Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems
Identifieur interne : 002896 ( Istex/Checkpoint ); précédent : 002895; suivant : 002897Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems
Auteurs : RBID : ISTEX:C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1CAbstract
Much of the critical attention given to Weber's tripartite scheme of legitimate domination has focused on the issue of its supposed incapacity to accommodate forms of organization not based on instrumental rationality. In fact substantive rationality is a continuous point of reference in Weber's analysis and surfaces in his brief and fragmentary outlines of three polycratic organizational forms: collegiality, mass democracy, and direct democracy. This article locates polycratic organizations in relation to the three monocratic structures indicated by the typology of legitimate domination. Extant examples of polycratic organizations are compared substantively. The three forms are then typologized in terms first of characteristics of participation by personnel, and second of the processes by which decisions are made.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb02954.x
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems</title><author><name sortKey="Waters, Malcolm" uniqKey="Waters M">Malcolm Waters</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Tasmania</mods:affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">University of Tasmania</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C</idno><date when="1993">1993</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb02954.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003C13</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">003C13</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">002896</idno></publicationStmt><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0038-0261</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="eng">Much of the critical attention given to Weber's tripartite scheme of legitimate domination has focused on the issue of its supposed incapacity to accommodate forms of organization not based on instrumental rationality. In fact substantive rationality is a continuous point of reference in Weber's analysis and surfaces in his brief and fragmentary outlines of three polycratic organizational forms: collegiality, mass democracy, and direct democracy. This article locates polycratic organizations in relation to the three monocratic structures indicated by the typology of legitimate domination. Extant examples of polycratic organizations are compared substantively. The three forms are then typologized in terms first of characteristics of participation by personnel, and second of the processes by which decisions are made.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><copyrightdate>1993</copyrightdate><author><json:item><name>Malcolm Waters</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Tasmania</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><genre><json:string>Serial article</json:string></genre><host><genre></genre><language></language><issn><json:string>0038-0261</json:string></issn><title>The Sociological Review</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1467-954X</json:string></doi></host><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>Much of the critical attention given to Weber's tripartite scheme of legitimate domination has focused on the issue of its supposed incapacity to accommodate forms of organization not based on instrumental rationality. In fact substantive rationality is a continuous point of reference in Weber's analysis and surfaces in his brief and fragmentary outlines of three polycratic organizational forms: collegiality, mass democracy, and direct democracy. This article locates polycratic organizations in relation to the three monocratic structures indicated by the typology of legitimate domination. Extant examples of polycratic organizations are compared substantively. The three forms are then typologized in terms first of characteristics of participation by personnel, and second of the processes by which decisions are made.</abstract><title>Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems</title><pubdate>1993-02</pubdate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb02954.x</json:string></doi><id>C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader type="text"><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="alt" xml:lang="">Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</p></availability><date>2011-02-03</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="">Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Malcolm</forename><surname>Waters</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Tasmania</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">The Sociological Review</title><idno type="pISSN">0038-0261</idno><idno type="eISSN">1467-954X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1467-954X</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1993-02"></date><biblScope unit="vol">41</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="54">54</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="81">81</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb02954.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">SORE2954</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2011-02-03</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Much of the critical attention given to Weber's tripartite scheme of legitimate domination has focused on the issue of its supposed incapacity to accommodate forms of organization not based on instrumental rationality. In fact substantive rationality is a continuous point of reference in Weber's analysis and surfaces in his brief and fragmentary outlines of three polycratic organizational forms: collegiality, mass democracy, and direct democracy. This article locates polycratic organizations in relation to the three monocratic structures indicated by the typology of legitimate domination. Extant examples of polycratic organizations are compared substantively. The three forms are then typologized in terms first of characteristics of participation by personnel, and second of the processes by which decisions are made.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2011-02-03">Created</change><change when="1993-02">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1467-954X</doi><issn type="print">0038-0261</issn><issn type="electronic">1467-954X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="SORE"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW">The Sociological Review</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="02101"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/sore.1993.41.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="41">41</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1993-02">February 1993</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="3" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb02954.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="SORE2954"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="28"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Article</title></titleGroup><copyright>1993 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.4.4 mode:FullText" date="2011-02-03"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-02-03"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-02-03"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-08"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-04"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="54">54</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="81">81</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:SORE.SORE2954.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Received 12 March 1991, Finally accepted 11 October 1991</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="32"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="1"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Malcolm</givenNames><familyName>Waters</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>University of Tasmania</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>Much of the critical attention given to Weber's tripartite scheme of legitimate domination has focused on the issue of its supposed incapacity to accommodate forms of organization not based on instrumental rationality. In fact substantive rationality is a continuous point of reference in Weber's analysis and surfaces in his brief and fragmentary outlines of three polycratic organizational forms: collegiality, mass democracy, and direct democracy. This article locates polycratic organizations in relation to the three monocratic structures indicated by the typology of legitimate domination. Extant examples of polycratic organizations are compared substantively. The three forms are then typologized in terms first of characteristics of participation by personnel, and second of the processes by which decisions are made.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.5"><titleInfo><title>Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative"><title></title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Malcolm</namePart><namePart type="family">Waters</namePart><affiliation>University of Tasmania</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre>Serial article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2011-02-03</dateCreated><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1993-02</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1993</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="eng">Much of the critical attention given to Weber's tripartite scheme of legitimate domination has focused on the issue of its supposed incapacity to accommodate forms of organization not based on instrumental rationality. In fact substantive rationality is a continuous point of reference in Weber's analysis and surfaces in his brief and fragmentary outlines of three polycratic organizational forms: collegiality, mass democracy, and direct democracy. This article locates polycratic organizations in relation to the three monocratic structures indicated by the typology of legitimate domination. Extant examples of polycratic organizations are compared substantively. The three forms are then typologized in terms first of characteristics of participation by personnel, and second of the processes by which decisions are made.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The Sociological Review</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0038-0261</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1467-954X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1467-954X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">SORE</identifier><part><date>1993</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>41</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb02954.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">SORE2954</identifier><part><extent unit="pages"><start>54</start><end>81</end><total>28</total></extent><extent unit="references"><total>32</total></extent></part><recordInfo><recordOrigin>WILEY</recordOrigin><recordContentSource>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Linguistique/explor/CharterV3/Data/Istex/Checkpoint
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002896 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd -nk 002896 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Linguistique
|area= CharterV3
|flux= Istex
|étape= Checkpoint
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C0D94A93D2F742BA35F226B13722EDB87A894C1C
|texte= Alternative organizational formations: a neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.07. |  |