org theory and the new new spirit of capitalism
I had been planning to go a little less grandiose in this post, but two events in the last 24 hours have gotten me to thinking (again) about the org theory’s relationship to the big picture. I promise to try to bring it down to earth a little next go.
The first event was a talk Jerry Davis gave here yesterday. Jerry’s new book argues that between about 1980 and 2008 we shifted away from industrial society built around organizations and toward a post-industrial society. So far, so already said by Daniel Bell, Piore and Sabel and others. The twist Jerry offers is that this post-industrial society was not built so much around “networks”, “core competencies” or “value chains”. Instead all of this can be explained by the ascendancy of financial markets and the ‘gravitational pull’ they exerted on all aspects of society. That pull tugged not just on the decisions of companies, but also the way the governments operate, as well as the identities and political orientations of individuals and families (we became investors rather than citizens).
Though Jerry doesn’t discuss it, I’d say his book is a cousin of Boltanski and Chiapello’s The New Spirit of Capitalism. Like Jerry, Boltanski and Chiapello define three epochs of Western capitalism. They see the first as largely entrepreneurial and familial (pre-war) and the second as built around industrial organizations led by a managerial class (post-war). The logic of the third epoch, which spans roughly the same period of time as Jerry’s does, is built not around the financial markets, per se, but around a logic of freedom. Largely in response to the overwhelming power of the organization to control people and capital movement, the “new spirit of capitalism” sought to maximize the freedom of the individual. Here Boltanski and Chiapello take a decidedly more Marxian direction to claim that this ideology served the interests of the elite by quelling radical critiques of capitalism. (Jerry, perhaps sensing Marxism and “critical perspectives” as the third rail of American social science doesn’t go there).
I’ll leave you to read Jerry’s book—in stores soon—to get a sense of the broader argument he actually does make. But one takeaway is, regardless of how you characterize it, the current economic crisis signals an end of the road for the epoch that began in 1980. It’s done. Kaput. But if that is the case, then the question we are left with with is: what comes next? If not industrial organizations or the financial market or freedom, then what will the big organizing principle be?
The question calls to (my) mind Padgett and McClean’s arguments about Florence as well as Stark and his colleagues’ work on post-Soviet trajectories: Florence traveled from the Medieval logic of patrilineage and guild to the Renaissance logic of marriage and clientage. What does this tell us about the what to expect in a transition from post-industrial to post-post-industrial society? Hungary and Poland diverged in their post-soviet pathways. Might the way capitalism works in the US and Britain do the same in the wake of the collapse of finance and/or freedom as their common governing logics?
This leads me to the second event: a panel discussion sponsored by the University of Chicago Federalist Society under the title: “Can (and Should?) Detroit be Saved? The Future of the Auto Industry.” (It will be podcast and I’ll post it when it’s ready). The panel consisted of me (former UAW staffer with mainly sociological leanings working in the business school), Douglas Baird (former dean of the Law School and a leading figure of the Law and Economics crowd), Todd Henderson (rising star Libertarian theorist) and Richard Epstein (well established Libertarian theorist). Richard Epstein is the best known of the bunch; he has a regular column in Forbes and is widely read beyond the law school world. (To get a sense of his approach to the world these videos, one on the bailout, and another on his desire to see unions die may be of interest).
My opening comments, with some adjustments made on the fly, can be found here. My key points were that a domestic auto industry is a good thing, long term, for the country but that the auto industry suffers from a long term structural problem of lacking patient investment. The government can provide long term investment and, given that there is political will to save the industry, it should do so. That answered the question about Detroit. But the news of the day, of course, is about Chrysler and the way the Obama administration is structuring the bankruptcy. In particular, privileging non-secured investors (like the union and pension plans) over secured investors (like bond holders). This, you might imagine, did not make the Libertarians happy. They object both on grounds that the Adminsitration’s actions undermine the rule of law and on the grounds that the government should not wield power in the market; it should limit itself to creating and enforcing the rules by which actors in the market exert power over each other. (Me, I think it is a little naive to think that any government would do such a thing or even comes close when it says that’s what it has in mind. I’ll spare everyone my views on whether the UAW should be treated as a priveleged investor; but briefly my answer was, sure, why not?)
That was a setting which called for polemics. But OrgTheory.net isn’t the place to air that kind of thing. What is more important is what it says about where our field should go in the next several years. Specifically, if the government is going to play a more direct role in governing the economy, as it seems it will, what tools does our field offer on how to navigate it successfully? Do the ideas Selznick and others outlined make sense in a society in which organizations are no longer dominant? Does the shift strengthen Davis and McAdam’s argument that social movements’ relevance will increase? Is the answer—as other colleagues here at Chicago, Dick Thaler and Richard Posner, have argued—for government to structure incentives in elaborate ways to shape behavior? Or will government’s role diminish and give way to an amalgamation of technology—in the form of Wikipedia and a technology mediated “sixth-sense” (<–watch that video… very interesting, but also creepy and way big brotherish… sounds like a worthy candidate for a new logic of capitalism to me!).
Written by seansafford
May 7, 2009 at 2:18 am
24 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Comments are closed.
I had forgotten about the Davis and McAdam paper. Thanks for reminding me. The paper provides a useful way to think about how innovative industrial transformations occur, pointing out that industry turbulence can be sustained over long periods of time if an incumbent is never able to demobilize their challengers.
Here’s my question: it’s pretty clear who the incumbents are in this current mess (e.g. GM, Goldman Sachs) but who are the challengers? The economic crisis has seemed to unfold without the arousal of any particular challenger. Sure, we have some protests in the streets and Barney Frank in Congress, but I don’t see any real innovation in organizational form that poses a real sea change in the way business is done. It seems like most of the proposed regulatory changes are band-aids to the current system rather than the ushering in of a new system of governance or a new economic era.
brayden
May 7, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Thats an interesting question in that it surfaces a distinction between two theories of institutional change. Your perspective comes right out of social movement theory which, of course, I’m sympathetic to. I also typically associate it with Christensen’s work on technology; incumbents hold on to their technological trajectories leaving it to the insurgents to sort out.
But, I’d say the crisis is closer (if not nearly as dramatic) to the collapse of the Soviet Union. That leads you down bricolage territory. The existing logic has broken down. Actors hedge their bets, waiting for a coherent logic to emerge and then flock to the alternative once a critical mass starts to form.
Two different theories of endogenous change emerge. One is a top-down social movement approach where an “institutional entrepreneur” emerges to challenge the existing paradigm and assert a new one. The other is a more bottom-up ‘organic’ (and I would argue, pragmatist in the philosophical sense) process in which the system collapses under its own weight and meaning is re-built through on the fly sense-making.
seansafford
May 7, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Yikes, sorry to be so late to the party–you young people with your “blogs” and “twitters” and “cell phones” are too quick for us geezers.
I agree with Sean’s assessment here, and would put a finer point on it: the economic crisis is an existential threat to organization theory as a viable way of doing social theory. The attraction of organization theory for some of us was captured by Chick Perrow’s claim that “organizations had absorbed society”: one could understand stratification and mobility through examining the hiring and promotion practices of a few dozen large corporations; politics and class by studying the PAC contributions and social ties of corporations and their executives; social change by looking at how large corporations responded to social movements; economic development by tracking the choices of corporations regarding where they invested in new plant; and so on.
But the “society of organizations” seems to be an artifact of a manufacturing-centered economy, at least in the US, and that economy is now officially gone. Last month’s job figures showed that more Americans are now unemployed than employed in manufacturing. 9 of the 12 largest US employers now are in retail, where wages average roughly $11 per hour, and average job tenures are under 3 years. Wal-Mart now employs about as many Americans as the 20 largest manufacturers combined, and this number seems certain to go up due to the fact that the largest manufacturing employers are big-ticket defense contractors (Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon) that are slated to decline in importance with the new orientation at the Defense Department.
I’ve claimed in the past that organization theory often looks like “the science of General Motors” (consider that roughly 97% of the evidence for transaction cost economics comes from GM–vertical integration [acquiring Fisher Body in the 1920s], the multi-divisional form, various studies of asset specificity in the 1970s to exemplify the make-or-buy decision, etc.). Now that GM is nearly extinct, and the corporate-centered social welfare system in the US has basically collapsed, we need something closer to a “science of Wal-Mart.”
The challenge is both theoretical (how do we think about a society after formal organizations) and practical, as Sean suggests. What would it look like to implement a new set of institutions that met human needs in a humane and democratic way in an economy that looks very different from the one we grew up with? Does organization theory, and all our fancy talk of “bricolage,” equip us with ways to generate solutions that look more like Wikipedia and less like General Motors?
Jerry Davis
May 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Jerry – Teppo’s actually working on a way to twitter his thoughts directly to his cell phone, which will then post them directly to the blog. It won’t be long before we’ll be getting every thought in Fabio’s head in real-time.
I’m having a hard time swallowing “the end of organizations” thesis. I’m completely with you on the idea that the era of GM has passed or that investment banking as we’ve known it will never return, but there are still plenty of large organizations/business monoliths slugging around our economy. WalMart, last time I checked, is a pretty big corporation that exhibits a great deal of economic and political power. The business models change and the dominant players have shifted, but the power of large corporations is alive and well.
Your comment did make me think differently though about the question I asked earlier about incumbents and challengers. Perhaps the wikipedia organizations (e.g. open source software) are the real challengers in the new economy. Their challenge to the power of incumbents is a threat to replace the way innovation and knowledge is distributed in our society, and if knowledge is power, then these organizations may pose a real threat. But, IMHO, these organizations seem a lot like the cooperatives of the 19th Century (see Schneiberg). They’re friendly islands of cooperation in the midst of a sea of competition and concentration. Their power is more like that of an activist organization – they frequently challenge the legitimacy of particular practices and policies and promote innovation – but they’re not threatening to replace the dominant organizations anytime soon.
I’m all for a science of Wal-Mart, but I suspect it will look a lot like the science of GM, but instead of producing widgets, they’ll just be reallocating widgets that some other poor (emphasis on poor) schmuck makes.
brayden
May 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Brayden–Agreed that Wal-Mart is big and powerful. But whom else would you name if you wanted a list of the dominant corporations of our time, which you would expect to be powerful still in 5 years? Not GM (or any other manufacturer), not Citigroup and Bank of America (or any other bank), not Sears (or any retailer other than Wal-Mart), probably not Microsoft. If it’s Wal-Mart and Google, then I have a hard time picturing this as a society of organizations, rather than a society of Wal-Mart and Google (which I believe follow somewhat different models of hiring, employee relations, product innovation, etc.–although of course Wal-Mart’s model applies to 1.4 million “associates” in the US, and Google has a few thousand).
So, a couple of questions: (1) what is the source of enduring organizational power that allows us to recognize who has it? and (2) is it still a society of organizations if attachments between employees and firms are as tenuous as they’ve become in the US? Strangely enough, there was a decades-long period where some corporations looked something like “friendly islands of cooperation in the midst of a sea of competition,” providing health insurance, company pensions, and ties to communities.
Jerry Davis
May 9, 2009 at 3:31 pm
PS: Your comment seemed to imply that we are not yet getting all of Fabio’s thoughts in real-time. If true, then Teppo’s proposed experiment reminds me of that Swiss super-collider that threatened to destroy the universe:
http://techfreep.com/worlds-largest-supercollider-could-destroy-the-universe.htm
and I for one want to lodge a protest.
Jerry Davis
May 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm
These are great questions that we as organizational scholars should be interested in. Really briefly, because my powerful and lovely spouse wants me to go mow the lawn, let me offer some preliminary thoughts.
First, I think that the power of organizations rests, at least in part, in their sovereignty as social actors and their advantage over human actors in accumulating wealth and mobilizing resources. Organizations have a great deal of legally-sanctioned power to administer employment, to form contracts, etc. It’s hard to imagine doing anything collectively without forming some sort of organizational actor as the medium for collective action. Organizations proliferate, which means that we come into more contact with them than we ever have before. Even in the realm of grass roots organizing, power is subtly being concentrated in the hands of organizational actors. Ed Walker, a political sociologist at the University of Vermont, has a great ASR paper about the privatization of grass roots efforts in the form of professional lobbying organizations. So even if there are fewer GMs, there are probably more organizations than there once were (I don’t have data to support that, but it’s a hunch).
Second, even if there is more mobility in the employment market, this doesn’t mean that organizations have been reduced in power. In fact, it may mean just the opposite. When unions were strong and could determine the long-term career trajectories of many workers, workers had more job security. One of the reasons there is so much turnover in jobs is because corporations have more say in the employment relations than they once did. We’ll see how this changes with the current economic crisis, but this has been the trend. I’d be interested to hear Sean’s thoughts on this given his background in labor.
brayden
May 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Ha, and yes, the thought of being even more fully-exposed to Fabio’s mad scientist thought process is both terrifying and tantalizing. Why don’t you twitter Fabs?
brayden
May 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Brayden: Your wish is my command.
fabiorojas
May 9, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Great discussion!
I’m not sure org theory fully has caught up with what extant organizational activity looks like these days. I agree with Brayden, we most certainly still live in an organizational world, even more so — it’s just morphing in some fascinating ways. Yes, individuals are perhaps less attached (to particular organizations) but I think they are also more connected to collectives of varying sorts in heterogeneous ways. Moreover, organizational activity clearly is not of the GM-variety, but of the much smaller, entrepreneurial variety — looser and more “disaggregated,” but its organizational/organizing activity nonetheless. You add open source and other social production dynamics into the mix and we’ve got ourselves a brave new organizational world (hmm, that sounds like one of those over-the-top statements and provocations that gets made at any conference worth its salt). And, in terms of org-society-welfare relations, there we’ve got some fascinating and perhaps disturbing dynamics (that you are indeed highlighting).
As to Fabio: I vote with Jerry — no direct feed from Fabio’s brain onto orgtheory.net ;) — I am trying to create some kind of brain-to-blog filter so that we don’t all get sucked into a micro (or in our case, macro) black hole. I think there might be an iphone app for that.
tf
May 9, 2009 at 8:39 pm
The real test for peer production/open-source will be the extent to which it can do something else than produce quasi-public information goods (linux, wikis, other creative commons stuff).
Clearly the open-source mode of production/organizing is diffusing into other realms like hardware, citizen science, and governance, but I am a bit skeptical it can replace or legitimately challenge other well-honed organizational forms. GM may be on its way out, but its hard to imagine an open-source car succeeding (it’s been tried).
dr
May 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm
dr: I’m with you there — my point was simply that the dynamics of production and organizational activity are evolving in interesting ways (this sort of bleeds into a discussion right now at O&M around how “new” the new economy actually is — the consensus there is: its not new; I actually partly disagree given some of the quite evident dynamics related to organizational disaggregation, etc).
In terms of production, though, there is some interesting work (e.g., by Sonali Shah) that highlights how the emergence of some industries perhaps has something to do with hobbyists (which is also essentially what the open source system, say wikipedia, counts on) tinkering around on the weekend/evenings, though more large-scale production and formalized organizational activity then takes technology to the mass market. Anyway, I’m confounding several things here (which inevitably will be caught by some reader—its not enough to have articles rejected, blog comments now also get full scrutiny and peer review) — but hopefully the general gist is coming through.
tf
May 9, 2009 at 9:05 pm
i can’t imagine anyone writing “organizational man” today; that is to say, i do think (and this is basically consistent with Boltanski and Chiapello’s point) that people don’t subsume their identities to proscribed identities associated with an organization (be that organization a corporation or a union). organizations are still important; but it they are no longer the most central institution in American society or in the daily lives of most Americans.
there was a lot of hubbub in the 90s suggesting that we would come to subsume our identities to either (a) one’s profession (with a proliferation of lesser occupations claiming the title of a profession) or (b) one’s industry (e.g., Saxenian’s claim that one felt more attached to silicon valley than to any one company within it). or, as Mike Piore and I argued, that one’s social identity gained salience vis-a-vis one’s economic identity. Jerry’s claim is an interesting one: rather than an organization, a profession or an industry the majority of the population came to define themselves relative to the capital markets. its oddly marxian with the added twist that we ALL became capitalists.
one idea as we emerge from the crisis is that the government, rather than organizations, becomes the lodestone or, to put it in Jerry’s language, “the source of enduring organizational power that allows us to recognize who has it.” maybe, but I’d be very surprised if that happens and, if it did, that it would look anything like Stalin’s Russia or Mussolini’s Italy (and fear-mongers on the right would have us believe we are headed dangerously down this path). it would more likely look like Hu Jintao’s (current) China or Lee Hsien Loong’s Singapore: state centric but with a market twist.
the other approach is teppo’s. that is, we remain an organization centered economy/society. but the nature of those organizations is vastly different. boundaries of the firm are flexible; relationships among firms is paramount; the value chain, really, is the predominant unit of analysis. personally, i’ve been on that bandwagon for a while and have long been surprised that org theory folks have relinquished theorizing on value chains to economists like Gary Gereffi and Tim Sturgeon, and political scientists/political sociologists (the work of Josh Witford and my colleague Gary Herrigel come to mind, but there’s a big crowd).
seansafford
May 10, 2009 at 12:01 am
By the way, no one’s commented on that video at the end of my post. Scary/fascinating. It takes a while for her to get to the good stuff, but its worth waiting for…
seansafford
May 10, 2009 at 12:06 am
Sean: That sixth-sense device rocks.
BTW: The Pentland ‘Human Dynamics Lab’ (also housed at MIT Media Lab) is doing some cool things as well (Ben Waber from there sent me an email a few weeks back and mentioned that they are doing an AOM PDW session this year on their technology).
tf
May 10, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Brayden and Teppo both assert a couple of premises that I believe Sean and I would deny:
1. Organizations have sovereignty as social actors (Brayden). Still true? Sovereign implies autonomous, independent, self-governing, and it was plausible for decades to see corporations in the US as sovereign. Fortune’s editor wrote in 1952 that “Any President who wants to run a prosperous country depends on the corporation at least as much as—probably more than—the corporation depends on him. His dependence is not unlike that of King John on the landed barons of Runnymede, where Magna Carta was born.” But the barons can now be fired by the President (GM), stripped of titles (Bank of America), thrown over by the peasants (Morgan Stanley), imprisoned (Tyco)… In a roughly one-month period last fall, some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the US were seized by the government (Fannie, Freddie, AIG, WaMu), forced to change industries (Goldman, Morgan Stanley), pushed into mergers (Merrill), or deemed not “too big to fail” and allowed to disappear (Lehman). In 2006, many of us would have regarded the investment banking industry as perhaps the most powerful in the US; it is now effectively non-existent.
So: in what does an organization’s sovereignty consist?
2. Organizations are collective actors, presumably comprised of persons and bearing an ongoing identity (Teppo). I’d stipulate that the issue here is not whether this is true or false, but more or less useful as a shorthand. And I’d argue that it is less useful now because it’s supply chains rather than bounded organizations that matter most now, per Sean–and supply chains are a lot like Legos that can be assembled and disassembled relatively easily. This has always been true for the garment industry (cf. Uzzi); now it’s true for electronics, airlines, pharmaceuticals, and (yes) cars. Meyer and Rowan described how the parts of formal organizations are lying around the social landscape, and it just takes a little entrepreneurial energy to assemble them. Provocative then; ho-hum now. For electronics, consider Vizio, one of the best-selling brands of LCD televisions, which was created basically overnight by a guy in Orange County who had a few contacts in Taiwan and found distribution channels like Costco that liked his pricing:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120820684382013977.html?mod=blog
Similar stories can be told for airlines (where all the necessary “parts” are available off-the-shelf), pharmaceuticals (where some of the big players now see themselves as marketers that leave the drug discovery to start-ups), and cars (where Chinese firms are proliferating along with the prevalence of parts suppliers).
So, if sovereignty is problematic, and provisional supply chains rather than bounded actors are the norm, we approach a world in which the corporations is nothing but a nexus-of-contracts, with no “inside” or “outside” (as a pair of my favorite financial economists put it). The agency theory dream world seems increasingly accurate; that, for me, is the problem with continuing the “society of organizations” model.
Jerry Davis
May 10, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Jerry – This is a great discussion, and so thanks for chiming in. Sovereignty is, as I see it, a defining quality of an organization. That is, the ideal organization has the right to define who is a member of its organization (and consequently who gets booted), how members are rewarded, etc. Does this mean that organizations are not subject to the rule of law or the rules of norms or culture? Of course not! Organizational actors, like human actors, strive for legitimacy and are subject to legal constraints, but by accepting those constraints they are given certain rights. Society legally gives organizations the ability to govern their boundaries. Even in contracting out labor or production, they can shape the terms of those contracts. It is this ability to take action and attach a legal face to that action (e.g., the corporation is a partner in a transaction rather than an individual agent of the organization being the partner) that makes organizations capable of independent action in the same way that an individual is capable of action.
I understand your point about the supply chain becoming more fluid (while at the same time some retailers like Wal-Mart have become more dominant, leading to increasing concentration), but as far as I can tell most of the transactions in supply chains still involve organizations. Rather than seeing individuals contracting with one another, the supply chain consists of a nexus of organizational contracts.
brayden
May 11, 2009 at 3:05 am
Jerry: A couple, quick thoughts/responses.
1) partly its an empirical question on whether organizations or supply chains are the right level of analysis (the variance decomposition studies in strategy, empirically, have tried to tease out related issues — largely suggesting that nested effects trump higher-level effects). For my money, the internal dynamics of organizations are central (related to decisions, aggregated or not, that the social actor makes — this relates to the organizations vs environments discussion we’ve also had).
2) in terms of agency theory ruining (in performative fashion?) the society of organizations — I’m not completely sure, need to know more about that argument. The disaggregation I highlighted earlier actually means (Zenger and Hesterly 1997, Org Sci, provides some nice background) that organizations increasingly are smaller and “purposeful” (cf. Coleman 1991 JLOE). AND, the agency relationship is less of an issue as the principal increasingly is the agent (e.g, in professional services — see a related discussion by Empson and Greenwood in Org Studies; as well as Teece, ICC, 2003 on the partnership model).
I should probably qualify the above by saying that there is certaintly sufficient contextual (industry, society/region, type of organization, org lifestage) heterogeneity to allow for both (and other) types of organizational studies. (And, it can also be hard to generalize when it comes to organizations given all the possible lower and higher-level confounds.)
tf
May 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
vis-a-vis the idea of a ‘sixth sense’ as the basis for a new new spirit of capitalism, this exchange might be interesting: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22711
seansafford
May 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Thanks for the link Sean. Made me laugh to see the parallels in the conversations. As the voluntary representative of the “crowding out”/Perrow perspective here, let me just add that I think that ignoring the power of intentional corporate actors may cause us to be blind to the need for better regulation. If organizations are too big to fail, shouldn’t we at least consider the option of enforcing size limits on some types of organizations? I know that this is now being discussed seriously in some legal scholar circles, but I’m not sure how seriously it’s being taken by legislators. If it’s not, it’s fair to say that the large corporate entities that were able to orchestrate massive bail-outs for themselves are still powerful enough to shape the congressional agenda. The solutions we’re coming up with for market failures are fairly favorable to powerful corporate incumbents.
brayden
May 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Just to bring home a point, I noticed that no one actually took up a question Brayden asked some time ago on why 1977 turned out to be the apex of organization theory. Perhaps this thread suggests an answer? I took a music appreciation class in high school and my teacher at the time made a point that’s stuck with me. Each era of music history (baroque, classical, romantic) had three greats: an originator, an exemplar and a final master. Mozart was an exemplar–his work was the apex of the classical period. Beethoven was the final master; his work closed off the classical period paving the way for the Romantics. If the era of the organization ended in the late 1970s, then these works represent the final masterstrokes of the era?
seansafford
May 12, 2009 at 1:25 pm
[...] for guest blogging here at orgtheory.net for the last several weeks. Sean’s posts about the new spirit of capitalism and the future of unions are instant orgtheory classics. You can read all of his fantastic posts [...]
thanks sean and welcome again « orgtheory.net
May 26, 2009 at 4:52 pm
[...] as we discussed earlier in the context of a discussion about Jerry’s book, an unchecked ideology of individualism holds [...]
sustainability: saving us from ourselves « orgtheory.net
June 17, 2009 at 11:30 pm
[...] One of the key insights I picked up from Jerry’s book (see related posts here, here, and here) is that the large organization is no longer the central unit of society. By saying that a [...]
the case for comparative organizational analysis « orgtheory.net
September 22, 2009 at 3:40 am