48 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012  
SEVEN PITFALLS IN ORGANISATION LITERATURE 
 
Jon Aarum Andersen 
Lillehammer University College  
N-2604 Lillehammer, Norway 
Jon.Andersen@hil.no 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------     Abstract     ------------------------------------------------- 
Current organisation literature is rife with several incorrect and confusing assertions which continually create 
problems for students and researchers alike. Seven of these unfortunate beliefs are presented here and 
provocatively called ‘pitfalls’. The aim of this article is to draw attention to some of these theoretically incorrect 
assertions and how they can be avoided in scholarly work. The implications for managers are also presented. 
 
Key words: goals, anthropomorphism, organisational member, flat organisations, hierarchy and bureaucracy, 
effective leaders 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 
Current organisational literature is rife with 
several incorrect and confusing assertions that 
continually create problems for students and 
researchers alike and plague descriptions of the 
phenomenon of organisations, regardless of 
whether they are private enterprises, public 
agencies or voluntary organisations. This article 
presents seven of these unfortunate 
descriptions or assertions and provocatively 
calls them ‘pitfalls,’ which is to say that these 
various formulations are often unsuspected 
sources of trouble that stem from a host of 
unwarranted assumptions. These seven pitfalls 
are: (1) organisations are based on common 
goals; (2) organisations are (like) humans; (3) 
organisational member; (4) flat organisations; 
(5) hierarchy and bureaucracy; (6) leadership 
and effectiveness; and (7) organisations have 
no owners. Some of these pitfalls have their 
origins in the classical literature or in 
misunderstandings thereof, while others are 
due to theoretical shortcomings. Some 
assertions are outright mistakes or objectively 
incorrect. One of the pitfalls (organisations 
have no owners) in particular flies in the face of 
overwhelming evidence. The theoretical 
implications relate to how one might avoid 
these pitfalls when writing about organisations. 
Likewise, the implications for managers point to 
how managers can avoid creating 
misunderstandings in their own organisations. 
2. PITFALL 1: ORGANISATIONS ARE BASED 
ON COMMON GOALS 
Many textbooks characterise organisations – 
irrespective of what kind of organisations they 
are describing – as having common goals or 
purposes. This characterisation is incorrect and 
due to a misreading or misunderstanding of 
Barnard’s seminal work in which he used the 
term “common end” (1938: 104). Andrews’ 
foreword to Barnard (1938: viii) also states that 
the existence and acceptance of purpose is 
essential to the survival of an organisation. 
 
 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 49 
Barnard (1938: 55) himself claims: “It is 
apparent that an objective of cooperation is 
non-personal, that it is an aim of the system of 
cooperation as a whole”. Further, Barnard 
(1938: 86) states that “a purpose does not 
incite cooperative action unless it is accepted 
by those whose effort will constitute the 
organization”. However, these statements do 
not entail that organisations are based on 
common goals but that goal acceptance is 
important for organisations. Barnard (1938: 88) 
is very clear on this difference: “… we have 
clearly to distinguish between organization 
purpose and individual motive”. In addition, 
Barnard (1938: 104) asserts that, “The 
organization comes into being when two or 
more persons begin to cooperate to a common 
end”. Finally, Barnard (1938: 137) observes that 
an “Understanding or acceptance of the 
general purpose of the complex is not, 
however, essential. But in general complex 
organizations are characterized by obvious lack 
of complete understanding and acceptance of 
general purposes and aims”. Barnard refers to 
common goals (ends) in terms of the 
employees’ personal motives and satisfaction 
that could be achieved by contributing to 
attainment of the organisation’s goal. By 
overlooking this crucial point, many writers 
have strewn this misunderstanding throughout 
the literature. This mistake can explain the flaw 
in statements about organisations having 
common goals.  
Scott (2003: 11) states: “Most analysts have 
conceived of organisations as social structures 
created by individuals to support the 
collaborative pursuit of specified goals”. The 
majority of organisations are private 
enterprises and public organisations. The 
owners and managers and other employees of 
a company do not have common goals. Private 
and public organisations are not collectives of 
individuals who have common goals. Those 
who are employed in private and public 
organisations do not have common goals. 
However, it is the owners of the organisations 
who have common goals, and not the people 
who work there. Further, corporate legislation 
in many countries makes it absolutely clear that 
the limited company is established in order to 
achieve the goals of the owners.  
3. PITFALL 2: ORGANISATIONS ARE (LIKE) 
HUMANS 
Many scholars argue that organisations are 
human or like human beings. This is 
anthropomorphism, that is, (the fallacy of) 
attributing human characteristics to non-
human entities. But an organisation is not a 
human being and has no human characteristics. 
The negative consequences of 
anthropomorphism in organisation literature 
are evident. Anthropomorphism creates 
confusion and hinders advances in the field of 
organisation theory.  
Greiner (1972) proposes that an 
organisation passes through sequential growth 
stages during the course of organisational 
evolution. Similarly, Adizes (1979, 1988) 
presents the life cycle of organisations from the 
infant phase to death. Jones (1993: 436) writes 
that the way an organisation manages the 
problems it confronts determines whether 
“[....] it will survive and prosper or fail and die”. 
Weitzel and Jonsson (1989) present a model of 
organisational decline and describe 
organisational decline by degrees ending in 
death. 
The notion that organisations act and 
behave as humans is found in innumerable 
texts. A few examples are presented here. 
Miles and Snow (1986: 68) write about, “A 
healthy industry’s needs for innovation and 
Jon Aarum Andersen: Seven pitfalls in organisation literature 
 
50 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 
efficiency ...”. Cooper and Cartwright (1994) 
use the phrases “healthy mind” and “healthy 
organisations”. Hilton Brown (1997) employs 
“organisational health”, “pathology”, 
“adrenaline”, “trauma”, “disease”, and 
“rebirth”. McHugh (2002) addresses the overall 
health of the organisational system and draws 
from aetiological vocabulary to claim that a 
viral infection is the cause of disease. 
Cunningham (1997: 472) writes “organisational 
death” and “organisation’s death” and says that 
organisations can “recreate themselves”. Kets 
de Vries and Miller (1984) identify common 
neurotic organisational forms, and that some 
organisations suffer from “mental diseases” 
(ibid.). Hellriegel and Slocum (1992: 555) 
equate an organisational culture with an 
organisation’s personality. Robbins (1998: 594) 
writes, “But organizations are more. They have 
personalities too, just like individuals”. Jones 
(1993: 435) writes, “If they [organizations] do 
not take corrective action”. Miles and Snow 
(1986: 67) write, “... a few firms must 
behave...”.  
For many years now, the nature of 
organisational cognition and its relation to 
individual cognition has been the subject of 
lively debate. If organisations have cognitive 
abilities, then it implies that organisations can 
think, analyse, understand and possess 
knowledge. This in turn implies that 
organisations have brains. The very title of 
Douglas’ (1986) book, How Institutions Think, is 
illustrative. Jones (1993: 474) writes that all 
organisations have to develop the capacity to 
make decisions. Creativity and innovative 
abilities also require mental capacity and a 
brain. Stacy (1993: 17) uses the term 
“innovative human organizations”. Stacy (1993) 
believes organisations are creative in 
themselves.  
Vast amounts of literature tell us that the 
organisation is human or like a human. But 
organisations are not human beings. They are 
not even like human beings. Organisations do 
not think. They do not act. Organisations have 
no behaviour, no imagination, no creativity, and 
no needs. They cannot think and they have no 
feelings. Organisations have no cognitive 
capabilities. Only human beings (and some 
animals) can act and have these capabilities.  
Why have some writers conceived of 
organisations as human beings or like human 
beings? Three causes can be traced. The open-
system approach tends to attribute ‘human’ 
characteristics to the system as a whole. The 
open-system theory has an anthropomorphic 
bias. The idea that organisations and their way 
of functioning can be understood based on the 
same principles as those of biological organisms 
is unfortunate. The second cause is the use of 
human metaphors. The metaphors of 
“organisation as organism” and “organisation 
as brain” have led to the idea of an organisation 
being a human. What was originally meant to 
be “organisations as if they are human”, rapidly 
turned into “organisations are human”. The 
third cause has to do with the problem of levels 
of analysis – a problem not yet solved in the 
social sciences. Writers on organisations need 
to acknowledge that statements relevant at the 
individual level are not valid at the group and 
organisational levels. 
An organisation may be perceived in many 
ways, including by the use of metaphors and by 
studying it from different perspectives. 
Organisations may be understood and 
interpreted in different ways. Several meanings 
can be attributed to organisations. The 
understanding of organisations is socially 
constructed. No matter how organisations are 
understood, perceived, interpreted, 
constructed or deconstructed, one fact 
 
 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 51 
remains: the phenomenon of organisations 
exists. Organisations cannot be established, 
abolished, repealed, nullified or dissolved by 
intellectual exercises. Private enterprises and 
public agencies are social phenomena and legal 
entities. 
When stating that an organisation is 
“mature”, one implies that birth, maturity, and 
death apply to organisations. Birth, maturity, 
and death, however, do not apply. 
Organisations are not natural phenomena but 
contrived. They are something that man has 
made. Organisations are established as a 
possible solution to human problems. They do 
not emerge by themselves. Organisations are 
established because certain people have 
decided so and they cease to operate for the 
same reason. An organisation is just that – an 
organisation (Andersen, 2008).  
4. PITFALL 3: ORGANISATIONAL MEMBER 
The term “organisational member” is found 
in the classical writings on organisation and 
administration. Barnard (1938: 163), for 
instance, used the terms “contributor to or 
‘member’ of the organisation”, but always with 
member in quotation marks. However, the 
term member is Simon’s. Already in the 
introductory chapter, Simon ([1947] 1957: xii) 
uses the term “member” when writing “ .... and 
link together the component choice processes 
of their members”. Likert (1961) and Katz and 
Kahn (1966) also used the term “member” 
frequently. 
Contemporary writers on organisation 
appear to use the term member more often 
than the classical ones. Here is one example. 
Hatch (2006: 104): “In the past, many managers 
believed that every member of the organisation 
should report to only one person so that each 
member has one clear path through the 
hierarchy stretching from themselves to their 
boss ...”. 
One exception is Robbins and Judge (2009) 
who consequently use the terms “manager” 
and “employee”. Another exception is Jackson 
and Carter (2007) who consistently and 
consciously use the terms “manager” and 
“worker”.  
According to Abrahamsson (1993), the 
conceptualisation of the word “member” is 
problematic in that the formal aspects of 
membership are not separated from the 
informal ones. The fact that the individual has a 
contractual relationship with the company, that 
is, they are an employee, tends to be 
associated with the assumption that they are 
also a member who is in general agreement 
with the organisation’s goals and values. 
Membership implies an individual actively 
participates and supports the organisation in 
which he or she is working. However, formal 
employment (objective membership) must be 
distinguished from the degree of support and 
positive sentiments given to the organisation 
(subjective membership).  
The problem one meets when using the 
term “member” is well illustrated when 
organisations are classified according to the 
prime beneficiary, as done by Blau and Scott 
(1962). According to these scholars, the prime 
beneficiaries of business enterprises are the 
owners, while for service organisations like 
hospitals and schools, the prime beneficiaries 
are the clients and students. Associations have 
members. For mutual-benefit associations, like 
trade unions, the members of the organisations 
are the prime beneficiaries. Jaques (1976) 
contrasted bureaucracy with association. An 
association is a type of organisation in which no 
individual member has the authority to instruct 
any other member to do anything, nor can he 
be held individually accountable for the 
Jon Aarum Andersen: Seven pitfalls in organisation literature 
 
52 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 
activities of any other member (ibid.: 90). 
Membership of associations, such as co-
operative societies and trade unions, is 
obtained by application and acceptance, in 
contrast to membership of a company which is 
simply achieved by buying shares in it. 
Consequently, employees, whether they are 
managers or not, are not members of a 
company unless they also possess shares in the 
same company. 
Scott (2003) uses the terms “participants” 
and “social actors”. He is very careful when 
using these terms. He (ibid.: 21) writes: “For 
example, a single individual may simultaneously 
be an employee of an industrial firm, a member 
of a union, church member ...”. The crucial 
point here is that a member of an organisation 
has organised himself or herself with other 
individuals and they are also the owners 
(mandators) of the organisations. The general 
assembly of these organisations, where 
members of the association take part and vote, 
is where only the members can participate and 
decide the goals and strategies of their own 
organisations. In private and public 
organisations the employees are not members. 
They have not organised themselves, they are 
not the owners, and they do not decide the 
goals and strategies of the organisations. The 
owners of private organisations, however, have 
organised the employees (usually through the 
managers). 
The term “member” is deeply misleading as 
it gives us the impression that employees in a 
private or public organisation have organised 
their work or that the employees have 
organised themselves. Blau and Scott (1962: 1) 
put this right by stating that “in all 
organisations a number of men have become 
organised into a social unit that has been 
established for the explicit purpose of achieving 
certain goals”. Abrahamsson (1993: 127) 
strengthened this argument by stating that 
“there are reasons to be sceptical about the 
term member when it is used by organisational 
writers”. This word often serves to conceal the 
fact that organisations are structures that have 
been deliberately constructed to meet the 
purposes of some major interest group or class 
(ibid.). In reality, it is the owner and managers 
who have organised the employees. It is 
worthwhile to note that this fact is evident in 
Simon’s own writings, for example, “The 
organization divides work among its members” 
(1957: 102). 
We are not members of a private company 
or a public agency. We are employees, 
regardless of whether we are in managerial or 
subordinate positions. It is only in associations 
like voluntary organisations that we can be 
members and even employees.  
5. PITFALL 4: FLAT ORGANISATIONS 
Hatch (2006: 104) states: “Today, dual 
reporting relationships are more acceptable. 
Likewise, lateral (i.e., non-hierarchical or 
network) connections are recognised for the 
increasingly important part they play in 
integrating an organization’s diverse activities 
and promoting flexibility of responses to 
environmental pressures”. 
A universal characteristic of organisations is 
that work and authority are unequally 
distributed; that is, they have structures. The 
division of work is a natural and logical 
consequence of people working together, 
according to Gulick (1937). The division of work 
is an observable, objective fact, and the reason 
behind the establishment of organisations. 
When work is divided among employees, the 
need for coordination emerges immediately. 
Gulick (ibid.) argues that since the division of 
work is inevitable, coordination is necessary. 
 
 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 53 
How to achieve coordination and by whom and 
with what means must therefore be solved, 
either informally or formally. Formally, the 
solution involves the allotting to a limited and 
specific number of employees the responsibility 
and authority to coordinate operations within 
an organisation etc., and this leads to the 
emergence of a division of authority in the 
organisation. When the division of work has 
been completed and the authority to 
coordinate other employees’ work is in place, a 
structure emerges (i.e., a division of work and a 
division of authority) in the organisation 
(Gulick, 1937). 
Blake and Mouton (1985) point out that 
several characteristics of organisations are 
constant. They are present regardless of the 
type of work: purpose(s), people, power 
(hierarchy), and organisational culture (ibid.: 
8f). Power is one of the organisational 
universals because some individuals are 
supervisors and others are supervised. Further, 
some supervisors have more power than 
others. This is the hierarchy of rank. Blake and 
Mouton (1985: 9) then add: “The process of 
achieving organisational purpose (the first 
universal) through the efforts of people (the 
second universal) results in some people 
attaining authority to set direction and 
coordinate effort; that is, to exercise the 
responsibility for the activities of others”. 
Organisational structure implies that there 
are always individuals who are superior to 
others because they have more authority and 
responsibility. Here lies the blessing of the 
structure, for this model has an inherent 
mechanism of problem-solving. When 
disagreement and conflict occur between 
individuals or representatives of different 
departments, the decisions by the individuals 
on the next, higher level solve these problems. 
When formal authority is introduced into an 
organisation, it becomes hierarchical.  
We cannot find any organisation in which all 
individuals have an equal degree of 
responsibility and authority. This is theoretically 
and practically impossible and would imply that 
the organisation is without a structure; viz., the 
organisation is flat. A flat organisation would 
only have one level, that is, it would be without 
a structure. Flat organisations have never been 
found, do not exist and will never be found. 
There are no flat organisations. 
6. PITFALL 5: HIERARCHY AND 
BUREAUCRACY 
Senior and Swailes (2010: 74) write: “One of 
the best-known forms of organization structure 
is the bureaucratic form ...”. The phrase 
“hierarchical organisation” is a pleonasm. All 
organisations are hierarchical. The term 
“bureaucratic organisation” is a 
misunderstanding of Weber’s theory. Weber’s 
writings on bureaucracy (Weber, 1947) have 
been given two completely different 
interpretations. In the North American 
literature on organisation, we quite often find 
that Weber’s bureaucracy is a concept of 
structure (cf. Mintzberg, 1979). The other 
interpretation is given by, for instance, 
Abrahamsson (1993). He claims Weber’s 
writings on bureaucracy deal with the way in 
which a special kind of organisation functioned. 
Bureaucracy is regarded as a functional 
concept. A closer look at this issue is therefore 
required. 
The concept of bureaucracy may be the 
most prominent example of the confusion 
between form and function in organisation 
literature. Weber’s method employs ideal 
types, of which the ideal type of bureaucracy is 
perhaps his most well-known. Weber’s 
Jon Aarum Andersen: Seven pitfalls in organisation literature 
 
54 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 
description of bureaucracy as the “purest type 
of exercise of legal authority” is shown below 
(Weber, 1947: 220-221): 
a) They are all personally free and subject 
to authority only with respect to their 
impersonal official obligations. 
b) They are organized in a clearly defined 
hierarchy of offices. 
c) Each office has a clearly defined sphere 
of competence in the legal sense. 
d) The office is filled by a free contractual 
relationship. Thus, in principle, there is 
free selection. 
e) Candidates are selected on the basis of 
technical qualifications. In the most 
rational sense [….]. They are appointed, 
not elected. 
f) They are remunerated by fixed salaries in 
money, for the [….]. 
g) The office is treated as a sole, or at least 
the primary, occupation of the 
incumbent. 
h) It constitutes a career. There is a system 
of ‘promotion’ according to seniority or 
to achievement, or both. Promotion is 
dependent on the judgment of superiors. 
i) The official works entirely separated 
from ownership of the means of 
administration and without 
appropriation of this position. 
j)  He is subject to strict and systematic 
discipline and control in the conduct of 
the office. 
 
It is this description of bureaucracy by using 
the ideal-type method – and its structural 
character – which has misled many to regard 
Weber’s discussion on bureaucracy as primarily 
a matter of organisational design and structure 
(Abrahamsson, 1993). But that is not the case. 
The ideal bureaucracy type is actually nothing 
more than an instrument for the investigation 
of how bureaucracy in different countries and 
cultures functions (ibid.). 
The examination of these ten criteria makes 
it evident that they all are expressed in static 
terms. By comparing any given organisation 
with the ideal type, we can assess to what 
degree a particular organisation is bureaucratic 
by form. In one particular organisation 
candidates are not selected according to 
technical qualifications (item 5). Promotion is 
not according to seniority or achievement, but 
by the judgement of the owner based on other 
criteria (item 8). Employees are not subject to 
strict and systematic discipline and control 
(item 10). That particular organisation has, 
according to Weber, a less bureaucratic form. 
The ideal type is only an instrument for 
studying the functioning of organisations. 
Bureaucracy is a functional concept. Much 
of the misunderstanding is rooted in an 
erroneous interpretation of Weber’s (1947) 
writing on bureaucracy. Weber (1947) was not 
an organisational theoretician in the pragmatic, 
business-economics sense of the word that 
modern management literature often seems to 
indicate. His ideal type of bureaucracy has been 
perceived to be a tribute to the effectiveness of 
the bureaucratic form of rule. Nothing could be 
more wrong, Abrahamsson (1993) claims. 
Weber was not interested in what makes 
organisations effective. Rather, his concern was 
the principles that made authority (or 
domination) in a modern society legitimate. 
The purpose of Weber’s investigation of 
bureaucracy was to demonstrate the negative 
effects that the increasing spread of legal-
administrative methods of organising was 
having on society (Mommsen, 1974; 1980). 
Mommsen (1980) showed that Weber’s main 
research interest was in the analysis of 
 
 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 55 
bureaucratisation (i.e., the general spread of 
formal authority) and not in the narrow 
organisational or sociological analysis of 
bureaucracy as a specific administrative form. 
Put differently, Weber’s aim was to 
demonstrate the historical process of 
bureaucratisation. 
Bureaucracy for Weber is first and foremost 
a concept of function (Abrahamsson, 1993). 
The study of bureaucracy is important not only 
to arrive at a description of its administrative 
structure, but primarily to address the effects 
bureaucratically functioning organisations have 
on modern humanity and on our social climate. 
Weber’s main interest was the problems that 
arise from the bureaucratisation of society. To 
assess the degree of bureaucratisation, Weber 
devised the method of ideal types. The more 
organisations in a society with the bureaucratic 
form (according to the ideal type), the more 
bureaucratised that society is. 
Bureaucracy has to do with the illegitimate 
exercise of power by the executive of the 
organisation as a process, that is to say, the 
tendency for the work of the executive to 
depart from the interests and goals of the 
rightful mandator (owner, founder, members 
or electorate). Weber believed the important 
issue was how the legitimate mandators (the 
citizens) can retain their control over the 
administration of public institutions in society 
(Abrahamsson, 1993). 
Weber did not develop the concept of 
bureaucracy in order to establish a science of 
organisations. His ambition was not to analyse 
the internal structure of particular 
organisations. The ideal type of bureaucracy 
was developed to facilitate comparisons across 
geographical areas and historical periods. 
The conclusion drawn here is that Weber’s 
main concern was the bureaucratisation 
process in society and its negative effects as he 
saw them. However, bureaucracy is also an 
organisation model as described by the ideal 
type. A consequence of this conclusion is that 
organisations that are bureaucratic by form do 
not necessarily function that way. A strong 
hierarchical form may entail the lesser or 
greater participation of employees or members 
and may function in a more or less bureaucratic 
way. Conversely, an organisation which looks 
less hierarchical may exhibit extensive 
bureaucratic practices.  
The difference between hierarchies and 
bureaucracies can now be clarified. Hierarchy 
exists in all organisations because they all have 
a certain division of work and a division of 
authority. Bureaucracies are hierarchical 
organisations that conform imperfectly to the 
characteristics described by Weber (1947). 
Denoting an organisation which has many 
departments, several levels, and a high degree 
of formalisation as bureaucracy simply reveals 
theoretical shortcomings. 
All organisations are hierarchical. Hierarchy 
is an expression of the inner logic of the 
organisation. All organisations have been, are 
at present and will always be hierarchical as a 
given division of work and authority is found in 
all organisations. Hierarchy is not the same as 
bureaucracy. All organisations are hierarchies, 
but not all organisations are bureaucracies. 
Bureaucracy is primarily a term to describe the 
way in which organisations function. There is 
no reason to search for non-hierarchical design 
alternatives since there are none to be found 
(Andersen, 2002). 
7. PITFALL 6: LEADERSHIP EXPLAINS 
ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. 
The claim that leaders or managers are the 
prime reason for effective and profitable 
organisations is often found in organisation 
Jon Aarum Andersen: Seven pitfalls in organisation literature 
 
56 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 
literature. This claim is most doubtful 
considering the 100 years of empirical research.  
Researchers have followed three different 
approaches when testing the relationship 
between leadership and organisational 
effectiveness: (1) leader-succession studies; (2) 
leader-contribution studies; and (3) 
instrumental theories. 
Leader-succession studies show that 
managerial change has little impact on team 
performance. In general, these studies support 
a sceptical view of the significance of 
organisational leaders (Thomas, 1993). Hogan 
et al. (1994: 494) claim the fact that “some 
coaches can move from team to team 
transforming losers into winners is, for most 
people, evidence that leadership matters”. This 
statement does not concur with scientific 
evidence. Grusky (1963) examined the 
frequency of succession of managers of 
baseball teams and found that teams that 
changed managers more frequently tended to 
occupy lower positions. Gamson and Scotch 
(1964) found that managerial change had little 
impact on team performance. Eitzen and 
Yetman (1972) studied the impact of new team 
coaches in basketball and concluded that their 
performance could not be attributed to team-
coach successions. 
Allen et al. (1979) found that changing 
managers only had a slight impact on baseball 
team performance. Brown (1982) reached the 
same conclusion after studying football teams 
in the USA. In their study of basketball teams, 
Fizel and D’Itri (1999) found that winning, not 
efficiency, was the key criterion used in 
determining managerial retention. When 
managers of losing teams were dismissed, the 
teams tended to do even worse. In the world of 
business, there is very little evidence that 
changes in the top management of companies 
affect in important ways the magnitude of such 
traditional performance measures as sales, 
income and rates of return (Samuelson et al., 
1985). 
Studies of how much of an impact leaders 
have in comparison with other factors, namely, 
leader-contribution studies, can also shed light 
on this controversy. Thomas (1993) pointed out 
that such studies indicate that each of the 
performance measures was very heavily 
influenced by environmental conditions and 
hardly influenced by leadership. Jaffee (2001) 
suggests that organisational effectiveness is 
more likely to be influenced by organisational 
structure and environmental characteristics. 
If effectiveness has to do with achieving a 
given goal and obtaining results in relation to 
something else, then it follows that actions or 
activities are preconditions. In order to achieve 
a given goal, actions have to take place first. It 
is first and foremost the instrumental theories 
which may give us answers to the question of 
whether leadership causes organisational 
effectiveness or not. One group of theories 
holds that certain forms of leadership are the 
direct cause of organisational effectiveness 
(universal theories). The other group of 
theories includes an intermediate variable 
between leadership and effectiveness 
(contingency theories). What insights have the 
instrumental theories given us? For more than 
35 years Blake and Mouton (1964) claimed 
there is a single best style of leadership (“9, 9”, 
team management).  
Fiedler (1967) is the prime advocate of the 
contingency model which contends that 
leadership behaviour must adjust to the 
situation in order to generate organisational 
effectiveness. Almost 40 years of research 
based on this model has shown its 
shortcomings. The contingency theories have 
been unable to pinpoint the successful 
combinations of leader behaviour and 
 
 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 57 
leadership situation. Indeed, some 
investigations have given no support for the 
contingency model (e.g., Andersen, 1994). 
Jaffee (2001: 86) states that “a big question 
remains: Is there any evidence for a systematic 
relationship between leadership style and 
organisational performance?” The claim by 
Hogan et al. (1994: 493) that “there is a causal 
and definitional link between leadership and 
team performance” is contradicted by Yukl 
(2002). He concludes that, “several thousand 
empirical studies have been conducted on 
leadership effectiveness, but many of the 
results are inconsistent and inconclusive” (ibid.: 
423). 
The relationship between leaders’ behaviour 
and the consequences of their behaviour on the 
efficiency, performance and effectiveness of 
organisations are still the most important and 
challenging tasks according to most 
researchers. The question “what makes a 
manager effective” remains largely 
unanswered, despite numerous studies 
(Vinkenburg et al., 2001: 211). We still do not 
know for sure if, and to what degree, managers 
affect the outcome of organisations. We do not 
know what leadership factors enhance 
organisational effectiveness. What we do know 
is this: leadership is not unimportant, but 
leadership appears to have far less impact on 
organisational effectiveness than is commonly 
claimed in organisation literature (Andersen, 
2006). 
8. PITFALL 7: ORGANISATIONS HAVE NO 
OWNERS 
One may look in vain through many 
textbooks on organisation to find the term 
“owner” in the subject index. “Owner”, 
“owners” or “ownership” is not listed at all in 
these randomly selected textbooks: Senior and 
Swailes (2010), Hatch (2006), Jones (1993), and 
Robbins and Judge (2009). Jackson and Carter 
(2007) listed the phrase “ownership rights”, but 
it does not relate to the issue at hand here.  
However, organisations are contrived and 
established by human beings as a means to 
achieve specific goals decided by the founders. 
The owner or owners decide the goals and 
strategies. They have the final say on all 
decisions to be made, not the managers. The 
absence of owners in the literature may be due 
to the open-system theory and its stakeholder 
model, which has pushed the owner to the 
periphery. Exceptions to the unfortunate fact 
are the principal-agent theory and the 
corporate-governance theory. However, the 
fact remains that all organisations have owners. 
9. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND 
MANAGERS 
In order to avoid the pitfalls highlighted in 
this article, it is suggested that writers focusing 
on organisations recognise that organisations 
are based on the goals decided by the owners. 
Further, organisational literature needs to be 
free from anthropomorphic descriptions of 
organisations. The term “organisational 
member” ought to be reserved for associations 
and voluntary organisations. It is equally 
incorrect to claim that organisations or 
organisation structures are or can be flat. In 
addition, writers concentrating on 
organisations need to be careful when dealing 
with the concepts of hierarchy and bureaucracy 
as they are not comparable. Since more than 
100 years of research has failed to prove that 
leadership explains effectiveness in 
organisations, this statement needs to be 
avoided. Finally, the organisational literature is 
bereft of references to the fact that all 
organisations have owners. The fact stubbornly 
Jon Aarum Andersen: Seven pitfalls in organisation literature 
 
58 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 
remains: all organisations are contrived and 
established by individual human beings, that is, 
the owners, as a means of achieving their goals. 
Regarding “Organisations are based on 
common goals” managers are advised not to 
express the view that the organisations they 
are in charge of are based on common goals. It 
would be more advantageous to seek the 
subordinates’ understanding and acceptance of 
the goals formulated by the owner. Most likely, 
the subordinates will perform better when they 
understand and accept the goals of the 
company or public agency in which they work. 
It is not evident that the notion 
“Organisations are (like) humans” has any 
direct implication for managers. However, 
statements like “we have a healthy 
organisation, our organisation is creative” or 
“our organisation has learned a lot” are to be 
avoided. 
In reference to “Flat organisation”, it is 
worthwhile stressing that this term will 
probably create confusion amongst colleagues 
and subordinates. No organisation has a flat 
structure and therefore terms like “flatter 
organisation, few level organisation” are to be 
preferred. In some organisations it may 
sometimes be necessary to remind the 
subordinates that some people have more 
responsibility and therefore more authority 
than others. 
Regarding “Hierarchy and bureaucracy” the 
main point is that all organisations are 
hierarchical and no alternative to this 
organisational form is available. Sometimes it 
may be useful to remind the subordinates that 
the hierarchical model has an inbuilt blessing. It 
has a problem-solving mechanism. 
With regard to “Leadership explains 
organisational effectiveness”, it is imperative 
that managers themselves do not think so. 
Managers who believe they are the main 
reason for successful operations behave in 
detrimental ways. Some try to save the 
organisation singlehandedly and act like John 
Wayne. The subordinates witness this in a 
shock-like state and become passive. Other 
managers find this as a tremendous burden and 
work excessive hours and do not take holidays 
or time off from work. It is useful to keep in 
mind that some 90% of the workforce consists 
of non-managers. All of their work clearly has a 
significant impact on the effectiveness of their 
organisations. 
 
REFERENCES 
Abrahamsson, B. (1993). Why Organizations? How 
and Why People Organize. Newbury Park: Sage. 
Adizes, I. (1979). How to Solve the Management 
Crisis. New York: Dow-Jones-Irwin. 
Adizes, I. (1988). Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why 
Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do 
about It. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Allen, M. P., Panian, S. K., & Lotz, R. E. (1979). 
Managerial succession and organizational 
performance: a recalcitrant problem revisited. 
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 167-180. 
Andersen, J. A. (1994). Ledelse og Effektivitet 
(Leadership and Effectiveness). Lund: Lund 
University Press, (Norwegian, summary in 
English). 
Andersen, J. A. (2002). Organizational design: Two 
lessons to learn before reorganizing. 
International Journal of Organization Theory and 
Behavior, 5(3&4), 343-358. 
Andersen, J. A. (2006). Leadership, personality and 
effectiveness. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 
35(6), 1078-1091. 
Andersen, J. A. (2008). An organization called Harry. 
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 
21(2), 174-187. 
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial 
Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co. 
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Managerial 
Grid III. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co. 
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal 
organizations. San Francisco: Chandler. 
Brown, M. C. (1982). Administrative succession and 
organizational performance: the succession 
 
 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, May 2012 59 
effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 1–
16. 
Cooper, C. L. & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind: 
Healthy organization - A proactive approach to 
occupational stress. Human Relations, 47(4), 
455-471. 
Cunningham, J. B. (1997). Feelings and 
interpretations during an organization’s death. 
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 
10(6), 471-490. 
Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. London: 
Routledge & Keegan Paul. 
Eitzen, D. S., & Yetman, N. R. (1972). Managerial 
change. Longevity and organizational 
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 
17, 1–16. 
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership 
Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Fizel, J. F., & D’Itri, M. P. (1999). Firing and hiring of 
managers: does efficiency matter? Journal of 
Management, 25(4), 567–585. 
Gamson, W. A., & Scotch, N. A. (1964). Scapegoating 
in baseball. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 
69–72. 
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as 
organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 
50(4), 37-46.  
Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession. American 
Journal of Sociology, 69, 72–76. 
Hatch, M. J. (2006). Organization Theory. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. 
Hilton Brown, E. (1997). Improving organizational 
health by addressing organizational trauma. 
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 
10(2), 175-178. 
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What 
we know about leadership. Effectiveness and 
personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 439–
504. 
Jaffee, D. (2001). Organization Theory. Tension and 
Change. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (2007). Rethinking 
Organisational Behaviour. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. 
Jaques, E. (1976). A General Theory of Bureaucracy. 
London: Heineman. 
Jones, G. R. (1993). Organizational Theory. Reading, 
MA: Addison-Wesley. 
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The Social Psychology 
of Organizations. Wiley, New York.  
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The 
Neurotic Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.  
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. 
New York: McGraw-Hill. 
McHugh, M. (2002). The absence bug: a treatable 
viral infection? Journal of Managerial 
Psychology, 17(8), 722-738. 
Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. (1986). Organizations: New 
concepts for new forms. California Management 
Review, 28(3), 62-73. 
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of 
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 
Mommsen, W. J. (1974). The Age of Bureaucracy. 
Perspectives on the Political Sociology of Max 
Weber. Oxford: Blackwell. 
Mommsen, W. J. (1980). Toward the iron cage of 
future serfdom? On the methodological status of 
Max Weber’s ideal-type concept of 
bureaucratization. Transactions of the Royal 
Historical Society, 30 (5th ser.), 157-181. 
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational 
Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 
Samuelson, B. A., Galbraith, C. S., & McGuire, J. W. 
(1985). Organizational performance and top-
manager turnover. Organizational Studies, 6, 
275–291. 
Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations. Relational, 
Natural, and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, 
NJ: Pearson. 
Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (2010). Organizational 
Change. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. 
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior. New 
York: Macillan. 
Stacey, R. (1993). Strategy as order emerging from 
chaos. Long Range Planning, 26(1), 10-17.  
Vinkenburg, C. J., Koopman, P. L., & Jansen, P. G. W. 
(2001). Managerial behavior and decision 
making; personal and situational factors. In: 
Altwood, C. M. & Selart, M. (eds.): Decision 
Making: Social and Creative Dimensions. 
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 211 -
238. 
Weber, M. ([1947] 1968). Economy and Society. 
Edited by Guenther, R., & Wittich, C. Berkeley: 
University of California Press. 
Weitzel, W., & Jonsson, E. (1989). Decline in 
organizations: A literature integration and 
extension. Administrative Science Quarterly, 
34(1), 91-109. 
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. New 
York: Prentice-Hall.