Moral Code, Compliance with Authority, and Productivity

Rabin, Jack; Miller, Gerald J.

doi:10.2307/3380156

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rabin and Miller[7, p. 425] do notice the contradiction, but argue that Barnard “qualifies his idea of subjective authority” by making subjective authority subordinate to “organization pressure”. But this ignores Barnard’s repeated statements that subjective authority is “fundamental”.…”

Section: Organization Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, as will be shown, Barnard introduces the “fiction of superior authority” to integrate his wide ranging comments on authority. Rabin and Miller[7] misinterpret the “fiction” by defining it as the subordinate’s false belief in superior authority. This interpretation cannot be correct because if subordinates believe superiors have authority, then there is no need for superiors to make sure their orders are acceptable to subordinates ‐ a key assumption underlying the “zone of indifference”.…”

Section: Organization Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Golembiewski and Kuhnert[4] come to a similar conclusion about the subjective‐objective authority dichotomy: the subjective authority given to the individual is later taken away in the development of the objective authority concept. Rabin and Miller[7] state the objective authority concept is “subterranean”. Indeed, Wells[8] feels Barnard’s discussion of authority is based on two separate and unintegrated theories of authority.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Incorporating the contrary

Feldman

1996

Journal of Management History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every writer, Nietzsche once commented, has an intellectual idiosyncrasy that, once grasped, can be used as a key to interpret their work. In Chester Barnard’s classic text on management theory, The Functions of the Executive, the use of dichotomy is such a key. Barnard uses dichotomy in all his major conceptual frameworks. Analyses his three central sociological concepts: society, organization purpose, and organization authority. Shows that the purpose behind Barnard’s use of dichotomy is political: he is attempting to legitimate the dominance of formal organization in society. His main means to accomplish this is by defining dichotomies in such a way that they either assume the dominance or demonstrate the superiority of formal organization. The result is that Barnard’s use of dichotomy is misleading and contradictory. He tries to conceal the contradictions by the use of complex and ambiguous discussions. Ultimately, Barnard’s theoretical method is shown to rest on the erroneous dichotomy that assumes organization rationality is autonomous from and superior to culture and society.

show abstract

Section: Organization Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Organization Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%