The article is concerned with the attitudinal and personal relations and structural consequences of a particular autocratic management style. It argues that even after the person responsible for this type of domination has left an organization the consequences of his leadership remain, and serve to produce manager-subordinate relationships and personal attitudes similar to those he encouraged and personified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BLAU, P. M. , & SCHOENHERR, R. A.The structure of organizations. New York: Basic Books , 1971.
2.
BURNS, T. , & STALKER, G. M.The management of innovation. London: Tavistock , 1961.
3.
CHILD, J.Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice . Sociology, 1972, 6(1), 1-22 .
4.
HALL, R. H.Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall .
5.
HICKSON, D. J.A convergence in organization theory . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 11, 224-237 .
6.
KAHN, R. L. , WOLFE, D. M. , QUINN, R. P. , & SNOECK, J. D.Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley , 1964.
7.
MOORE, D. G.Managerial strategies. In W. Warner & N. H. Martin (Eds.), Industrial man. New York: Harper , 1959, pp. 219-226.
8.
NICHOLS, T.Ownership, control and ideology. London: Allen and Unwin , 1969.
9.
PEABODY, R. L.Perceptions of organizational authority. In O. Grusky & G. A. Miller (Eds.), The sociology of organizations: Basic studies. New York: The Free Press , 1970, pp. 319-328.
