The Organization-Client Relationship as an Aspect of Interorganizational Analysis

Abstract

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania This paper presents an argument for viewing the relationship between organizations and their clients as a specific case of interorganizational relationship. Following a proposition related to interorganizational analysis suggested by Litwak and Hylton (1962), the paper argues that the organization-client relationship is characterized by interests that arepartly shared and partly conflicting. It is suggested that Litwak and Hylton's hypothesis on the need for mechanisms that preserve both cooperation and conflict between organizations can be applied to the relationship between the organization and its clients. When mechanisms for conflict maintenance are missing the equilibrium of this relationship may be altered in favor of the organization, by a process of overbureaucratization, or of the clients, by a process of debureaucratization. The discussion focuses on the second alternative with an analysis, illustrated by a case study, of the causes and consequences of debureaucratizaion.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AIKEN, M. , & HAGE, J. Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure . American Sociological Review, 1968, 36, 912-931 .

BENDIX, R. Bureaucracy: The problem and its setting . American Sociological Review, 1947, 12(5), 493-507 .

BLAU, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. London: Wiley , 1964.

CHANDLER, A. D. Strategy and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press , 1962.

CLARK, B. R. The open door college. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1960.

CLARK, B. R. Interorganizational patterns of education . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1965, 10, 224-237 .

COSER, R. L. Insulation from observability and types of social conformity . American Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 28-39 .

DUNCAN, R. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 4, 313-327 .

EISENSTADT, S. N. Bureaucracy, bureaucratization and debureaucratization . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1959, 4, 302-320 .

10.

EMERSON, R. M. Power dependence relations . American Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 31-41 .

11.

EMERY, F. E. , & TRIST, E. L. The causal texture of organizational environments . Human Relations, 1965, 18(1), 21-32 .

12.

EVAN, W. M. The organization set: Toward a theory of interorganizational relations. In J. D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to organizational design. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press , 1966.

13.

GOULDNER, A. W. Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York: Macmillan , 1964.

14.

GOULDNER, A. W. Red tape as a social problem. In R. K. Merton , A. P. Gray , B. Hockey , & H. Selvin (Eds.), Reader in bureaucracy. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press , 1952.

15.

HICKSON, D. J. , HININGS, C. R. , LEE, C. A. , SCHNECK, R. A. , & PENNINGS, J. M. A. Strategic contingencies' theory of intraorganizational power . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 216-229 .

16.

JACOBS, E. Dependence and vulnerability: An exchange approach to the control of organizations . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19(1), 45-59 .

17.

JURKOVICH, R. A. Core typology of organizational environments . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19(3) 380-394 .

18.

KATZ, E. , & EISENSTADT, S. N. Some sociological observations on the response of Israeli organizations to new immigrants . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1960, 5 (1), 113-133 .

19.

LAWRENCE, P. , & LORSCH, J. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, 12, 1-47 .

20.

LEFTON, M. , & ROSENGREN, W. R. Organizations and clients: Lateral and longitudinal dimensions . American Sociological Review, 1966, 31 (6), 802-810 .

21.

LEVINE, S. , & WHITE, P. E. Exchange in a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1961, 5, 583-601 .

22.

LITWAK, E. , & HYLTON, L. F. Interorganizational analysis: An hypothesis on coordinating agencies . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1962, 7, 395-420 .

23.

MANNHEIM, K. Man and society in an age of reconstruction. New York: Harcourt Brace , 1949.

24.

MERTON, R. K. Bureaucratic structure and personality . Social Forces, 1940, 18, 560-568 .

25.

PAGE, C. H. Bureaucracy's other face . Social Forces, 1946, 24, 88-94 .

26.

PARSONS, T. The social system. New York: Free Press , 1951.

27.

PARSONS, T. Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A. W. Halpin (Ed.), Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago , 1958.

28.

PERROW, C. The analysis of goals in complex organizations . American Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 854-866 .

29.

PERROW, C. Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth , 1970.

30.

PAULSON, S. K. Causal analysis of interorganizational relations: An axiomatic theory revised . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19(3), 319-337 .

31.

REID, W. Interagency coordination in deliquency prevention and control . Social Service Review, 1964, 38, 418-428 .

32.

SELZNICK, P. TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press , 1949.

33.

THOMPSON, J. D. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1967.

34.

TURNER, R. H. The Navy disbursing officer as a bureaucrat . American Sociological Review, 1947, 12, 342-348 .

35.

UDY, S. H. Administrative rationality, social setting, and organizational development . American Journal of Sociology, 1962, 68, 299-308 .

36.

WARREN, R. L. The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, 12, 396-419 .