, and personal contacts of key organizational leaders might contribute to the development and maintenance of exchange relationships between different organizations.

Organizational elements

Although organizations represent complex social phenomenon, there are five basic elements that are commonly addressed in organizational theory: social structure, participants (social actors), goals, technology, and the environment. Most theories about organizations are concerned primarily with one or more of these elements, or on the relationships between the elements. Each element is briefly described below.

Social structure. Social structure refers to the patterned or regularized aspects of the relationships existing among the participants in the organization. There are two basic components of the social structure: (1) the normative structure which includes the values, norms, and role expectation found in the organization, and (2) the behavioral structure which focuses on actual behaviors.

Social structure can also be viewed as either formal or inform. Formal structure refers to the explicitly defined social positions and relationships among positions in the organization. The organizational chart is a graphic depiction of the formal social structure of an organization. The informal structure refers to the positions and patterns of relationships which emerge over time in the organization as a result of interactions and unique skills of the participants. Informal often emerges spontaneous out of the day to day interactions of people in the organization.

By combining the normative and behavioral structures with the formal and informal dimensions we can produce a simple 2 by 2 classification scheme for thinking about social structure in organizations.


  Formal Structure

  Informal Structure

 Normative Structure

 Job Descriptions
 Policies and procedures
 Mission statement

 Community values
 Organizational culture

 Behavioral Structure

 Chain of command
 Division of labor
 Organizational chart

 Friendship patterns
 "Grapevine" communication
 Informal negotiation

While this framework helps us highlight different aspects of social structure, the various structures should not be seen as mutually exclusive. That is, the normative structure often interacts in important ways with the behavioral structure and visa versa. The formal and informal structures may also influence one another in important ways.

Participants--social actors. In some ways, participants are central to organizations. Without actors there is no organization, no structure, no social situation. In addition, participants are often actors in multiple organizations. While the object of analysis may be participants as service provider for a human service organization, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that those participants may also be social actors in many diverse organizations. Membership in political parties, voluntary associations, churches, civic groups, and professional associations can have significant impacts on the work setting and the way in which those participants define their role and carry out their work in the organization.

In human service organizations, there are many participants other than service providers. For example, clients are an important organizational participant, particularly in some types of organizations. For example, in some community-based organizations clients assume an important role inmaking administrative and service delivery decisions. In non-profit organizations, the Board of Directors represent important social actors in the organization. In public agencies, elected officials can be significant actors.

Goals. Goals represent conceptualizations of desired ends toward which organizations (or their actors) work. Seemingly a straightforward element of organizations, it has traditionally been one of the more controversial aspects of organizational analysis. For some analysts, goals are central to our understanding of organizations. Others have conceptualized goals as nothing more than justification for past actions. Yet others point out that only individuals have goals and that organizations cannot and do not have goals. Still, goals have been an important concept in understanding organizations and many interesting research questions have focused on the emergence and pursuit of goals and goal clusters within organizations.

Technology. Technology refers to the mechanisms used within the organization to transform inputs into outputs. While the concept carries the connotation of machinery in a manufacturing setting, that definition is too narrow for use in human service organizations. All organizations do some type of work and possess a technology for doing that work. In human service organizations, technology may refer to such things as case management, psycho-dynamic therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, behavior modification, or one of several other treatment modalities. Questions about technology tend to focus on the extend to which technology is routinized, is packaged in the process of delivering services, and on the effectiveness of different types of technology. Other questions tend to be concerned with the interface between "hard" technology (telephones, computers, fax machines) and the more traditional "soft" technology of human service organizations, and on the interface between the client and technology in the helping process. In some ways, clients can be seen as both the raw material to which technology is applied and as a component of the technology itself.

Environment. Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. All organizations are dependent on and are linked to their physical, technological, cultural, and social environment. Resources in the form of funding, clients, trained personnel, etc., must be obtained from the environment. In addition, there must be outlets for the products, services, and programs offered by human service organizations. Some organizational theories give primary attention to the environment as an important element in understanding organizations. Organizations are often seen as reactive units responding and adapting to the demands of their environment. Others see organizations as being proactive, working to alter and control their environment to their own advantage. In reality, both are probably true to some extent. In contemporary organizational theory, the environment is generally viewed as pervasive, influencing all other elements of the organization.

The Nature of Human Beings

Weiner (1990) identifies a number of different perception and interpretations of human behavior and how each of these influences the way that human service organizations are designed and managed. He argues that different perceptions of human beings provides different bases for understanding the ways a society shapes the structures and processes of its social institutions. He identifies several common perspectives on the nature of human beings.

Humans as economic beings
. . . as social beings
. . . as rational beings
. . . as problem-solvers
. . . as competitive beings
. . . as toolmakers
. . . as complex, self-actualizing beings

Theories of Organizations

As stated above, there is not a single theory of organizations but many different perspectives for understanding the nature of organization. Following a framework developed by Scott (1992), the author of our text suggest viewing organizations from the following perspectives:

Each of these perspectives encompasses a number of theoretical approaches for understanding organizations. The Table below summarizes the major theories associated with each of the three perspectives.




 Rational Systems


 Scientific Management

 Administrative Management

 Administrative Behavior

 Max Weber

 Fredrick Winslow Taylor

 Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick
 Henry Fayol

 Herbert Simon

Natural Systems


 Human Relations


 Cooperative Systems

 Institutional Theory

 Social Systems

 Mary Parker Follet
 Elton Mayo
 F. J. Roethlisberger

 Chester Bernard

 Philip Selznick

 Tolcott Parsons

Open Systems

 General Systems Theory

 Cybernetic Systems

 Contingency Theory

 Sociotechnical Systems

 Ludwig Von Bertalanffy
 Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn
 Kenneth Boulding

 Norbert Wiener
 Stafford Beer

 Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch
 Douglas MacGregor
 Robert Blake and Jane Mouton
 Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blancard

 Joan Woodward
 Eric Trist

The Rational Systems Perspective

The rational systems perspective (sometimes called the classical school) views the organization as a goal-driven, purposefully designed machine. Human volition was largely ignored. Humans were viewed as little more than appendages to the machine.

The rational systems perspective assumes that organizations have a clear and specific set of goals and that the internal structure and processes represent a rational-legal design to attain those goals. The design is rational because the internal division of labor, the definitions of role positions, and the distribution of authority are highly formalized and hierarchical. The design is legal because the assignments to positions, the distribution of authority, and the rights and duties of each position are based on impersonal rules that are applied universally. Rationality can be maintained because the organization is viewed as insulated from or functioning in a highly stable environment, its goals are explicit, and the behavior of its staff is fully determined by their formal role prescriptions.

Bureaucracy. Weber is best known for developing a model of rational-legal bureaucracy. He was primarily concerned with how to structure the processes of complex organizations to maximize efficiency and productivity. But he was also concerned with changes that were being ushered in by the industrial revolution. In traditional societies power and authority were legitimated by tradition (i.e., divine right of kings) or by charisma (i.e., prophets and heroes). Weber argued that the traditional forms of power and authority are not well suited for modern industrial societies.

Weber's model of bureaucracy represents a "rational-legal model" for the distribution of power in modern societies. It is the manifestation of rational-legal authority. Its attributes are derived from rational-legal rules and the pursuit of maximum efficiency. The key elements of bureaucracy include:

  1. Equal treatment of all employees.
  2. Reliance on expertise, skill, and experience relevant to the position.
  3. No extra-organizational prerogatives to the position. The position belongs to the organization not the individual. The employee cannot use it for personal gain.
  4. Specific standards for work and output.
  5. Extensive record keeping dealing with the work and output.
  6. Establishment of rules and regulations that serve the interests of the organization.
  7. Recognition that rules and regulations bind managers as well as employees; thus employees can hold management to the terms of the employment contract (Perrow, 1986).

Critics usually attack bureaucracy for two reason: (1) it is rigid and unable to adapt to changing conditions, and (2) it stifles the humanity and creativity of employees. Both are legitimate to a degree, although unadaptive might mean stability and predictability. Also, remember our discussion last class where we said that order and regularity may be prerequisites for creativity and innovation in organizations.

Perrow (1986) offers a third criticism of bureaucracy. He argues that bureaucracy is a social tool that legitimizes control of the many by the few, despite the formal apparatus of democracy, and this control has generated unregulated and unperceived social power. This power includes much more than just control of employees. As bureaucracies satisfy, delight, pollute, and satiate us with their good and services, they also shape our ideas, our very ways of conceiving ourselves, control our life chances, and may even define our humanity.

Despite their shortcoming, in large complex societies bureaucracies are the institutional vehicle for providing equal access to goods and services of the society.

Scientific Management. While Weber was concerned with authority and power in modern societies, and with organizational efficiency and productivity, Taylor was concerned with understanding and designing efficient work processes through the application of scientific principles.

The core principles of scientific management include:

The goal of scientific management was to apply scientific principles to understand how work is performed. Its method was to analyze jobs into their smallest details, scrutinize the capabilities of the humans performing the jobs, and then fitting the two together to achieve greatest economy. Jobs would be redesigned to make maximum use of human abilities and humans would be trained to perform the jobs optimally.

Taylor's work was founded on the premise that the pursuit of productivity through the scientific construction of work would lead to mutual prosperity for both workers and management. According to Taylor, organizations must be based on the principle of cooperation between management and workers. Without cooperation, maximum productivity cannot be achieved. Such cooperation can be obtained only if the organization adopts principles of management based on scientific analysis, experiments, and measurement of the best ways to improve efficiency and productivity. Since workers are primarily motivated by monetary incentives, increased productivity based on scientific management will enable workers to maximize their wages, while at the same time maximizing the profitability of the organizations.

Administrative Management. Taylor tried to rationalize the organization of work from the bottom up. Theorists from the administrative management school took a top-down approach. That is, they modeled the best ways to subdivide and structure work to achieve the goals of the organization and then designed the necessary structure to implement their model. They tried to develop administrative principles that could be used to rationalize organizations. Administrative principles were designed to address two types of administrative activities: coordination and specialization.

One of the most enduring elements of the administrative management approach is exemplified by the work of Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick. They developed the acronym POSDCORB to describe the administrative functions of managers. POSDCORB stands for:


Preparing methodical plans for managing programs


Creating the different subunits of the organization


Hiring competent employees to fill vacancies


Issuing directives with time and performance criteria


Interrelating employees' efforts efficiently


Preparing reports for superiors


Preparing and executing budgets

Administrative Behavior. Herbert Simon was critical of the classical school's assumption that decision-makers are rational and know their preferences. While he agreed with Weber that an organization is a tool, he recognized that they are much more sophisticated tools than the classical school would have us believe. He viewed organizations as cybernetic. That is, as large information processing systems. They are calculating, processing, organizing, and decision-making machines.

He argued that the rationality of humans is limited and bounded because we lack complete knowledge of all possible alternatives, all the consequences that will follow our choices, and the future value of each anticipated consequence. As a result, individual decision makers search for a "satisfying" solution by constructing a simplified model of reality that is based on past experiences, selective perceptions of existing stimuli, and familiar alternatives.

Traditional administrative decision making models assume that organizations attempt to avoid uncertainty by buffering themselves from the sources of ambiguity and by setting up organizational mechanisms, such as division of labor and standard operating procedures, to maintain stability and predictability. Simon and his colleagues proposed an alternative model of decision making in organizations called the "garbage can model."

According to their model, decisions result from a particular mixture of four streams that flow into a "garbage can": problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities. The "can" is a meeting place for issues and feelings looking for decision situations, solutions looking for problems to address, and individuals with time and energy to commit to the problem.

Return to table

The Natural Systems Perspective

The natural systems perspective developed in large measure from the critical reactions to the inadequacies of the rational systems model. Whereas the rational systems theorists conceive of organizations as collectives deliberately constructed to achieve specific goals, the natural systems perspective views organizations as collectives whose participants share a common interest in the survival of the system and who engage in collective activities, informally structured, to secure that end. The natural systems perspective recognized that humans are more than cogs in a giant machine and that they are not merely economic beings. This perspective acknowledged that humans are thinking, feeling creatures who have desires, motivations, and aspirations that can have significant impacts on the organization.

Human Relations. The human relations school added a human dimension to our understanding of organizations. This school emerged out of the work of Mary Parker Follett and from a series of experiments conducted by Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and T. N. Whitehead at the Western Electric Company. These experiments showed that the simplistic and mechanistic view of humans held by the classical theorists overlooks an important aspect of organizations. They established that worker performance is determined by relationship patterns that emerge in the workplace and by the aspiration and motivations of the workers themselves.

The human relations school assumes that humans are basically good and want to feel satisfied with their work, that they are malleable and capable of perfection, and that organizational goals and individual interests need to be compatible. This perspective, for the first time, viewed workers as having needs that must be met by the organization in order to insure full productivity. Human relations theorists made an effort to "humanize" the oppressive and impersonal nature of formal organizations. Despite their emphasis on participatory management and democratizing the workplace, the human relations school has been criticized because many of its practices imply subtle forms of manipulation, coercion, and control.

Cooperative Systems. Chester Barnard viewed organizations as cooperative systems designed to integrate the contributions of individual employees. He was one of the first theorists to recognize the importance of organizational culture. He argued that effective manager must (1) promote commonly held values, attitudes, and loyalties, and (2) create, inspire, and maintain worker morale. From this perspective, informal structure is as important as the formal structure, and nonmaterial reward are as important as material rewards.

Barnard tried to combine and reconcile the contradictory idea that goals are imposed from the top down while their attainment depends on willing compliance from the bottom up. Barnard challenged the traditional view that authority comes from the top of the organization by noting how often leaders claim authority but fail to win compliance. This is because the decision whether a directive has authority lies with the person to whom it is addressed, not in the "person of authority." Compliance with authority is dependent on the acceptance of that authority by the subject of that authority.

Institutional Approach. Philip Selznick was one of the first theorists to recognize the impact of the external environment on organizations. He viewed organizations as adaptive institutions that are shaped by the rational and nonrational behaviors of their participants and by the influences of the external environment. He argued that just as people develop distinct personalities, organizations also develop a "bureaucratic personality" over time. He referred to the process by which this distinctive character develops as institutionalization. To become institutionalize is to become "infused with value beyond the technical requirements of the task at hand."

For institutional theorists, an organization is more than a tool to attain a goal. It is a social system that is an end in itself. It has needs for survival and adaptability that transcend goal attainment. The organization has basic needs related to self-maintenance. It develops repetitive means for self-defense and day-to-day activities are interpreted in terms of the function served to maintain and defend the system.

Social Systems. Tolcott Parsons developed a very explicit model detailing the needs that must be met if a system is to survive. Parsons model is identified by the acronym AGIL which represents the four basic functions that all social systems must perform if they are to persist:


to acquire sufficient resources.

Goal attainment:

to set and implement goals.


to maintain solidarity or coordination among the subunits of the system.


to create, preserve, and transmit the system's unique culture and values.

Parsons broadened the focus of organizational theorists by looking beyond the individual or small group in the organization. He was more concerned with the total organization as a social system and the relationship between organizations in a network of interconnected institutions in society.

Because his systems model addressed several different levels, he identified three levels of organizational structure. At the bottom layer is the technical system where the actual product or service is provided. Above the technical level is the managerial system, whose primary function are to mediate between the organization and its task environment, and to administer the organization's internal affairs. At the top of the organization is the institutional system whose function is to relate the organization to the larger society.

Return to table

The Open Systems Perspective

The open systems perspective emerged out of the intellectual ferment following World War II, although its roots go much deeper. This intellectual movement lead to new areas of study such as cybernetics and information theory; the development of new applications such as systems engineering and operations research; the transformation of existing disciplines, including the study of organizations; and produced closer links between diverse scientific disciplines (Scott, 1992).

General Systems Theory. Von Bertalanffy, a biologist, is considered the grandfather of general systems theory. He and his associates were concerned about the growing compartmentalization of science and argued that certain general ideas have relevance across a broad range of disciplines. They showed that many of the most important entities studies by scientists, from nuclear particles, atoms and cell to organizations, communities, and societies, are all subsumed under the general rubric of system.

General systems theory views the organization as a system of differentiated, specialized, and interdependent subsystems that are interrelated through the process of communication, feedback, and control. Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn were among the first to apply general systems theory to organizations.

From this perspective, organizations are viewed as input-output processing systems. To survive, organizations must obtain inputs (funding, clients, staff, etc.), apply transformation technology (therapy, education, rehabilitation, etc.) to those input, to produce outputs (healthier people, recovering alcoholics, etc.). The various subsystems of the organization are designed to achieve these objectives.

While one might identify many specific subsystems in a complex organization, there are four major subsystems: (1) production, (2) boundary, (3) adaptive, and (4) management. The function of the production subsystem is to transform the inputs of the organization into useful outputs. It is generally the subsystem that performs the core programs of the organization. The boundary subsystem seeks to obtain from the environment the resources needed to perform the tasks of the production subsystem. The adaptive subsystem is the intelligence arm of the organization. It gathers information about the organization's operations and seeks to help the organization adapt to the demands of a changing and uncertain environment. The management subsystem cuts across all other subsystems to coordinate staff activities, resolve conflicts, maintain staff morale and performance, and mediate the demands of the internal and external environment.

Cybernetic Systems. The cybernetic model views organizations as complex systems that, if properly managed, can be self-regulating and self-controlling. Central to this view of organizations is the need to acquire and process information and to alter its course of actions in response to changing conditions. The cybernetic systems model emphasize that it is the deviation from goals that directs the behavior of the system, not the goals themselves. Feedback mechanisms detect departures from established goals and corrective actions are taken to redirect organizational efforts toward its stated goals.

Critics of this perspective point out that in complex system it is impossible to identify all sources of deviation from established goals, or to know what actions to take in response to those departures.

Contingency Theory. Contingency theory argues that there is no single best way to organize for maximum efficiency and performance. From this perspective, environment and technology are critical elements for understanding the structure and processes of organizations. This perspective revolves around two interrelated propositions: (1) environmental demands will determine patterns of internal differentiation (structure) in the organization, and (2) the attributes of the technologies adopted by the organization will determine the structure of the work units that implement them.

To illustrate the first proposition, James Thompson (1967) proposed the following relationship between the environment and the internal structure of the organization. According to Thompson, structure is "contingent" upon the stability and homogeneity of the environment.



 Stable Environment

 Shifting Environment


 Few functional units with
 standardized rules

 Limited differentiation with
 decentralized decision making


 Variety of functional units
 with standardized rules

 High degree of differentiation
 with decentralized decision making


Perrow (1970) used a similar logic to examine the relationship between technology and organizational structure. Referring specifically to human service organizations, he proposed that technologies can be classified according to the extent to which clients are (1) stable/unstable and uniform/non-uniform and (2) knowledge of the intervention is complete or incomplete. Four types if technology are identified, each calling for a different type of internal structure.



 Knowledge is complete

 Knowledge is incomplete







Sociotechnical System. Sociotechnical systems theorists view organizations as open systems that must dynamically react to the different demands of changing technologies and work environments. The best organization form for a particular organization depends on a goodness of fit, balancing the various subsystems as they interact with the environment.

Return to table


Hasenfeld, Y. 1983). The ubiquity of human service organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Printice-Hall.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images or Organizations, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weiner, M. E. (1990). Human Service Management: Analysis and Application, Second Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Back to Syllabus