Who now reads Parsons? It turns out, almost no one—at least not in the pages of Administrative Science Quarterly. This was my first surprise when I set out to examine Talcott Parsons’ legacy in organizational studies. The two articles in the very first volume of ASQ written by a man who dominated mid-20th century sociology have been cited in its pages only 35 times in seven decades. More striking still, those few citations are mostly superficial, referencing Parsons’ work as an afterthought rather than engaging with it seriously. How did this happen? My investigation led me to an unexpected answer: Parsons failed his audience. His highly abstract, insular theorizing—focused on grand systems rather than the messy realities of organizations—left little room for empirical research or theoretical engagement. In addition, he failed to engage with work of his contemporaries in the 1950s and 1960s, such as Selznick, Blau, Gouldner, and Merton. By the time new institutional theory emerged decades later, it had subtly rejected Parsons’ assumptions while appearing, superficially, to echo them. In this essay, I unravel the paradox of Parsons’ fleeting influence in organizational studies and explore what his failure tells us about how theories gain—or fail to gain—traction.

You will find my full post at the ASQ journal Substack site by clicking on this link.