It is common practice in organizational research to restrict the concept of organization to formal organizations, and to describe the world outside these entities by such other concepts as institutions or networks. It is argued in this article that the concept of organization can be fruitfully broadened to include some aspects of the order that exists outside and among organizations. A broader concept includes not only complete, formal organization, but also 'partial organization'. Both types of organization are based on decisions, but whereas complete organizations have access to all elements of organization, partial organization is based on only one or a few of these elements. Like complete organization, partial organization is a common phenomenon that not least characterizes much of the contemporary global order. The authors discuss how partial organization arises, how and why institutions and networks sometimes become organized, and the consequences of organization for change, transparency and accountability.

No abstract

Organizations are socially constructed phenomena. A crucial task for organizational research is to analyze how and why people construct organizations rather than other social forms. In this paper, it is argued that recent public-sector reforms can be interpreted as attempts at constructing organizations. Public-sector entities that could formerly be described as agents or arenas have been transformed into `more complete' organizations by installing or reinforcing local identity, hierarchy and rationality. This interpretation helps to explain important aspects of the reform process.

In the modern world, there is no shortage of people who know what is best for others. Self-appointed experts, consultants, and organizations try to convince states, corporations, and individuals that they would be better off if they only followed some specific rules about what to do. These rules are presented as being voluntary and advisory. They are standards, not mandatory directives, and they abound in modern life. Standards may concern what characteristics a telephone should have, how a company should report its financial transactions, how organizations should be managed, how states should treat their citizens, how children should be raised, and so forth. Even organizations as powerful as states and large corporations follow standards on how to organize, which policies to pursue, what kinds of services to provide, or how their products should be designed. Standards enable a higher degree of global order in the modern world than would exist without them. They facilitate coordination and cooperation even among people and organizations that are far apart. The book states that standardization is a much neglected area of social science — an area that has by no means received the attention it deserves in view of its importance to society. This book redresses the balance by providing an in-depth examination of a number of aspects of standardization, how it is formed, and what effects it has on the world in which we live.

This paper suggests that when the phenomenon of standards and standardization is examined from the perspective of organization studies, three aspects stand out: the standardization of organizations, standardization by organizations and standardization as (a form of) organization. Following a comprehensive overview of existing research in these three areas, we argue that the dynamic aspects of standardization are under-represented in the scholarly discourse. Furthermore, we identify the main types of tension associated with standardization and the dynamics they generate in each of those three areas, and show that, while standards and standardization are typically associated with stability and sameness, they are essentially a dynamic phenomenon. The paper highlights the contributions of this special issue to the topic of standards as a dynamic phenomenon in organization studies and makes suggestions for future research. AbstractThis article suggests that when the phenomenon of standards and standardisation is examined from the perspective of organisation studies three aspects stand out: the standardisation of organisations, standardisation by organisations, and standardisation as (a form of) organisation. Following a comprehensive overview of existing research in these three areas, we argue that the dynamic aspects of standardisation are underrepresented in the scholarly discourse. Furthermore, we identify the main types of tension associated with standardisation and the dynamics they generate in each of those three areas, and show that, while standards and standardisation are typically associated with stability and sameness, they are essentially a dynamic phenomenon. The article highlights the contributions of this special issue to the topic of standards as a dynamic phenomenon in organisation studies and makes suggestions for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

Markets have sometimes been described as vastly different from and even opposite to formal organizations. But markets and organizations share a similarity as well. Both are organized-by the use of decisions on membership, rules, monitoring, sanctions or hierarchy. Market organization creates differences among markets, and specific dynamics, which can be explained by the actions and interactions of market organizers: profiteers, 'others', sellers and buyers. The concept of market organization is an analytical tool, which can be used for analysing why and how markets are created, why they get their specific form and how they change.