U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Scientific Personnel in Industry (Washington: U.S.G.P.O., 1960).
2.
The literature discussing these points is very large. For typical comments, see MarcsonS., The Scientist in American Industry (Princeton: Princeton University Industrial Relations Section, 1960); BrownPaulaShepherdClovis, “Bureaucracy in a Government Laboratory,”Social Forces32 (1954), 259–268; KornhauserW., Scientists in Industry: Conflict and Accommodation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962); VollmerH. W., A Preliminary Investigation of the Role of Scientists in Research Organizations (Menlo Park: Stanford Research Institute, 1962).
3.
ThompsonVictor A., “Bureaucracy and Innovation,”Administrative Science Quarterly10 (June 1965), 1–20.
4.
WeberMax, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, HendersonA. M.ParsonsTalcott (trans.) (Glencoe: Free Press, 1947).
5.
TaylorFrederick, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper, 1911).
6.
FayolHenri, General and Industrial Management (London: Pitman, 1961).
7.
This discussion of rational systems draws extensively upon ThompsonJames D., Organizational Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
8.
HebbD. O., “Problems Relating to Thought,” in SteinM. L.HenizeS. J. (eds.), Creativity and the Individual (Glencoe: Free Press, 1960), p. 71.
9.
KornhauserMarcsonLaPorteT. R., “Value Orientations and the Relationship of Managers and Scientists,”Administrative Science Quarterly10 (June 1965), 21–38; HowerR.OrthC., Managers and Scientists (Boston: Harvard Business School, 1963).
10.
HowerOrthMarcsonBarnesL., Organizational Systems and Engineering Groups (Boston: Harvard Business School, 1960).
11.
MooreD. G.RenckR., “The Professional Employee in Industry,”Journal of Business (Jan. 1955), 58–66.
12.
GlazerB. G., “The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist,”American Journal of Sociology69 (1963), 252.
13.
See LaPorteHowerOrth; Marcson.
14.
For a discussion of the relationships among organization size, structure, and performance, see LittererJ. A., The Analysis of Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1965), Chapter 20.
15.
LorschJ. W., Product Innovation and Organization (New York: Macmillan, 1965).
16.
MetzgerLeo, “Scientific Productivity in Organizations,”Journal of Social Issues (1965), 32–40.
17.
See LaPorteKaplanN., “The Role of the Research Administrator,”Administrative Science Quarterly4 (1959), 20–42.
18.
HowerOrth, pp. 282–284.
19.
This supports similar findings by PelzD. C., “Influence: A Key to Effective Leadership in the First Line Supervisor,”Personnel (Nov. 1952), 3–11.
20.
See, e.g., BrownShepherd.
21.
LaPorte, pp. 36–37.
22.
BrownShepherd.
23.
Lorsch.
24.
A number of other investigations have noted this tendency to reduce controls on scientists to permit greater freedom of operation. See, e.g., KornhauserMarcsonVollmerH. M., Work Activities and Attitudes of Scientists and Research Managers. Data from a National Survey. Technical Report Phase III (Menlo Park: Stanford Research Institute, 1965).
25.
Litterer, pp. 209–212.
26.
Ibid., pp. 206–208.
27.
This phenomenon has been analyzed by many investigators, among them: MarchJ. G.SimonH. A., Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1959); DearbornD. C.SimonH. A., “Selective Executives,”Sociometry21 (1958), 140–144; SelznickP., Leadership in Administration (Evanston, Ill.: Rowe, Peterson, 1957); Litterer, pp. 51–62.
28.
LawrenceP. R., in a joint colloquium of the Department of Psychology and the Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Illinois, Dec. 10, 1965.
29.
Lorsch, p. 20.
30.
BurnsT.StalkerG. M., The Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock, 1959), p. 9.
31.
Lorsch, pp. 66–67.
32.
Ibid., pp. 65–88.
33.
Ibid., p. 76.
34.
Burns and Stalker.
35.
Ibid.; KleinH.MechlingW., “Application of Operations Research to Development Decisions,”Operations Research6 (1958), 352–363; HirschmanA. O.LindblomC. E., “Economic Development, Research and Development, Policy Making: Some Converging Views,”Behavioral Science7 (1962), 211–222; BraybrookeD.LindblomC. E., A Strategy of Decision (New York: Free Press, 1963).