Talk:Organizational theory

Redirect
I am putting in a redirect to organizational studies, since none of this stuff is really organizational theory as it is currently studied. Instead, most of these links are to ways of organizing things. I am open to suggestions, however. --Goodoldpolonius 03:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree - This article lacks a current postmodern study of organizational theory --130.226.142.243 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * * A postmodern study is definitely necessary here. Additionally, the section criticizing Weber's theory seems to be focused on refuting criticism rather than fairly stating arguments against his system. We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say... By silence, I hear other men&#39;s imperfections and conceal my own... Better to trip with the feet than with the tongue. (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, none of these topics have links. You might want to define some of these things...

Needs rewriting
This article is full of useless verbiage - needlessly long-winded and repetitive. Additionally, it is riddled with grammatical disagreements in number. It reads as if it was written by a single writer who liked using many words when few will do, and who had trouble distinguishing singular and plural. I suspect that the writer was not a native speaker of English.

I'm about to make many scattered changes to fix this; I hope I don't accidentally change its meaning while doing so, or cause other damage.

Ooh, this is a good one: "the [...] context in which organizations arose [...] allowed [...] for the development of organizations". Well, I guess so... chuckle

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.224.109 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is many years later but I agree with what was written on this page in 2015. The problem is more than poor writing or grammar. The problem is conceptualization. The first paragraph does not define organizational theory adequately. Even the section on Weber is faulty. When Weber writes about ideal types he is not writing about what should be or what ideally should be. Weber uses the term "ideal type" somewhat in the way psychologists use the term "construct." It is a way to conceptualize what is going on in organization. Weber knew well that organizations don't behave perfectly consistently with the "ideal types." The instantiation of ideal types is imperfect. Weber knew that. But he needed a language to describe organizations. He thus developed ideal types to develop a cogent theory. Iss246 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening paragraph and a little of the second paragraph. I thought the opening was weak. I edited some of the material on Weber. I didn't do as thorough a job on Weber as I did on the opening paragraph. I don't think I am going to spend much time on organizational theory. My wish is that other WP editors pick up where I left off. I would like to see the entry improved. Iss246 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The article is in need of some work, that is for sure. The opening paragraph contains redundancies, incorrect grammar, almost no citations, and no links to external pages. The rest of the article follows this pattern.

The subcategories cover a variety of topics, however as others have pointed out, there is information missing (Postmodern Organizational Theory). Some of the subheadings also need to be corrected for grammar. The paragraph about the criticisms of Weber's theory contain almost no citations in the text, there are three cited sources for that sub heading, but there's no indicator as to where one piece of information came from where.

Overall, a rewrite of a lot of the information could be used, references are needed, citations are needed, grammar needs to be corrected, information needs to be added, and links to other relevant pages would be nice as well. Randzeo (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank Dobbin's spurious "that"
Modernization theorist Frank Dobbin states "modern institutions are transparently purposive and that we are in the midst an evolutionary progression towards more efficient forms".

Tragic for Dobbin if this shouldn't actually be rendered:

Modernization theorist Frank Dobbin states "modern institutions are transparently purposive" and that "we are in the midst an evolutionary progression towards more efficient forms".

&mdash; MaxEnt 17:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)