Superintendents and the problem of delegation

McPherson, R. Bruce

doi:10.1080/01619568809538623

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like Jackall, Manning (2008) draws on Weber's patrimonial model in his explanation of the important role of loyalty in police departments. McPherson (1988) and others (Hoy and Rees 1974) looked at the effects of both personal and group fealty relations in schools, while Murray and Corenblum (1966) did the same with public utilities, and Adler and Adler (1988) considered college athletic programs. In this respect, the feudal model benefits the study of organizations by identifying informal constraints, loyalty relations, nepotism, and other personal ties as enduring social patterns that may, in some cases, facilitate the aims of the organization, but may produce suboptimal outcomes in others.…”

Section: Personal Loyaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Shlapentokh¹,

Woods²

2012

Contemp Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judging by their commentary on American public opinion, their sharp debates on key social issues, and the wide variety of labels they place on society, the critics and observers of the United States seem to be talking about several different countries. Indeed, their portrayals of the country range from fascist state to ideal democracy.The United States is certainly not the only country to have stimulated debate over its defining characteristics. The Soviet Union, for instance, was the subject of a wide range of commentary and analysis. Until its collapse in 1991, many observers-both inside and outside the country-treated the USSR as a true socialist society, while others regarded it as a brutal totalitarian regime (Shlapentokh, Shiraev, and Carroll 2008). In the post-Soviet period, debates over Russia and other postcommunist countries continued. If some were eager to accept the official definition of Russia as a "normal" liberal capitalist country, others were no less insistent that labels such as "authoritarian" and "oligarchic" should be applied (Shlapentokh with Woods 2007).Similarly, is France the motor of European integration, a deeply nationalist country in search of "grandeur," a true democracy, a champion of egalitarianism, or a society with growing authoritarian and discriminatory tendencies? Italy, in its turn, has been described as a "normal" democratic society and an oligarchy, as well as a criminal society ruled by mafias. Iran is seen by some as a healthy Islamic democracy and by others as a highly repressive theocracy. Popular labels for China range from a "normal" totalitarian regime to a fledgling liberal capitalist society.Returning to the United States, we see sharp disagreements among journalists, scholars, and politicians on whether or to what extent the term "liberal capitalism," including genuine political and economic competition, accurately describes U.S. society. It is difficult to deny the considerable influ ence of corporations and political clans on the election process, the importance of personal relations in business and politics, the frequent disregard of merit in the hiring and selection procedures of public and private organizations, the Preface privatization of public space, the walling of wealthy American neighborhoods, the widespread use of private security, and the independent control of violent force. While there is agreement that deviations from ideal liberalism exist, there is general disagreement about the seriousness of these problems, how long they will persist, and how they became problems in the first place.One camp, the true believers in liberal capitalism, suggests that all such problems are temporary, accidental deviations from the liberal model. While every society faces considerable challenges, U.S. society is led, for the most part, by honest and able people who can meet these challenges. In other words, the problems derive not from the barrel, but from a few bad apples.This optimistic vision of liberal capitalism has been attacked from all sides. Those on the f...

show abstract

Section: Personal Loyaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Shlapentokh¹,

Woods²

2012

Contemp Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Personal Loyaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feudal America : Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Shlapentokh¹,

Woods²

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judging by their commentary on American public opinion, their sharp debates on key social issues, and the wide variety of labels they place on society, the critics and observers of the United States seem to be talking about several different countries. Indeed, their portrayals of the country range from fascist state to ideal democracy. The United States is certainly not the only country to have stimulated debate over its defining characteristics. The Soviet Union, for instance, was the subject of a wide range of commentary and analysis. Until its collapse in 1991, many observers-both inside and outside the country-treated the USSR as a true socialist society, while others regarded it as a brutal totalitarian regime (Shlapentokh, Shiraev, and Carroll 2008). In the post-Soviet period, debates over Russia and other postcommunist countries continued. If some were eager to accept the official definition of Russia as a "normal" liberal capitalist country, others were no less insistent that labels such as "authoritarian" and "oligarchic" should be applied (Shlapentokh with Woods 2007). Similarly, is France the motor of European integration, a deeply nationalist country in search of "grandeur," a true democracy, a champion of egalitarianism, or a society with growing authoritarian and discriminatory tendencies? Italy, in its turn, has been described as a "normal" democratic society and an oligarchy, as well as a criminal society ruled by mafias. Iran is seen by some as a healthy Islamic democracy and by others as a highly repressive theocracy. Popular labels for China range from a "normal" totalitarian regime to a fledgling liberal capitalist society. Returning to the United States, we see sharp disagreements among journalists, scholars, and politicians on whether or to what extent the term "liberal capitalism," including genuine political and economic competition, accurately describes U.S. society. It is difficult to deny the considerable influ ence of corporations and political clans on the election process, the importance of personal relations in business and politics, the frequent disregard of merit in the hiring and selection procedures of public and private organizations, the Preface privatization of public space, the walling of wealthy American neighborhoods, the widespread use of private security, and the independent control of violent force. While there is agreement that deviations from ideal liberalism exist, there is general disagreement about the seriousness of these problems, how long they will persist, and how they became problems in the first place. One camp, the true believers in liberal capitalism, suggests that all such problems are temporary, accidental deviations from the liberal model. While every society faces considerable challenges, U.S. society is led, for the most part, by honest and able people who can meet these challenges. In other words, the problems derive not from the barrel, but from a few bad apples. This optimistic vision of liberal capitalism has been attacked from all sides. Those on ...

show abstract

“…A number of researchers have considered the functional and dysfunctional characteristics of fealty relations between subunits or individuals within organizations. McPherson (1988) and others (Hoy & Rees, 1974) looked at the effects of both personal and group fealty relations in schools, while Murray and Corenblum (1966) did the same with public utilities, and Adler and Adler (1988) considered college athletic programs. In this respect, the feudal model benefits the study of organizations by identifying informal constraints, loyalty relations, nepotism and other personal ties as enduring social patterns that may, in some cases, facilitate the aims of the organization, while producing suboptimal outcomes in others.…”

Section: Personal Loyaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

The feudal model and the study of modern organizations

Woods

Shlapentokh

2009

International Journal of Organization Theory &Amp; Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the possibility of studying modern organizations with the feudal model. We introduce feudalism as an ideal type and explain why it is necessary for understanding organizations. The model synthesizes several perspectives on intra-organizational conflict. After defining the feudal model and tracing its theoretical roots, we review several empirical studies to identify the conditions under which feudal conflicts arise. These factors include decentralization, structural interdependence, uncertainty and informal power. The feudal model highlights several overlooked aspects of organizations, including personal relations, the manipulation of formal rules, bribery, corruption and sabotage. However, given the model's limitations, we propose a "segmented approach" to social analysis, which emphasizes the need for multiple models to explain any organization, past or present.

show abstract

Superintendents and the problem of delegation

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Feudal America : Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

The feudal model and the study of modern organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About