From Chaos to Systems: The Engineering Foundations of Organization Theory, 1879-1932

By Shenhav, Yehouda | Administrative Science Quarterly, December 1995 | Go to article overview

From Chaos to Systems: The Engineering Foundations of Organization Theory, 1879-1932


Shenhav, Yehouda, Administrative Science Quarterly


Several academic disciplines have devoted considerable attention to the study of organizations, most notably management, economics, sociology, political science, and psychology. Despite this massive attempt to produce scientific knowledge about organizations, researchers have done little to understand the historical origin of organization studies and its cultural and political context (for the few exceptions, see Waring, 1991; Barley and Kunda, 1992; Guillen, 1994). This paper traces the initial efforts to produce theories of organizations as "systems" during the period 1879-1932 in the United States. The study has two objectives: first, to demonstrate that the systems perspective has an intellectual history that predates general systems theory and, second, to show that the rise and evolution of this perspective should be understood as a product of professional, cultural, and political forces, not necessarily of functional and economic needs. The main argument is that the systems perspective in the management of organizations was crystallized within mechanical engineering during the last decades of the nineteenth century and was institutionalized as a legitimate canonical discourse during the Progressive period (1900-1917). Three factors were instrumental in facilitating this process: (1) The professionalization of mechanical engineering; (2) the political culture of Progressivism; and (3) the politics of labor unrest.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The ascendance of industrial capitalism in the U.S. after the Civil War was evident in the integration of markets, the consolidation of production, the professionalization of engineering, the concentration of labor in large firms, and industrial unrest (Sklar, 1988). By the late 1920s the organization of production was characterized by multi-unit, large-scale, and complex bureaucratic firms supervised by professional managers (Chandler, 1977; Fligstein, 1990). Concurrent with these processes were efforts to produce literature about organizations. Emerging from the rhetoric

[INCOMPLETE TEXT FROM ORIGINAL PUBLICATION]

engineering ideas and practices. As one writer stated in 1904, "system is neither more nor less than method" (Engineering Magazine, November 1904: 211).

This is not to say that everyone agreed with this professional ideology. There was considerable opposition within the ASME to the attempt to enforce standards and systems arbitrarily. Many members of the ASME criticized the movement, arguing that very few individuals are competent enough to judge a standard, that standardization implies taking a stand in business competition, and that standardization may produce unforeseen hazards for those forced to adopt standards. Others, who sided with owners of small shops, argued that standardization constrains free trade, is costly, and interferes with the freedom of industrial producers and the principle of laissez faire. Still others criticized systematization as rigid and antithetical to the ideals of spontaneity and innovation in engineering. In a controversial article entitled "Wake up America!," Louis Bell warned the engineering community that there are dangers "lurking in over-confidence in system" and that workmen become "mere belts, wheels, and oil-cans" where "one can hardly find an artisan" (Engineering Magazine, September 1906: 801-808).

This opposition failed for at least two reasons. First, there were frequent accidents that were attributed to the lack of standards. In 1904 Baltimore's entire business district was destroyed by fire, despite there being an ample water supply, because the screw threads on the fire hydrants did not fit couplings on the hoses of fire engines that arrived from other towns (Sinclair, 1980). Such incidents verified engineers' claims for the urgent need to standardize. Second, the effort toward standardization was partly driven by large firms as a response to the antitrust movement. As Haber (1964) and Hounshell (1996) explained, Progressive activists (such as Louis Brandeis) demanded that monopolistic firms increase their efficiency.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

From Chaos to Systems: The Engineering Foundations of Organization Theory, 1879-1932
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.