IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v12y2001i1p76-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bringing Work Back In

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen R. Barley

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Center for Work, Technology and Organization, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305)

  • Gideon Kunda

    (Department of Labor Studies, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel 47217)

Abstract

In this essay we argue that organization theory's effort to make sense of postbureaucratic organizing is hampered by a dearth of detailed studies of work. We review the history of organization theory to show that, in the past, studies of work provided an empirical foundation for theories of bureaucracy, and explain how such research became marginalized or ignored. We then discuss methodological requirements for reintegrating work studies into organization theory and indicate what the conceptual payoffs of such integration might be. These payoffs include breaking new conceptual ground, resolving theoretical puzzles, envisioning organizing processes, and revitalizing old concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen R. Barley & Gideon Kunda, 2001. "Bringing Work Back In," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 76-95, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:12:y:2001:i:1:p:76-95
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.12.1.76.10122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.76.10122
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.12.1.76.10122?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abraham, Katharine G & Taylor, Susan K, 1996. "Firms' Use of Outside Contractors: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(3), pages 394-424, July.
    2. Rosemary Batt, 1999. "Work Organization, Technology, and Performance in Customer Service and Sales," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 52(4), pages 539-564, July.
    3. Jeffrey H. Keefe, 1991. "Numerically Controlled Machine Tools and Worker Skills," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 44(3), pages 503-519, April.
    4. Brian T. Pentland, 1995. "Grammatical Models of Organizational Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 541-556, October.
    5. John Paul Macduffie, 1995. "Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 48(2), pages 197-221, January.
    6. Jan O. Jonsson, 1998. "Class and the Changing Nature of Work: Testing Hypotheses of Deskilling and Convergence among Swedish Employees," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 12(4), pages 603-633, December.
    7. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. "The Principles of Scientific Management," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number taylor1911.
    8. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    9. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1996. "Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 63-92, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    2. Ariel C. Avgar & Niti Pandey & Kiwook Kwon, 2012. "Discretion in Context: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Relationship between Discretion and Turnover Intentions," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 106-128, January.
    3. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    4. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Derek C. Jones & Takao Kato, 2011. "The Impact of Teams on Output, Quality, and Downtime: An Empirical Analysis Using Individual Panel Data," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 64(2), pages 215-240, January.
    6. Rosemary Batt & Hiroatsu Nohara & Hyunji Kwon, 2010. "Employer Strategies and Wages in New Service Activities: A Comparison of Co‐ordinated and Liberal Market Economies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 48(2), pages 400-435, June.
    7. D'Adderio, Luciana, 2008. "The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 769-789, June.
    8. Daniel Geiger & Jochen Koch, 2008. "Von der individuellen Routine zur organisationalen Praktik — Ein neues Paradigma für die Organisationsforschung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 60(7), pages 693-712, November.
    9. Josh Whitford & Francesco Zirpoli, 2014. "Pragmatism, Practice, and the Boundaries of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1823-1839, December.
    10. Stephen R. Barley & Debra E. Meyerson & Stine Grodal, 2011. "E-mail as a Source and Symbol of Stress," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 887-906, August.
    11. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    12. Pruneda, Gabriel, 2014. "Employee coverage of high-performance work systems in Spain: a comparative analysis before and during economic retrenchment," MPRA Paper 83909, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Michael Gibbs & Alec Levenson & Cindy Zoghi, 2010. "Why are jobs designed the way they are?," Research in Labor Economics, in: Jobs, Training, and Worker Well-being, pages 107-154, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    14. Khuong, Le-Nguyen & Harindranath, G. & Dyerson, Romano, 2014. "Understanding knowledge management software-organisation misalignments from an institutional perspective: A case study of a global IT-management consultancy firm," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 226-247.
    15. Hunter, Starling David, 2003. "Same Technology, Different Outcome? Lessons on Dummy Variables & Dependent Variable Transformations," Working papers 4308-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    16. Brian T. Pentland, 2003. "Sequential Variety in Work Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 528-540, October.
    17. Marie-Claude Boudreau & Daniel Robey, 2005. "Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 3-18, February.
    18. Anja Danner-Schröder & Daniel Geiger, 2016. "Unravelling the Motor of Patterning Work: Toward an Understanding of the Microlevel Dynamics of Standardization and Flexibility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 633-658, June.
    19. Paula A. Jarzabkowski & Jane K. Lê & Martha S. Feldman, 2012. "Toward a Theory of Coordinating: Creating Coordinating Mechanisms in Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 907-927, August.
    20. Brent Boning & Casey Ichniowski & Kathryn Shaw, 2007. "Opportunity Counts: Teams and the Effectiveness of Production Incentives," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(4), pages 613-650.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:12:y:2001:i:1:p:76-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.