The Studies of the Organizations and the Validity of the Classics to Explain the Current Problems
- 1 Department of Studies of Organizations and Sociology of Organizations, Autonomous University of the State of Morelos, Cuernavaca, Mexico
- 2 Research Department of Studies of Health Organizations and Studies, Autonomous University of The State of Morelos, Cuernavaca, Mexico
- 3 Department of Organization Studies, Instituto Nuevo Latinoamericano, Cuernavaca, Mexico
Abstract
The organization has evolved over time and therefore few have generated new theoretical approaches to analysis, which from the point of view of ontological and epistemological scholars have carried out in the organization. This situation has led to a proliferation of approaches or paradigms to explain it, since the organization as a complex phenomenon cannot be considered a well-defined theoretical phenomenon whose behavior obeys simple laws, but rather, according to field scholars, the organization is a phenomenon complex. The objective of this research proposal is to carry out an analysis of the studies on the organization through a historical journey that discovers what its evolution has been at an epistemological, methodological, and disciplinary level. In addition to proving that the vision of the classics of organization theory is still valid. The research method used was the documentary.
- Argyris, C. (1973). Some Limits of Rational Man Organizational Theory. Public Administration Review, 33, 253-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/974803
- Argyris, C. (1975). The Impact of the Formal Organization upon the Individual. In D. S. Pugh (Eds.), Organization Theory (pp. 261-278).Penguin Books.
- Barnard, C. I. (1959). Las funciones de los elementos dirigentes, Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Políticos. pp. 245-264.
- Barnard, C. L. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press.
- Barnard, C. L. (1968). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press.
- Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing Organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2, 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188636600200301
- Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis Gower. Aldershot.
- Donaldson, L. (1985). In Defense of Organizational Theory. A Reply to the Critics. Harvard University Press.
- Guerrero Sanchez, P., Perez Mayo, A. R., Guerrero Grajeda, J., & Romero Torres, F. (2023). La vigencia de los clásicos de la teoría de las organizaciones como respuesta a los problemas actuales. Revista Gestión Y Estrategia, No. 63, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.24275/uam/azc/dcsh/gye/2023n63/Guerrero
- Hassard, J. (1995). Sociology and Organizational Theory, Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity. Cambridge University Press.
- Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man (pp. 71-129). Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
- Manso Pinto, J. F. (2002). El legado de Frederick Irving Herzberg. Revista Universidad, 128, 79-86.
- March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
- Martin, J., & Frost, P. (1996). The Organizational Culture War Games: A Struggle for Intellectual Dominance. In S. R. Clegg et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies (pp. 599-621). Sage.
- Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Word (pp. 35-104). Harper & Row Publishers.
- Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row.
- Mayo, E. (1945). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.