orgtheory.net

A friend recommended that we should write a post listing articles/book chapters that grad students should read who want to beef up on organizational theory over the summer. In an earlier post Teppo listed some must-read articles in org. theory, and here are some additional introductory recommendations.

What about the new classics? What articles have been written in the last ten years that everyone should read? I’m sure there’s a lot more variation in opinion about what should be included on a list like this, but it’s fun to think about nonetheless. Below the fold are some “new standards” that I would recommend reading this summer if you haven’t already. Please add your own recommendations in the comments (for the sake of the students).

• Ezra Zuckerman. 1999. “The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount.” American Journal of Sociology. 104: 1398-1438.

Easiest paper to include on the list. Already widely-cited and highly influential.

• Michael Lounsbury and Mary Ann Glynn. 2001. “Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources.” Strategic Management Journal. 22: 545-564.

Bridges cultural theories of organizing with institutional theory, puts emphasis on interests and action without losing an appreciation for structure, and focuses on an important topic – entrepreneurs.

• Patricia Thornton and William Ocasio. 1999. “Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990.” American Journal of Sociology. 105: 801-843.

Puts Friedland and Alford to use in a creative way and bridges institutional theory with a neo-Carnegie focus on intra-organizational processes.

• Damon Phillips and Ezra Zuckerman. 2001. “Middle status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstrations in two markets.” American Journal of Sociology. 107: 379-429.

Takes an old theoretical problem (nothing cited on the first two pages was written later than 1981) and puts a new spin on it. Brilliant illustration of how to do Mertonian middle-range theory.

• Donald Mackenzie and Yuval Millo. 2003. “Constructing a market, performing theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange.” American Journal of Sociology. 109: 107-145.

Love it or hate it, performativity is here to stay. This article may be the seminal theoretical contribution in the social studies of finance.

• Hayagreeva Rao, Calvin Morrill, and Mayer N. Zald. 2000. “Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms.” Research in Organizational Behaviour. 22: 237-281.

Something that deals with social movements and organizational change needs to be on this list. This article does a nice job of explaining why organizational scholars now care about social movements.

• Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas. 2001. “Politics, institutional structures, and the rise of economics: A comparative study.” Theory and Society 30: 397-447.

I could put almost anything that Marion has written on this list. This article brilliantly illustrates how knowledge about the economy is embedded in culture. A contribution to both economic and cultural sociology, while also opening up possibilities for the comparative study of markets/organizations.

• Gerald Davis and Christopher Marquis. 2005. “Prospects for organization theory in the twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms.” Organization Science. 16: 332-343.

Is this really the new direction of org. theory – to move beyond the organization and theorize about field-level mechanisms? It is certainly a provocative paper, even if you don’t agree with their conclusions.

What’s noticeable about this list compared to Teppo’s list of must-reads is how many empirical papers there are. That’s the new org. theory – empirical studies making incremental theory-refinements. The social studies of finance literature is perhaps the newest paradigm. That’s not meant to demean the theoretical contribution of the above papers. These are all excellent models for young scholars trying to contribute to the conversation.