|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
JOURNAL:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
1989
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Journal Article
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
*Bureaucracy- (D099600); *Democracy- (D205200); *Peoples-Republic-of-China (D617700); *Political-Systems (D642600); *Social-Systems (D802200)
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
No discipline assigned
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-362-033
(Last edited on
2002/02/27 18:44:47 US/Mountain)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
In a response to O. Shenkar's critique ("Rejoinder to Clegg and Higgins: The Chinese Case and Radical School in Organization Studies," Organization Studies, 1989 10, 1, 117-122) of Stewart R. Clegg's & Winton Higgins's work on the Chinese Cultural Revolution (see SA 35:4/88T7499), Shenkar's previous work (see SA 33:2/85O6424) is analyzed. Shenkar saw the Cultural Revolution as indicating the functional necessity of bureaucracy: it was the absence of the latter, he argues, that created the chaos of the former. While agreeing on the interpretation of chaos, the causality of his argument in accounting for it is rejected. Aspects of Shenkar's methodology, especially its reliance on Mao Tse-Tung's "Twenty Manifestations of Bureaucracy," are criticized. It is argued that bureaucracy & democracy are not antithetical, nor is organization feasible without rules or divsions of labor. 8 References. Modified AA
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
4/488
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|
