Aston Study review
Organization Structure and Strategies of Control: A replication of the Aston study by John Child.
A review
Chrystal M Noronha
Deepak Bhat
Sommya Verma
Kiran Jose Ignatius
Sai Kumar Mahadevan
We examine the work of John Child in his paper addressing the fallacies in the original Aston study findings and discuss the relation between Centralization and the structure of the organization, if any, is positively or negatively related. We try to draw distinctions in Child’s study and the original Aston Study and how it changed the perception of a study which was a critique of the validity and utility of the bureaucratic model propagated by Weber. Finally we conclude by commenting on the scope of the research and further questions that it raises.
Max weber in his analysis of bureaucracy concluded that centralization of the organization is negatively related to the structuring variables, it is still considered to be the bible when it comes to relating the centralization parameter to the structuring of an organization. Although, various investigators like Stinchcombe (1959),Burns and Stalker (1961) and Hall(1968) have given their own interpretation of the correlation and come up with their own structural types, all of them have agreed and not questioned Max Weber’s analysis. The Aston study by Pugh et al was one of the first studies that raised an objection to the Weber analysis. The paper that we are reviewing now is a replication of the Aston study which critiques the sample and other observed fallacies in the original study and observes that the Weberian analysis is still valid.
The study conducted by John Child named as the national study specifically targets two problems in the original Aston study. One of the questions the study raises, is the heterogeneity of the sample in Aston study with respect to the organizational status. This study was conducted with the purpose to identify how to be consistent with the sampling. The assumption of a
A review
Chrystal M Noronha
Deepak Bhat
Sommya Verma
Kiran Jose Ignatius
Sai Kumar Mahadevan
We examine the work of John Child in his paper addressing the fallacies in the original Aston study findings and discuss the relation between Centralization and the structure of the organization, if any, is positively or negatively related. We try to draw distinctions in Child’s study and the original Aston Study and how it changed the perception of a study which was a critique of the validity and utility of the bureaucratic model propagated by Weber. Finally we conclude by commenting on the scope of the research and further questions that it raises.
Max weber in his analysis of bureaucracy concluded that centralization of the organization is negatively related to the structuring variables, it is still considered to be the bible when it comes to relating the centralization parameter to the structuring of an organization. Although, various investigators like Stinchcombe (1959),Burns and Stalker (1961) and Hall(1968) have given their own interpretation of the correlation and come up with their own structural types, all of them have agreed and not questioned Max Weber’s analysis. The Aston study by Pugh et al was one of the first studies that raised an objection to the Weber analysis. The paper that we are reviewing now is a replication of the Aston study which critiques the sample and other observed fallacies in the original study and observes that the Weberian analysis is still valid.
The study conducted by John Child named as the national study specifically targets two problems in the original Aston study. One of the questions the study raises, is the heterogeneity of the sample in Aston study with respect to the organizational status. This study was conducted with the purpose to identify how to be consistent with the sampling. The assumption of a