@article{ApeltBesioCorsietal.2017,
  author    = {Apelt, Maja and Besio, Cristina and Corsi, Giancarlo and von Groddeck, Victoria and Grothe-Hammer, Michael and Tacke, Veronika},
  title     = {Resurrecting organization without renouncing society},
  series = {European management journal},
  volume    = {35},
  journal   = {European management journal},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Elsevier Science},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0263-2373},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.emj.2017.01.002},
  pages     = {8 -- 14},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {In a recent article in this journal, Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl (2016) suggest a definition of organization as a 'decided social order' composed of five elements (membership, rules, hierarchies, monitoring, and sanctions) which rest on decisions. 'Partial organization' uses only one or a few of these decidable elements while 'complete organization' uses them all. Such decided orders may also occur outside formal organizations, as the authors observe. Although we appreciate the idea of improving our understanding of organization(s) in modern society, we believe that Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl's suggestion jeopardizes the concept of organization by blurring its specific meaning. As the authors already draw on the work of Niklas Luhmann, we propose taking this exploration a step further and the potential of systems theory more seriously. Organizational analysis would then be able to retain a distinctive notion of formal organization on the one hand while benefiting from an encompassing theory of modern society on the other. With this extended conceptual framework, we would expect to gain a deeper understanding of how organizations implement and shape different societal realms as well as mediate between their particular logics, and, not least, how they are related to non-organizational social forms (e.g. families).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Wenzel2017,
  author    = {Wenzel, Bertolt},
  title     = {Organizing coordination for an ecosystem approach to marine research and management advice},
  series = {Marine policy},
  volume    = {82},
  journal   = {Marine policy},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0308-597X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.009},
  pages     = {138 -- 146},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This study examines the reorganization of formal coordination structures of a unique international public organization involved in marine governance in Europe, namely the structural reorganizations of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) between 1999 and 2009. The findings indicate that the reorganizations of ICES' formal coordination structures were not driven primarily for reasons of efficiency, by clear and consistent goals, and by clear means-ends considerations for organizational design as proposed by rational perspectives in organization theory. Instead, the formal coordination structures have also been adapted to live up to changing expectations in the institutional environment, to modern management concepts in marine governance such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM), and to ensure the legitimacy of the organization. However, it is also found that institutional explanations alone are insufficient to comprehensively understand why the formal organizational structures of ICES were reorganized. Instrumental and cultural perspectives in organization theory as well as resource-dependence theory additionally add to understand how ICES responded to external demands and why organizational structures have been changed.},
  language  = {en}
}