05.- scott organizations cap1 thesubjectisorganizations

8/11/2019 05.- Scott Organizations Cap1 TheSubjectIsOrganizations

1/15

Sco -ft ) G \J .1(iCho(d -?Cf)3) Orpn W-riorls

Raflono

l) N .o -ro rQ \

ord

OpeJ 5y0tem5.

;.

. CHAPTER 1

The Subject Is Organizations

Th e rec ur ren t prob lem in soc io log y is to conce ive o f co rp o ra te o rg anizat io n, and

to st ud y it , i n w ay s t hat do no t a nt hropom orp hize it an d d o n ot re du ce it to the

behavior o f i nd iv i dua ls o r o f h uman ag gregates.

GUY E SWANSON (197 6 )

THE IMPORT N E OF ORG NI Z T IONS

Ubiquity. There is no need tobelabor the assertion that ours isan organiza-

tional society-that organizations are a prominent, ifnot the dominant, char-

acteristic of modern societies. Organizations were present in older

civilizations-Chinese, Greek, Indian-but only in modern industrialized so-

cieties do wefind large numbers of organizations engaged in performing many

highly diverse tasks. Tothe ancient organizational assignments of soldiering,

public administration, and tax collection have been added such varied tasks

as discovery (research organizations), child and adult socialization

(schools

and universities), resocialization (mental hospitals and prisons), production

and distribution of goods (industrial firms, wholesale and retail establish-

ments), provision of services (organizations dispensing assistance ranging

from laundry and shoe repair to medical care and investment counse1ing),

protection of personal and financial security (police departments, insurance

firms, banking and trust companies), preservation of culture (museums, art

galleries, universities, libraries), communication (radio and television studios,

telephone companies, the U.S. Postal Service), and recreation (bowling al-

leys, pool halls, the National Park Service, professional football teams). Even

such a partiallisting testifies to the truth of Parsons's statement that the de-

velopment of organizations isthe principal mechanism bywhich, in a highly

differentiated society, it is possible to 'get things done,' to achieve goals beyond

the reach ofthe individual (1960: 41) .

.

3


2/15


3/15

6

An lntroduction lo Organizalions

orientations into everyday-including private-life. Ferguson is even more di-

rect in her criticism:

The organizational forms and discourse of bureaucratic capitalism institutional-

ize modes of domination that recreate the very patterns of oppression that fem-

inism arose to cornbat. (1984: 203)

Bureaucratic structures are argued to give priority to masculine virtues and val-

ues. The principies by which organizations are structured-inequality, hierar-

chy, impersonality-devalue alternative modes of organizing that are alleged to

be more

characteristic

ofwomens values: equalitarian and personalized asso-

ciations. And the criteria associated with achievement-aggressive competition

and independence-are very different from the nurturing and relational virtues

often associated with feminine styles (Gilligan, 1982; Cals and Smircich, 1996).

Feminist critics assert that formal organizations are gender biased not only in

their application of criteria for appointment and promotion but also more fun-

damentally, in their choice of criteria-in their conception ofwhat is entailed

in creating a rational system for supporting collaborative action. The proto-

typic models around which organizations are constructed are armies and sports

teams.

These critics thus add their voices to others who have called attention to

the ways in which organizational structures damage the personalities and psy-

ches of t~eir participants. Alienation, overconformity, and stunting of normal

personality

development are among the consequences attributed, not to such

special cases as prisons and concentration camps, but to everyday, garden-va-

riety organizations (see Argyris,

1957;

Maslow,

1954;

Whyte,

1956).

Large organizations have long been subject to criticism, either because

they are alleged to be rule bound, cumbersome, and inefficient (Mises, 1944;

Parkinson,

1957)

or because they are believed to take advantage oftheir size and

resulting power to exploit others. Perrow

(1991)

asserts that large organiza-

tions increasingly absorb society, internalizing functions better performed

by communities and civic society. And critics such as Korten (2001) point with

alarm to fue increasing power of the multinational corporations as they search

for chea~ ~abor, despoil the environrnent, and

disrupt

the continuity of stable

cornmuruues.

. We attempt to .evaluate such criticisms of organizations at appropriate

pomt.s throughout this volume. Here we simply note that these wide-ranging ac-

cusations and concerns regarding the pervasive negative consequences of or-

ganizations provide further testimony to their importance in the modern world.

As media.

In addition to their being mechanisms for accomplishing a

great variery of objectives and, perhaps as a necessary consequence, the source

of many of our current difficulties, organizations have yet another important

e~fect on ~ur collective lives. This effect is more subtle and less widely recog-

nized, but lt may be the most profound in its implications. It is perhaps best in-

trodu


4/15

8

An Introduction to Organizations

tors.'

In short, wemust come to the recognition that the society has changed

over the past few centuries in the very structural elements ofwhich it is com-

posed (Coleman, 1974: 13).

Theoretical significance.

To this point, we have assembled a variety of

evidence and arguments to support the case that organizations merit atten-

tion. AlI of these claims relate to their social significance: their ubiquity, their

impact on power and status, their effects on personality and performance. Adif-

ferent kind of rationale for justifying the study of organizations points to their

sociological significance: the contribution their study can make toour under-

standing of the social world.

George Homans points to the value for social science of studying organ-

izations when he asserts:

The factisthatthe organizationofthelargeformal enterprises,governmentalor

prvate, in modern societyismodeledon, is a rationalizationof, tendencies that

existin allhuman groups. (Homans, 1950:186-87)

Tosay that organizations exhibit tendencies that exist ir all human groups is

to suggest that organizations provide the setting for a wide variety of basic so-

cial processes, such as socialization, communication, ranking, the formation

of norms, the exercise of power, and goal setting and attainment. If these gener-

ic social processes oprate in organizations, then we can add as much to our

knowledge of the principles that govern their behavior by studying organiza-

tions as by .studying any other specific type of social system. But Homans as-

serts something more.

To say that we observe in organizations a rationalization of tendencies

that exist in all human groups is to suggest that organizations are character-

ized by somewhat distinctive structural arrangements that affect the operation

of the processes occurring within them. For example, social-control processes

occur within all social groups, but there are some forms or mechanisms of con-

trol-for instance, a hierarchical authority structure-that are best studied in

organizations, since it is within these systems that they appear in their most

highly devloped form.f In general, all processes=-communication, socializa-

lThese developments were associated with and facilitated by changes in legal codes, as de-

scribed in Chapter 7. Lawyers practices also reflect the distinction in an interesting way, as de-

scribed by Heinz and Laumann. They point out that much of the variation in current legal practice

is accounted for by:

one fundamental distinction-the distinction between lawyers who represent large organ-

izations (corporations, labor unions, or government) and those who represent individuals.

The two kinds of law practice are the two hemispheres of the profession. Most lawyers re-

side excJusively in one hemisphere or the other and seldom, if ever, cross over the equator.

(Heinz and Laumann, 1982: 379)

I t i s also instructive that lawyers who represent collective actors ra ther than natural persons are the

more powerful, prosperous, and prestigious segment.

2This general argument has been elaborated elsewhere (Scott, 1970). The basic premise is

that a set of generic social processes--such as socialization, integration, status, power, adaptation-

is characteristic of a11social structures. However, each of these processes, operates differently de-

pending on the structural context in which it i s acting, so that, for example, the process of

integration is effected in a small group differently than in an organization, and both differ from

the same process occurr ing within a community, and so on.

The SubjectIs Organizations

9

tion, decision-making-are more highly formalized in or.ganiz.ation.s.It is our

belief that the study oforganizations can contribute ~obas~csociological knowl-

edge by increasing our understanding of how genenc SOCIalprocesses operate

within distinctive social structures.

ORG N IZT ION S S N RE OF STU Y

Emergence o f t he rea

The study of organizations is both a specialized. field of inquiry ~i~hi?

the discipline of sociology and an increas~ngly recogll1z~d fo~us of m.u~tldlsCl-

plinary research and training. It is impossible todetermme with precision the

moment of its appearance, but it is safe to concJu.de t~at until the late 1940s,

organizations did not exist a s adistinct field of sOClologlcalmqUlry. Precursors

may be identified, but each lacked some critical feature ..T~lUs,th:re was some

empirical research on organizations by, for example, criminologists who stud-

ied prisons (Clemmer, 1940), political analysts who ex~mmed pa.rty structures

(Gosnell, 1937), and industrial sociologists who studied factones and labor

unions (Whyte, 1946). But these investigators rarely att:mpted to g~nerahze b.e-

yond the specific organizational forms they were stu~ym? The ~u~Jectw~spns-

ons or parties or factories or unions-not orgamz~tl?ns. Sirnilarly, 1~1he

neighboring disciplines, political scientists were ~xammmg the fu.nctlOnmg of

legislative bodies or public agencies, and economlsts were.developmg their the-

ory of the firrn, but they were not attempting to generahze beyond these spe-

cific forms.

Industrial psychologists did pursue such ge~er~l proble~s as lowmoral:,

fatigue, and turnover within several typesof orgamzaunalsettmgs, ~u~they did

not attempt to determine systematically how the varymg c~aractenstlcs of dif-

ferent organizational contexts influenced these worker reacuons. An? althoug~,

from early in this century, administrative and management theorists ~uch as

Taylor (1911), Fayol (1949 trans.) , and Gulick and Urwlc~ (1937). ~Id con-

centrate on the development of general principies co~cermng adn:l~llstratlVe

arrangements, their approach wasmore often prescnpuve th~~1empJ[lc~,I:That

is, they were interested in determining what t~e proper form should be l,n~he

interests of maximizing efficiency and effectiveness ra~her than m exammmg

and explaining organizational arrangements as they e~lsted. They also focused

primary attention on managerial activities ~~d funct~o~s rather than nhe

wider subjects of organizations and organlZl,ng (?Ulllen, 1994). Engmeers

played a central role early in attempting to ratlon~l~ze a~proaches to work, at-

tending to the design of both technical and administrative systems (Shenhav,

1999). .. b

Within sociology, the emergence of the field of orgalllzatlOns may e

roughly dated from the translation into English ofWeber's (1946 trans.; 1947

trans.) and, to a lesser extent, Michels's (1949 trans.) ~nalyses of bureaucr~-

cy. Shortly after these classic statements became acces.slble to Amencan SOCI-

ologists, Robert K. Merton and his students at Colu~bla Umversl~ attempte?

to outline the boundaries of this new field of mqUlry by compllm? theoreti-

cal and empirical materials dealing with various aspects of orgamzatlons (Mer-


5/15

An Introduction loOrganizations

ton et al., 1952). Equally important, a series of pathbreaking and influential

case studies of diverse types of organizations was launched under Merton's in-

fluence: includi~g an examination of a federal agency-the Tennessee Valley

Authonty (Selznick, 1949)-a gypsum mine and factory (Gouldner, 1954), a

state employrnent agency and a federallaw-enforcement agency (Blau, 1955),

and a union (Lipset, Trow, and Coleman, 1956). Por the first time, sociolo-

~ists were.enga?ed in the development and empirical testing of generaliza-

tions

?ea~mg with the structure and functioning of organizations viewed as

orgarnzanons.

Atabout the same time, an important interdisciplinary developmen twas

under wayat the Carnegie Institute ofTechnology (now Carnegie-Mellon Uni-

versity). Herbert Simon became head of the Department of Industrial Man-

age~ent in 1949;assembled an eclectic group of political scientists, economists,

en?l~eers, and p~ychologists;and encouraged them tofocus their energies on

building a be~avlOrallyoriented science of administration. Following Simon's

le~d, emphasis wasplaced on decision making and choice within organizations

(Sl~on, 1997). The unrealistic assumption ofa single, towering entrepreneur,

ratonal and all-knowing, that dominated economic models of the firm was re-

placed first by the view of intendedly rational but cognitively limited actors

(.Marchand Simon, 1958), and subsequently by models emphasizing the mul-

tiple and competing objectives of participants in organizations (Cyert and

March, 1963). Economic models of administrative behavior were modified and

enriched by the insights of psychologists and poltical scientists. .

These central and other related efforts gave rise to the identification of

a new area of study-organizations; an area defined at a level of

theoretical

ab

straction

sufficientlygeneral tocallattention tosimilarities in form and function

across different arenas ofactivity; and a subject matter that exhibited sufficient

diversityand complexity to encourage and reward

empirical investigation.

The key

elements for creating a new arena of scientific study were in place. AsAlfred

North Whitehead (1925: 3-4), the astute philosopher of science observes:

AlItre worldover andat al1times there havebeen practcal men, absorbedin

rreducble and stubbornfacts :all the worldoverand at all times there have

beenmenofa philosophicaltemperamentwhohavebeen absorbedintheweav-

ing of general principies.It is this union~f passionate interest in the detailed

factswithequaldevotionto abstraergeneralizationwhichform thenoveltyof our

present society.

~ccmpanyingthe creation of the new subject area was a search for ap-

prop.nate l~tellectual ancestors toprovide respectability and legitimacy-Machi-

avelh, StoSimon, Marx, and Weber were obvious candidates. And more recent

forebears, such asTaylor, Barnard, and Mayo, were rediscovered and reprint-

ed. ~v~na cou;>leof token women contributors were identified, in the persons

?f Lilhan M. GIlbreth-who collaborated with her husbarid in finding ways to

lmprove work efficiency in factories (Gilbreth and Gilbreth, 1917), but also

employed similar techniques at home, her feats celebrated in the book and

movie,

Cheaper

b y

the Dozen-and

Mary Parker Follett (1941), an early student

of management and change working in the human relations tradition (see

Green, 1995).

The Su bject

1s

Organizations

After about a decade of empirical research and theory development, three

textbook treatises-by March and Simon (1958), Etzioni (1961), and Blau and

Scott (1962)-provided needed integration and heightened interest in the

field. Also, a new journal,

Administrative Science Quarterly,

beginning publica-

tion in 1956 under the editorship ofJames D. Thompson, emphasized the in-

terdisciplinary character of the field.

ommon and Divergent Interests

Common

[eatures What features do all organizations exhibit in com-

mon? What are the general organizational issues analysts began to perceive

among the great diversity of specific goals and structural arrangements? Most

analysts have conceived of organizations as

social structures created by indiuiduals

to support the collaborative pursuit 01 specified

go als. Given this conception, all or-

ganizations confront a number of common problems: al must define (and re-

define) their objectives; all must induce participants to contribute services; all

must control and coordinate these contributions; resources must be garnered

from the environment and products or services dispensed; participants must be

selected, trained, and replaced; and some sort ofworking accommodation with

the neighbors must be achieved. .

In addition to these common operational requirements, some analysts

have also emphasized that al organizations are beset by a common curse. AlI

resources cannot be devoted directly to goal attainment; some-in some cases

a high proportion=-of the resources utilized byany organization must be ex-

~ndeiTi:unaii:J.tain~the organization itself. Although organizations are viewed

as means toaccomplish ends, the means themselves absorb much energy and,

ir t~e extreme (but perhaps ntrare) case, become ends in thernselves.

There is a convergence of interest around these common features, but we

must not overlook the many bases of divergence. These include differences

among the organizations themselves as objects of study, differences in the in-

terests and backgrounds of those who study organizations, and differences in

the level of analysisat which inquiry ispitched.

.

Diverse organizations

Organizations come in a bewildering variety of

sizesandshapes. The largestof them are immense. Although the exact numbers

depend on how the boundaries are defined, the largest organizational units

found in modern society are the military services. The U.S. Department of the

Army in 1995 ernployed approximately 790,000 employees, 510,000 activecom-

missioned officers and enlisted personnel, and 280,000 civilians.An additional

642,000served in the reserve corps (Kaufman, 1996). Under the threat of world

terrorism, the size of the military is again expanding. Large organizations also

exist within the civilianworld. In 2001, the largest corporate employer, Wal-Mart

Stores, employed 1,244,000employees. The largest manufacturing corporation,

SOther brief histories of the development of organizations as an ideritifiable field of inquiry

are offered by March

(1965: ix-xvi)

and Pfeffer

(1982: 23-33).

An entertairung, if'jaundiced,

vrew

of the evolution of organization theory is provided by Perrow

(1973).

Summaries of the contri-

butions of major organizational theorists together with brief biographical information have been

assembled by Pugh and Hickson

(1996).


6/15

12 An Introduction loOrganiza tions

M

wa~su?stantially smaller at 386,000. Of the ten largest U.S. corporations at

the begmlll?g of the twenty-firstcentury, six were in sales and services, four in

manufactunng

tFortune,

2001).

Most workers in this country are employees of someone else; less than 5

percent of the workforce is self-employed (Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt,

1999). And, more workers are employed by fewer and larger companies: by

1975,3 percent of the employing organizations accounted for 55 percent of the

er,uployed,and about one-quarter of the total workforce wasemployed byfirms

with more than 1,000 employees.

. Size, ~oweve:, should not be equated with success. Perhaps for a time in

the industrial age size,asmeasured by employees or productive capacity,wasin-

strumental to success (survival, profitability), but such an association is ill-suit-

ed to the postindustrial era. Recent years have seen efforts to restructure and

downsize many of the corporate giants. Indeed, it is somewhat ironic that one

of the largest corporate enterprises in the United States in the mid-1990s was

Manpower Temporary Services, with over 800,000 workers. More generalIy,

Carroll and Hannan (2000: 20) report that the average size of corporations in

the United States has declined from about 60employees per company in 1960

toabout 34employees in 1990. The most productive and innovative business-

es are often small or intermediate in size.

. In an age when giant organizations seem todominate the landscape, it is

important to emphasize that small organizations are actually in the majority: in

1990, 90percent of all employing organizations in the United States employed

19 o~ fewer indivi~uals (Small Business Administration, 1994). And the pre-

d~~mant ownershp form remains the sole proprietorship, with more than 12

million establishments, compared with about 2.8 million corporations and

about 1.5 m~llion partnerships. Of course, the corporation far outstrips the

~ther forms m assets, employees, and earnings. These employment organiza-

?ons alsovarygreatly in the typesofgoods and services provided: from coal min-

mg to computers, from fortune-telling to futures forecasting.

~rge numbers of people are employed in the public sector. In 1995, in

the United States, over 19million individuals-about one out of every six non-

farm workers-were employed in federal, state, and local governments. The

number of units or agencies involved isdifficult to determine because of the

nested character of governmental forms.

The United States Government Manual

(~.S. Offi


7/15

14 An Introduction

to

Organizations

Organizations also vary greatly because they relate to and draw on dif-

ferent surrounding environments. Public agencies differ from private firms,

evenwhen they carry on the same kinds of work, because they function in dif-

ferent contexts. It matte~s considerably whether you operate to satisfythe de-

mands of many decentralized customers or one centralized budget or oversight

burea~. M~ch ofwhat weknowabout organizations isdrawn from organizations

operaung m th: second half of the twentieth century in capitalist, democratic

socetes=-and m one such society in particular, the United States. Only re-

cently ha~e~ere .bee~extensi~e efforts toexamine the structure andoperation

of orgaruzauons In different times, using historical documents, and in differ-

ent kinds of societies.

La~ge-s~aleorganizati~ms devoted to the pursuit of specialized goals de-

veloped In thl~~ountry dun?g the middle of the nineteenth century. Manyof

the .charactensucs we associate with modern organizations-the specialized

equipment, th~ sizabl~a~min~strative hierarchy, the collection of s pecialists-

first appeared In associanon with the development of the railroads. The man-

a9erialrevolu~on occurred in response to the problems of scale and scope, of

~lstance and tight scheduling posed by railroads (Chandler, 1977). Organiza-

tions develop~ng at this time were different in structure from those arriving

later. The .um~ed structure~ soon gave way to diversified and conglomerate

forms, which In turn are bemg replaced by more flexible, network arrange-

ments. (see Chapter 10). More generally, as Stinchcombe (1965) first observed,

orgamzational forms exhibit distinctive structures that reflect the times in which

they wer~created. Th.us,~t any given time, much of the diversity exhibited by

a collection of orgamzanons ISdue to the varying conditions present at the

time of their birth.

The remarkable recent economic performance of the East Asian

tigers -especially Japanese, South Korean, and Indonesian firms-has stim-

~lated great interest in these organizations, and investigations of their opera-

tionshave confirmed the importance of context (Orr, Biggart, and Hamilton,

1997): For example, one cannot understand the japanese corporation without

atte~u0l to the distinctive belief systems governing employrnent, to the con-

nec~ons between a company and its family of firms (the Zaibatsu), and to the

relations between private firms and the state. Lessdramatic but significant dif-

ferences are associatedwith organizations operating on the European continent

as ,,:ellasin other areas ofthe world (see Hofstede, 1984, 1991;Chandler 1990;

Whitley 1992a, 1992b, 1999). Among all ofthe other sources ofvariation, we

must not overlook temporal, regional, and cultural factors.

Diverse research interests and set tings. Another basis for divergence in

: ,orkon organiza~ons re~idesnot in t~e.differences amon~ organizations as ob-

jects of study but. In ~e mterests, trammg, and employment settings of those

who study orgaruzauons. As already noted, researchers from different disci-

pli~~s vary.to some extent in the kinds of organizations they choose to study.

Political scientists primarily focus on political parties and state administrative

structures, economists on business firms, sociologists on voluntary associations

and on agencies engagedin social welfare and social-control functions, and

anthr?pologists on comparative administration in primitive, colonial, and de-

velopmg societies. Disciplinary differences remain even when a single type of

The Subject Is Grganizations

15

'organization is selected for study: specialists tend to look not only at ~i.fferen.t

objects but also at different aspects of the same object. T~us, the p~htlC~1SCI-

entist willbe likely toemphasize power processes and decision makmg ~Ithlll

the organization; the economist will examine the acquisition and.allocatlOnof

scarce resources within the organization and will attend to such issues aspro-

ductivityand efficiency; the sociologist has quite varied interests but if t~ere is

a,focus itwilllikelybe on status orderings, on the effect of norms andosentlI?ents

on behavior, and on organizational legitimacy; the psychologist will be mt.e~-

. ested in variations in perception, cognition, and motivation a~ong partlcI-

. pants; and the anthropologist willcall attention to the effects ofdiverse cultur~l

values on the functioning of the system and its members. The study of orgam-

zations embraces all these interests, and students of organizations work to de-

velop conceptual frameworks within which, all of thes.e t?pics and their

interrelations may be examined. And, increasmgly, orgamzatlO~al ~nalysts at-

tempt to specifywhat is distinctive about power or status or m~tlv~tlon or cul-

tural processes because they occur within the context of orgamzatlons, .

Cutting across these disciplinary divis~on~is another, m?re general. basis i

of divergence among those who study orgamzatlons:. th~ adoptl~n of ~ basic ver-

sus an applied research orientation. Bas ic r es ea rc h ISalme~ p:lmanly at ac,cu-

rately describing existing features and relations ~f orgamzatlons andotestmg

propositions about them to better understand their nature and operanon.

p

plied studies

seekknowledge in order to solvespecifi~problems or to brin~ about

V

desired changes in these systems.Of course, there ISnot a hard-and-fast line be-

tween these interests. Basic research, particularly in the long run, can lead to :

practical applications, and applied research often con~ibut~s importantly to .

general knowledge. Both rest on interests and values: nelt~er ISva~ue-free,and__:

the same investigators often conduct both basic and ~pph~d studle~.

Still, there are important differences in these orientations. Bas~cresearch

is driven more by theory-in its choice both ofproblems and ofvar?ables. Par-

ticular concepts-authority, legitimacy, institutionalization-are of ~nterest.be-

cause of their place in theoretical arguments, not because. of their

practical

significance. Basic research is more likely to focus on the mdependent van-

ables-on understanding the effects of certain concepts of interest-than on

the dependent variables and to be aimed at testing pa.rticular a:gum.ents. Con-

versely,applied research isdriven byan interest in solV1~g?~e Ider:-tlfiedprob-

lem-low morale or productivity, high turnover-and ISwlling to mcorporate

any and all kinds of variables, whether economic, psychologica~, or cultur.al,

that may shed light on it. Thus, applied studies are ~~ch. more likely to.be m-

terdisciplinary: practical problems do not resp:ct dlSClphn~ryboun~anes.

Although there are many exceptons. apphe~ resea:ch ISmore

likely

tobe

conducted by researchers located m nonacadernic settmgs: In go~ernmental

bureaus, research units of corporations, consulting firms, or pohcy-~esear~h

organizations. The results of these studies are less likely to be pubhshed m

scholarlyjournals; often they result in no public~tions at all,?nly a report to the

client group and/or chief executive officer. Baslc rese~rch.l~ cond~cted l~rg~-

lywithin the academic departments of colleges and ur:-lV~rsl~es:This w?rk ISel-

ther unfunded-and hence subsidized by the academic msntuuon (whichmay,

for example, permit low teaching loads and reward faculty for their research

productivity)-or is funded largely through research grants from government

I

t

,

t

t


8/15

16

An Introduclion lo Organizations

sources or prvate found ti

4

Th ..

rily because of bli .a ons. ese orgalll.za.tlOnssupport research prima-

know and IIb PUf l

C

mterest . arguments:

it IS

better to know than not to

, . a en~

it

rom the discovery of new knowledge.

are fa: mtermedta~e group ~fscholars swings both ways. These academics

. l~ mem?e~s m professIOnal schools: business, educational administra-

non, publIc

a~mmlstratlOn and

pub li c po li cy public

health, engineering rnan-

agement, SOCIal

wo~k

administration, and re1ated programs. These faculty

~embers are ~ore llke~ytoengage in consulting work forcompanies and agen-

cies and townte cases illustrating particular problems or conditions than are

~hose located ~nacad:mi7 departments. And they are generally more likely to

arry o~t applied studies, m part ?ecause ofpressures from their students-past

.(alumn~).andP esent-who are mterested m usable practical information and

m a~qumng skilIs that. will affect the bottom line, such as profits. Such aca-

de~lcs a~e als? more likely tofound or partieipate in a for-profit company op-

eratmg either m col~abor~ti.o~with or independent of the employing university.

Such entreI:>reneunal ~ctl~tles used to be frowned on by academic programs,

but are r~pldly becommg rmportant new loei of research, research training,

~nd fundmg (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). At the same time, faculty in profes-

slOna~schools ar: confronted bydemands from their school and university to

contribute tobasic kn?wle?ge-that is, topublish in scholarly journals. Asfac-

ulty ~embers of a unrversity, they are subject to the academic culture and its

reqmrements, although the strength of these pressures varies from campus to

campus and school to school.

. Gibbons. and colleagues (1994) describe the same distinction between

basl.cand applied researc? as.re'pr~senting twomodes of knowledge production.

Basic re.search, ~ode 1,

IS

discipline based, university centered, and dorninat-

ed by~Ighly tramed individual seientists. Mode 2 is transdisciplinary, less hi-

erarchical, and group based. They point out that while Mode 2 research

?~velope? in profe~sional schools, in the organizational arena, this type ofwork

IS

increasingly carned out byconsulting companies. These companies also pro-

duce the type of k?owledge most valued byorganizational managers.

Boeh the baslC.and the appl~ed science orientations have made and may

be ex~ect~d to contmue to make mportant contributions to our knowledge of

or ?alllzatlons-what they are and how they work. In the long run, each orien-

ta~lOnde~ends on and complements the other, and a healthy scientific enter-

pnse reqmres that both types ofresearch receive attention and support (see also

Pfeffer, 1982: 23-40; Huff, 2000).

n ivers~ leoels of a~aly~is

~part from the variety f conceptual schemes

andoonentat~ons ~hat guide mqmry and differences in research settings, in-

vesugators differ m the leve of analysis at which they choose to work (Blau,

1957). For present purposes, the leve ofanalysis is determined by the nature

of ~he d~pendent variable-that is, bywhether the phenomenon to be ex-

plal?e~

IS

the behavior of individual s, of organizations, or of systems of or-

gamzauons. Thus, the basic levels are:

. ~Increashlgly,owever,cholars withinacademicdepartments alsoaffiliatewithother or-

gan~za~onalnits-e-laboratories,enters,institutes-withintheuniversityndoutside.

These

or-

gamzatlOnserveasa researchbaseforstudiesthatareoftenappliedincharacter.

The Subject Is OTganizations

17

The

social psychologicalleve,

focusingon the behaviorof individualsor interper-

sonalrelationsinvolvingindividualparticipantswithinorganizations.Atthis level,

organizational characteristicsare viewedascontext or environment, and the in-

vestigatorattempts to explore their impact on the attitudes or behaviorof indi-

viduals.Such a perspective is exemplifiedby the workof Katzand Kahn (1978)

andofPoner, Lawler,andHackman (1975).

The

organizational structure

level,focusingon the structural features or processes

that characterize organizations.Here, the major concern is to explain the struc-

tural features and socialprocesses that characterizeorganizations and their sub-

divisions.The investigatorworkingat thislevemayfocuson the varioussubunits

that makeup the organization (forexample,workgroups, departments, author-

ityranks) or mayexamine variousanalyticalcomponents (for example, special-

ization, communication networks, hierarchy) that characterize the structural

features or operational routines of organizations. Researchers working at this

leveinclude

Udy (l959b)

and Blauand Schoenherr

(1971).

The

ecologicallevel,

focusingon the characteristicsor actions of the organization

viewedasacollectiveentity operating ina larger systemof relations.At this level,

the analystmaychoose either toexamine the relation between a specificorgani-

zationorclassof organizations and the environment (e.g., Selznick,

1949;

Pugh

andHickson,

1976)

or toexaminethe relations that develop among a number of

organizations viewedasan interdependent system (e.g., Laumann and Knoke,

1987;

Miles,

1982).

Admittedly, distinguishing among these three levels of analysis is sorne-

what arbitrary. Many more refined levels of analytical complexity can be ideri-

tified as one moves from organizational-individual to societal-organizational

relations. Nevertheless, if only to remind us of the complexity of the subject

matter and the variety of aims and interests with which analysts approach ir,

the three levels are helpful in providing a rough gauge for distinguishing among

broad categories of studies.

Early research on organizations was conducted almost exclusively at the

social psychological leve. The structural level of analysis became prominent

in the early 1960s and continues to be heavily utilized by sociologists. The eco-

logicallevel was the last to develop, emerging in the late 1960s, but it is at this

level that much of the intellectual excitement. and energy that characterizes

the field during the past three decades has transpired.

Yetanother base of divergence among those who study organizations is

the theo ret ica l pe rsp ec tiv e employed by the analyst. However, this is, in our view,

such a fundamental difference that it provides the basic themes around which

we have organized this volume. Whether the analyst employs a rational,

natu-

ral or open system perspective, or some combination, is viewed as central to in-

terpreting the work. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are devoted to reviewing these

perspectives, while the subsequent chapters explcate the ways in which they

have been developed and combined.

'Themostcommonlyemployed

evels

distinctionsthatbetweenrnicro andmacrooro

ganizationaltudies.Theformerisequivalentothesocialpsychologicalevel;

he latter

encom

passesboththe structuralandtheecologicalevels.

. InChapter

6

weintroduceanddefine

several

additionallevelsof

analysis,

allof\Vhich

n-

troducedistinctionswithinthe ecologicallevel.


9/15

18

An Introduclion lo Organizations

Because somuch of our attention in succeeding chapters willbe devoted

to emphasizing divergent perspectives, it isprudent in the next section to re-

turn toexplicate the theme that all organizations share some basic character-

istcs,

THE ELEMENTS OF ORG NI Z TION S

Organizations are diverse and complex, and soi t may be helpful tobegin with

a simplifying modeI focusing on their central features. The proposed model

shown in Figure 1-1 is adapted from Leavitt (1965).7 Let us brief1yconsider

each eIement.

Social Structure

Social structure refers to the patterned or regularized aspecrs of the re-

lationships existing among participants in an organization. The social struc-

ture of any human grouping can be analytically separated into three

components. Davis (1949) identifies twoand weadd a third:

Alwaysin hurnan society there is what may be called a double reality-on the one

hand a normative syste rn embodying what ought to be, and on ,the other a factu-

al order embodying what is.... These two orders cannot be completely identical,

nor can they be completely disparate. (Davis, 1949: 52)

We shall refer to Davis's first component as the

normative structure;

this

component includes values, norrns, and role expectations. Briefly,

values

are

the criteria employed in selecting the goals of behavior;

norms

are the gener-

7Leavitt ident ifi es the f our internal e lements but does not include the environment as a

separate factor. As is obvious from our discussion, we regard the environment as an ind ispensable

ingr ed ient ip.,th e analysis of organizations, and one th at reframes alI the ot her elements.

Environment

rr __

rganization

I So~~ I

_:;~,

I /

Slruclure -

I

ij -

J

I Technology Goals I

I

- partlCIPants /

I

I

I

L ________ J

FIGURE

1-1

Leavitt s D larnond: A Model o f O rganizatio n.

So u r e Adapted fr o m L eav itt (1 9 6 5) , F igure 1 , p. 1145.

The Subject 1s Organizations 19

alizedrules governing behavior that specify, in particular, appropriate means

for pursuing goals; and

roles

are expectations for or evaluative standards ern-

'ployed in assessing the behavior of occupants of specific social positions. A so-

,:tialposition is simply a location in a system of social relationships. (For a basic

.forrnulation ofpositions and roles, see Gross, Mason, and McEachern,

1958.)

. In anysocial grouping, values, norms, and roles are not randomly arranged, but

'are organized soas toconstitute a relatively coherent and consistent set of be-

liefsand prescriptions governing the behavior ofparticipants. It is for this rea-

son that we speak of a normative

structure.

In addition to the normative structure, it is useful to recognize the pres-

ence of a

cultural-cognitive structure:

the beliefs and understandings that par tic-

ipants share about the nature of their situation and interests. This symbolic

order provides a framework-of schemas, models, recipes for action-that

helps participants tointerpret and collectivelymake sense of their world (Berg-

er and Luckmann,

1967;

Weick,

1995).

Davis's second (our third) component, which he refers to as a factual

order,' wewill call the

behavioral structure.

This component focuses on actual be-

havior rather than on normative prescriptions or cognitive patterns guiding

behavior. Homans's (1950: 33-40) well-known classification of social behavior

into activities, interactions, and sentiments suggests the types of elements that

constitute the behavioral structure. Because our concern is with the analysis of

behavioral

structure,

rather than simply behavior, we focus on those activities, in-

teractions, and sentiments that exhibit some degree of regularity-the recur-

rent behavior of a given individual or similarities in the behavior of a class of

individuals. Such actions, exhibiting some consistency and constancy in their

general characteristics, are themselves arranged into larger patterns or net-

worksof behavior. For example, we mayobserve in agroup over a period of time

which individuals attempt to influence others and with what degree of success,

and in this wayobtain a description of the power structure within that group.

Or by observing the patterning of sentiments among group members-who is

attracted to or rejected bywhom-we can describe the sociom etric structure of

the group. Both the power structure and the

sociometric

structure are specif-

ic instances of behavioral structures.

As the passage from Davis reminds us, the normative, cultural-cognitive,

and behavioral structures ofa social group are neither independent nor iden-

tical, but are to varying degrees interrelated. The normative structure impos-

es an important set of constraints on the behavioral structure, shaping and

channeling behavior through mutually held expectations and obligations. The

cultural-cognitive structure provides a common interpretive framework that

helps to account for much of the reguarity and patterning that exists. Still,

much behavior departs from these models and guidelines, and such departures

are an essential source of additions to and changes in the structure. Behavior

shapes norms and beliefsjust as norms and beliefs shape behavior. Groups vary

in the extent towhich these structures are aligned. In some situations precept

corresponds closely to practice: this appears to be the case in many utopian

communities or communes-at least in their early stages of development (Kan-

ter,

1972).

In many prisons, on the other hand, there is a large gap between what

the rules specifyand how the guards and inmates actually behave. Nevertheless,

in every existing social structure, the normative, cultural-cognitive, and be-


10/15

20

An lntroduction to Organizations

havior~l structures a~ealwaysin a state of dynamic tension-each existin and

~hangm~ so.me~hat mdependently of the other while at the same time ~xert-

mg conunumg mfluence on the others.

AlI social groups-:-or co ll ectivities to use the more general sociological

~onceptlare charac.t~nzed by a normative structure applicable to the partic-

Ip~n~s,~u t~ra1-cogmtI~ef~ameworks supporting shared understandings and

a ~. ~vlO~astru~ture linking participants in a common network or atte~n of

atI~tlVItIeths,te~acuons, and sentiments. These three interrelated struc~ures con-

s tute e

S~ ta~

structure of a collectivity.

. Organ~zatlOnal participants are likely to emphasize the amount of con-

f1:151On,he. mdeterrnmacy, and the unpredictability of the actions of their

cowor.kers,m part because such matters draw their attention and require their

ener~Ies. However, ~ofocus on the social structure of organizations is to ern-

phasIz~ the Imp~essIveamount of order exhibited by the behavior of partici-

pants .m .orgamzations .. E;ery d~y hundreds or thousands of persons in

orgamzanons perfor~ millions of mdividual acts,yet the outcome is not bed-

la~, not total confu~lOnor chaos, but a reasonable approximation of order.

ThIS remarkable achievernent merits our attention.

Emp?asizing the i.mportance o~the social structure of organizations does

not c?mmIt u.sto the view that relations among participants are al sweetness

and light: SOCIaltructure does not connote social harmony. Conflict is always

present and has helped to shape the social structure. An emphasis on social

structure ~ho~ld ~nable us to ~ee that much ofwhatever conflict is present in

the ~rgamzatlOn ISpatterned, m the sense that it is built into the structure of

~el~tI.onsbetwe.e? individuals and groups and is not due to innately aggressive

individual partICIp~nts. Not only stability and order, but tension and stress, dis-

agreements and misunderstandings, deviance and change can often be attrib-

uted to structural factors (Merton, 1957: 131-60).

. The con~ept of structure carres a staticconnotation that wemust resistoFor

this reason, ~Iddens (19.79; 1984) argue.s~hatwe should substitute the concept

of str uctura uon; a dynamic term ernphasizing that social structure existsonly to

the extel'\.~hat participants con~nue toproduce and reproduce the patternsob-

served. Struc~res operate only m specific spatiallocations and over time.

T.he SOCIaltructure of an organization vares in the extent towhich it is

formalIz~d. A fo rma l social structure is one in which the social positions and

~he relationships among them have been explicitly specified and are defined

mdepe?dently of th~ personal characteristics and relations of the participants

occ~pymg t~e~e po.smons. By contrast, in an informa l social structure, it is im-

po~sIbleto dI~tmgUlshbetween the characteristics of the positions and the pre-

scn~e.d relations .and the characteristics and personal relations of the

parucipants, In.an informal structure, when specific participants ieaveor enter

the.system, their roles a~d. relationships develop and change as a function of

their personal characteristics and the mterpersonal relations they develop.

. . 80f cou.rse, at any given point in the history of a particular structure, new jobs (formal po-

sitions) are bemg created around the particular skills and interests of specific individual s Miner

(1987) has labeled the.se ~ositions idiosyncraticjobs and notes two subtypes: evolvedjobs, created

athroundcu.r re?t o rganizational mernbers, and o pportunstc hires, crea ted around people outside

e orgamzauon.

The Subject Is Organizations

Participants Social Actors

Organizational participants are those individuals who, in return for a va-

rietyofinducements, make contributions tothe organization, as Barnard

(1938)

: and Simon (1997) emphasize. AlIindividuals participate in more than one or-

, ganization (recall that, bydefinition, organizations are specialized in their pur-

poses), and the extent and intensiveness of their involvemen t may vary greatly;

..he decision astowho isto be regarded as a participant is thus often a difficult

.one and may legitimately vary with the issue at hand. For example, a single in-

. dividual may simultaneously be an employee of an industrial firrn, a member

of a union, a church mernber, a member of a fraternal lodge or sorori

ty ,

a

member of a political party, a citizen of the state, a client of a group medical

practice, a stockholder in one or more companies, and a customer in nurner-

ous retail and service organizations. \

From the perspective of the organization, it simultaneously relates to ,

many types of participants, all ofwhom have a different interest in and make (

different demands on and contributions to the organization. To emphasize ---,

this broader collection of persons, some analysts employ the term

siahehold-

r

ers a concept emphasizing that many persons, including stockholders, com- \

munity members, regulators, and exchange partners, are affected by and have )

legitimate claims on an organization. The concept of stakeholder is much --'

broader than that of employee.

Analysts disagree, aswe shall see, on the extent to which organizations

do or should incorporate facets of participants. How much of the personali-

ties and private livesof individual participants is relevant to the functioning of

the organization alsovaries from one type of organization and role to anoth-

er: consider the situation of a novice in a religious order versus that of an oc-

casional customer in a supermarket.

The demographic characteristics of participants-for example, their age,

gender, ethnic distributions-have important consequences for many aspects of

organizational structure and functioning; we wil explore these implications in

Chapter 7.And the structural features of organizations-the opportunities they

create and the sorting rules they use for selection, retention, and promotion-

have equally fateful consequences for participants, aswediscuss in Chapter 8.

It is essential to recognize from theoutset.that participants are, first.and

f~l1.to_s.1,.~_~_LL


11/15

22

An Introduction to Organizations

Every?rocessof action is a production of somethingnew,a freshact;but atthe

sa~e .ti~.e~l action existsin continuitywith the past, whichsuppliesthe means

ofrtsininanon. Structure thus isnot tobe conceptualizedas a barrier toaction,

but asessentiallynvolvedin itsproduction, even in themostradicalprocessesof

socialchange. (Giddens, 1979:70)

This ~onception helps to correct for an all-too-comrnon sociological bias: an ern-

phasis on the power and weight of existing social arrangements coupled with

a discounting of the importance ofindividual imagination and intiative. Soci-

olog~'alwork on organzations too often carres an overly determinstc per-

specuve. On the other hand,

it

also guards against the more common

~ndividualistic bias, particularly pervasive in American culture, that disernbeds

mdividuals from their social moorings and attributes aIl developments to in-

dividual nterest and wiIl.

Goa l s

The concept of organizational goals isamong the most important-and

most controversial-concepts to be confronted in the study of organizations.

Some analysts insist that goals are indispensable to the understanding of or-

ganizations; others question whether goals perform any function other than to

~us~rr past actions. Then, too, behaviorists are fond of pointing out that only

individuals have goals; coIlectivities, such as organizations, do notoWewiIl not

-atternpt to tackle these prickly issues here but promise not to duck them in-

definitely. -. .

Fo~mstnalysts,goals constitute a central point of referencein the study

of orgamzanons. Goals are tentatively defined as conceptions of desired erids-

ends that participants attempt to achieve through their performance of task ac-

tivities. Sodefined, goals cJearly involve both cultural-cognitiveand normative

elements, but they are a sufficiently important aspect of organiztions as to

merit separate attention.

SiIKe goals figure prominently in some definitions of organzations, we

consider them further in the following section and discuss the major issues and

problems bearing on ther analysis in Chapter 11.

Technology

Tofocus on the technology of an organization is toview the organization

as a place where some type ofwork isdone, as a locaton where energy is ap-

pled to the transformation of materals, as a mechanism for transforming in-

puts into outputs. The connotations of the terrn technology are narrow and hard,

but wewiIlinsist that every organization does work and possesses a technology

for doing that work. Sorne organizations process material inputs and fabricate

new equipment and hardware. Others process people, their products con-

sisting of more knowledgeable individuals, in the case of effective school sys-

tems, or healthier individuals, in the case of effective rnedical clinics. Stillothers

process primarily symbolic materials, such as information or music. The tech-

nology of an organization is often partially embedded in machines and me-

The Subject 1s Organizations 23

chanical equipment but also comprises the technical knowledge and skills of

;;participants. ....

l' AlIorganizations possess technologies. but orgamzatlOns var~ In the ex-

tent towhich these techniques are understood, routinized, or efficaclOUS.Some

of the most interesting theoretical and empirical work has focused on the re-

lation between the characteristics of technology and the structural features of

organizations. This work is described and evaluated in Chapter 9.

Environment

Every organization exists in a specific physical, technological. cultural,

and social environment to which it must adapto No orgamzauon is self-suffi-

cient; all depend for survival on the typesof relations they ~s~blish with th~ larg-

er systems ofwhich they are a part. Early analysts of orgamzatlOns, ~ w~will se~,

tended to overlook or underestimate the importance of orgaOlzatlOn-envl-

ronmental linkages, but recent work places great emphasis on th~se conriec-

tions. Indeed, the environment is notjust another category ofvanables, but a

pervasive influence, affecting every organizational actor and structural ~eat~re.

To drive home this truth, we briefly reconsider each of the four orgalllzatlOn-

al components in this light. . .

Consider organizational participants. Very few o~galllz~t~ons assume full

responsibility for the socialization and training of their ~artlClpants. Em~loy-

ees come to the organization with heavy cultural and social bag~age obtamed

from interactions in other social contexts. With very few excepuons-su~h as

inrnates in total institutions, for example, concentration camps or cl.Ols

ters

(Goffman, 1961)-participants are involved in more .than on~ or~alllzatlOn

at anygven time. These outside interests .and comn:ltn:ents me~ltably c~n-

strain the behavior of participants in any glVenorgalllz

atlOn

and, m som~ In-

stances, strongly influence it. To regard participants as completely conta~n~d

by the organization is to misperceive one of ~he fundamen.tal. charactensUcs

of modern organizations: they are systems built on the partial involvernerrt of

their mernbers. .

What about technologies? Few organizations cr~ate their own technol~-

gies; rather they import them from the environment 10the form of mec~alll-

cal ~quip~ent, packaged programs and sets of instructions, and tr


12/15

24 An Introduction to Organizations

Finally, the social structure of the organization wilI reflect important fea-

tures borrowed from or impressed on itby the environment. Structural forms,

no less than technologies, are rarely invented and are usuaIly borrowed from

the environment. Such models or templates exist in the wider worIdapart from

but available to any specific organization that wishes to copy them. Part Three

of this volume explores the thesis that the environment is the source of much

of the order as wellas the disorder, asreflected bythe structural features of or-

ganizations.

While insisting on the pervasive and critical importance of environmen-

tal influences on organizational forms and operations, we must not assume

that the causal processes work in only one direction. Organizations not only are

influenced by but also affect their environments. Although modern theorists

differ in their viewsof the relative importance of these causal connections, as

wewiIldiscuss in later chapters, they generally agree that the relations between

organizations and environments are vital, complex, and interdependent. Each

of the four organizational elements shape and is significantIy shaped by the

wider environment. To complete the diagram ofLeavitt's diamond depicted in

Figure

1-1,

we should add double-headed arrows linking the environment to

each of the interna eIements. As reframed, Leavitt's diamond might bet-

ter be renamed the thistle.

Each of these organizational elements--social structure, participants, goals,

technology, environment-represents an important component of all organi-

zations. Indeed, each eIement has been regarded as of surpassing importance

by one or another analyst of organizations. However, the chief value ofLeavitt's

model is as a graphic reminder that no one eIement is so dominant as to be

safelyconsidered in isolation from the others. Organizations are, first and fore-

most,

systems

of elements, each of which affects and is affected by the others.

Goals are not the key to understanding the nature and functioning of organi-

zations, no more than are the participants, the technology, or the social struc-

ture. And no organization can be understood in isolation from the larger

environment. We will miss the essence of organization ir we insist on focusing

on any single feature to the exclusion of all others.

, ,_ .

~ TH E P ITIES OF ORG NIZ TIONS

The foregoing discussion represents an opening attempt to identify some of the

1

1 key elements or ingredients of organizations: to specify their building blocks.

. . However, such an approach does not go far in explaining why organizations are

soprevalent. What are their distinctive capacities? We briefly address this ques-

tion he re but will return to it again throughout the volume.

Hannan and Carroll

(1995)

identify a number of features that help to

explain why organizations are much in demand asvehicles for conducting the

myriad activities associated with modern sociallife.

1. More sothatmany other typesofsocialstructures,organizations are du rable. they

are designedin such awayas topersistovertime, routinely and continuouslysup-

porting effortsto carry on a set of specifiedactivities.More sothan other types

of social structures, they are expected tooperate aslong-distance runners. At-

taining stabilityover timeand i n spiteof shiftingparticipants isone of the major

The Subjec t 1s Organ izations

25

functions of formalization, as weemphasize in Chapter 2. Durability does not

necessarilyimply effectiveness;organizations often persist that are deerned by

many tobe inept (Meyerand Zucker, 1989).And durability should not to be

equatedwith rigidity.Sorneof the newerforms oforganizationsare designed t.o

combine great flexibilitywith the maintenance ofan organizationalcore that per-

sistsacrosschanging combinations of personnel, structure, andeven goals.

2. Another capacityof organizations is their reliability (Hannan and Carroll, 1995:

20), Organizations are gooda tdoing the sarne things in the same way,overand

over,and for manytypesof activitiesthere are many advantagesassociatedwith

thischaracteristic.Inlater chapterswewilldescribeal the numerous rnechanisms

ofcontrol utilizedinorganizations,including formalization,authority structures, t

elaborate rules and routines, strong cultures, andthe use of specializedmachin- 2>, .

ery.A11of these factorsand more are designed in part toincrease the reliability 1

oftheworkactivitiesbeingperformed. Reliabilityofperformance isnot, of course,

an unmixed blessing.Tothe extent that conditions change and newactivitiesare

calledfor, the very factors associatedwith effectiveperformance may suddenly

prevent an organization from changing itsrules andprocedures quicklyenough

todevelop newwaysofbehaving. Still,formanytypesof activitiesand manysitu-

ations, there are great advantages associatedwith the abilit.yto produce goods

and servicesreliably.

3. Organizations exhibit the trait of being

acco untable

(Hannan and CarroJl, 1995:

21; see alsoMeyerandRowan,1977). Behaviortakesplacewithin a frameworkof

rules that providesboth guidelines andjustifications for decisions and activities.

Theyestablish a scaffoldingof rationality that allowsparticipants to give an ac-

counting of their past behaviors (Scott and Lyman, 1968).In most industrial so-

cieties, this frameworkisconnected toand supported bylegal codes that define

the powersand limitsof organizations.Records are kept and a paper trail cre-

atedso that, if necessary,the bases for past actions can be reviewed.The hierar-

chyof authorityisexpected. at leastinpart, toensure that rules are being followed

andwork isperformed in accordancewith agreed-o

n

standards and procedures.

Of course, not al organizationsmeasure up to these standards: there ismuch ev-

idence ofboth incompetence and corruption. More important, aswewilllearn,

the typeof rationalityinvolved-formal rationality-is itself a Iimitedandflawed

basis for ensurng reasonable, let alone moral, conduct. Nevertheless, in an im-

perfect world, a systemin which individualsattempt to operate within an explic-

itframework ofrules nested inwiderlegal systemstowhich theyare accountable,

has much torecommend it.

DEFINING THE ON EP T O F ORG N IZ TIO N

Consistent with the objectives of this volurne , not one but three defmitions of

organizations will be presented. These definitions pave the way for OUf de-

scription and evaluation, in Part Two, of three major perspectives employed in

the analysis of organizations. We leave to later chapters the considerable task

of spelling out the implications of these differing definitions. Special attention

is accorded here to the first definition because it continues to be the dominant

perspective in thefield, not only in guiding the work of the majority of orga-

nizational scholars but also by being embraced at least implicitly by most real-

world managers and other practitioners. Moreover, this definition served to

establish organizations as a distinctive field of study. The first definition un-

derpins the rationa l system perspective on organizatio

n

. Two other definitions-


13/15

26

An Introduction to

Organizations

one associated.with t~e

natu~al system

perspective and the other with the

open

l

systemPherspectlve-Wlll be bnefly described here and examined more fully in

ater

e

apters.

Rational System Definition

h . Because a primary function of a definition is to help us to distinguish one

p. ~noT?enon from another, most definitions of organizations emphasize the

dls~~~tIve features of organizations-those that distinguish them from related

soc~a .orms. Many analysts have

attempted

to formulate such definitions and

d

thefilr~ews appear to be similar, as iIIustrated by the folIowing four influ;ntial

e mitons,

According to Barnard:

~ormal organization is that kind of coperation among men that is conscious de-

hberate, purposeful. (1938: 4) ,

According to March and Simon:

Organizations are assemblages of interacting human beings and they are the

l~rge~t assemblages in our society that have anything resembling a central coor-

dm~uv~ system.... The high specificity of structure and coordination within or-

gamz~tlO?s-as contrasted with the diffuse and variable relations among

org:ml~auons and ~mo~g unorganized individuals-marks off the individual or-

gan~atl~n ~ a

sociologica]

unit comparable in significance to the individual or-

gamsm m biology, (1958: 4)

According to BIau and Scott:

Since the di~tinctive characteristic of ... organizations is that they have been for-

~ally estabhs~ed.for ~~e explicit purpose of achieving certain goals, the term

formf ?rgamzauons IS used to designate thern.? (1962: 5)

And,

according

to Etzioni:

-

Organizations are social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed

and reconsuucred to seek specific goals.

(1964:

3)

lI

of .th~se e.arly definitions point to the existence of two structural fea-

tures that dlstmgUlsh organizations from other types of collectivities.

~~~a:~:~ons are col ,e.ctivitiesoriented to the ;>~r.suitof relatvely specific goals.

. y purp.oseful m the sense that the activites and interactions of partici-

pants are coordinated to achieve specified goals. Goals are

specificto

the extent that

s~mew: ~~i~tfin~tion, which 1developed withBlau a good many years ago, nowstrikes me as

ization' on whe:dmt It p~aces~,mphaslson the conditions present at the founding of the organ-

goals 'Th d.ert e urutwas formallyestablishedfor the explicitpurpose of achievingcertain

the i~tent

~t~:

: n~~ggests that f~c.tors.ssociatedwiththe.founding of the unit-in particular,

im ortant t rs--are of cnucallffiportance. Suchhistoricalconsiderationsnowseem less

fornalizatio:~e than the current state of the system-that is, the extent ofgoal specificityandof

The Subject 15

Olganizations

27

they are explicit, are c1early defined, and provide unambiguous criteria for se-

lecting among alternative activities.

Organizations are collectivities that exhibit a relatively high degree of formaliza-

tion. The cooperation among participants is conscious and deliberate; the

structure

of relations is made

explicit

and can be deliberately constructed and

reconstructed. As previously defined, a structure is [ormalized to the extent that

the rules governing behavior are precisely and explicitly forrnulated and

to

the

extent that roles and

role

relations are prescribed independently of the person-

al attributes and reJations of individuals

'occupying positions

in the structure.

It is the combination of relatively high goal specificity and relatively high

formalization that distinguishes organizations from other types of collectivities.

Note that both goal specificity and formalization are viewed as variables: organ-

izations vary along both dimensions. Nevertheless, as a structural type, organi-

zations are expected to exhibit higher levels offormalization and goal specificity

than are other types of collectivities, such as primary groups, families, cornmu-

nities, and social movements. In general-exceptions certainly exist-families

and kinship structures tend to rank relatively high on formalization but low on

goal specificity (Litwak and Meyer, 1966); social movements tend to exhibit low

levels of formalization combined with higher levels of goal specificity. ? although

the specificity of goals varies greatly from movement to movement and frorn time

to time (Gusfield, 1968); and communities are characterized by low levels ofboth

goal specificity and forrnalization (Hillery, 1968: 145-52).

We arrive, then, at the first definition, associated with the rational systeml

perspective: Organizations are collectivities oriented to the pursuit ojrelatively specific

0 . .

goals and exhibiting relatively highly jormalized social structures. Note that this defi- C~)

nit ion focuses not only on the distinctive characteristics of organizations but also . _.'

on their normative structure. In

Chapter

2 we consider the development and

significance of this perspective on organizations.

_

Natural System Def ini t ion

Gouldner

(1959)

reminds us that the distingushing features of a phe-

nomenon are not its only characteristics and, indeed, may not be the most im-

portant ones. Although organizations often espouse specific goals, the behavior

ofparticipants is frequently not guided by thern, nor can they be safely used to

predict organizational actions. Similarly, formal role definitions and written

rules may have been developed, but all too frequently they exhibit little or no

influence on the behavior of members. Thus, if the behavioral structure is at-

tended to, rather than the normative structure-if we focus on what partici-

pants actually do rather than

011

what they are supposed to do-the first

definition of organizations can be quite misleading.

Focusing attention on the behavioral structure produces a view of or-

ganizations quite different from that proffered by the rational system theorists.

The goals pursued become more complex, diffuse, differentiated, and subject

10Inreeent years,analysts ofmovementshaveplaeedmore emphasis 011 their organizational

features=-for

example, the extent towhieh theyare guided bya full-time,paidstaffand havereg

ularized mechanisms for obtaining resources and recruits and for setting goals (Zaldand Me-

Carthy,1987),


14/15

~


oto

change;

participants appear as

motivated

by

their

own interesrs and seek to

~mpos~

these on the organzation. It is recognized that the organization

itself

IS

a

major

asset, a

valuable

resource to be captured. Rather than being

only

a

m~ans, an instrurnent topursuing other ends, the maintenance and strength-

enmg of the organization becomes an end in itself Informal and interperson-

al structures are seen to be of greater importance than are formal structures,

which often serve only as a decorative facade concealing the real agenda and

structure. And power is recognized as stemming from many sources other than

occupancy of a formal position.

Hence, a second definition of organizations, useful for viewing them as

natural systems, is suggested:

Organizations are collectivities whose participants are

pursuing multiple interests, both disparate and common, but who recognize the value of

perpetuating the organization as an important resource. The informal structure of rela-

t ions that develops among participants is more influential in guiding the behavior of par-

ticipants than is the formal structure.

The natural system view emphasizes the common attributes that organi-

zations share with al social collectivities, And because organizations are not

set apart from other social systems, they are viewed as subject to forces affect-

ing all such systems. In particular, we find replicated in this perspective, the

two contrasting versions of the bases of social order in the sociological litera-

ture at large: one emphasizing social consensus, the other, social conflicto

The first,

social consensus,

version emphasizes a view of collectivities as

coomprisedof individuals sharing primarily common objectives. The assump-

non underlying this conception isthat social order (of any type) is a reflection

of underlying consensus among the participants; that organizational stability

and continuity reflect the existence of cooperative behavior and shared norms

and values. This widely heId and influential viewof the basis of social order is

generated in the writings ofDurkheim (1961 trans.) and Parsons (1951), among

others, and reflected in the organizational theories of Barnard (1938) and

Mayo (1945), among others,

The contrasting,

social conflict,

version viewssocial order as resulting from

the suppression of some interests byothers. Order results not from consensus,

but from

coercion,

the dominance ofweaker bymore powerful groupsoAnd an-

alytic attention is devoted not tothe appearance of consensus, but tothe real-

ity of underlying conflicts, which provide a basis for understanding instability

and change. The sociological progenitors of this view include Marx (1954

trans.) and Coser (1956)0Applications to organizations are provided by such

theorists as Gouldner (1954), Bendix (1956), and Collins (1975) o

In Chapter 3 we review the development of the basic assumptions of the

natural system perspective and examine the competing consensus and conflict

models,

n Open System Def in it ion

The previous definitions tend toviewthe organization as a closed system,

separate from its environment and encompassing a set of stable and easilyiden-

tified participants. However, organizations are not closed systems, sealed off

from their environments, but are open to and dependen~ on flowsof person-

nel, resources, and information from outside. From an open systemperspec-

The

Subject

Is Organizations 29

tive, environments shape, suppart, and infiltrate organization:: Conne,~tions

with external elements can be more critical than those among ll1tern~1 com-

ponents; indeed, for many functions the dis~inction between orgamzatlon and

environment is revealed to be shifting, ambiguous, and arbitrar

y,

o o

AlI three perspectives agree that i~an orgaonizoationis to surv,lve,otmus:

induce a variety of participants to contnbut~ th:lortime and ener~ to

it

H~w

ever open system theorists emphasize that individuals have mltiple loyaltles

andidentities. They join and leave or engage in ong~ing exchanges with the

organization depending on the bargai~s they can sotnke-:-the relative advan~

tage tobe had from maintaining or endmg the relanono Viewed from this per

spective, participants cannot be assumoed~ohold common goals or e,ven t~

routinely seek the survival of the orgazauon. Thus, much of the work

o

of or

ganizing entails hard bargaining and horse training-as well as creatmg af-

fective ties and common interpretive systems-as participants attempt to form

and re-forrn transitory coalitionso o o o o o al

An open systemperspective is less concerned Wlt? dlstmgUlshmg for~

from informal structures; instead, organizations are ~Iewed as a system of Jl1-

terdependent activities, Some of these activities areotightly connected; others

are loosely coupled. AlI must ~e contin,uousl)' monvated-produced ~nd ~e~

produced-if the organization ISto persist. The arnval 00fthis perspective tng

gered the elaboration and elevation of levels o~analysis. No longer was the

single organization the privileged unit of analysis. Rather, analysts re~ogmze

that many organizational phenomena are better underst?od and explamed ~y

viewing individual organizations as represenotanves of a glven type of ~tructUle,

or by viewing organizations as c?mponents m larger systems of reloatlOns

o

Thae

open system perspective is associated with the development of stuodlesaimed t

understanding organizational sets, populations, and fields-toplCS we pursue

in Chapters 6, 7, and 80 o.

Also, the open system perspective stres~es~heImport~nce of cultura-co

g

-

nitive elements in the construction of orgamzauons

o

Nothmg ISmreOirable

than ideas-conceptions, models, schemas, and scripts. OrgamzatLons ~wlmIn

this cultural soup and continuously adopt and adapt these templates, mtend-

edly and inadvertently. o o o o. .~ 'o'

We arrive, then, at a thirdi.~fuY~n~ useful for vlewmg orgamzatlO 1Sas

j4; ~

open systems:

Organizations arcongenes

f

mterdependent jlows and actunties [m/- ~

ing shifting coalitions of paTticipanrs-7fioedded

m

under material-resource and mstzttt- / -

tianal environmentso. ,;.v')'\,.t-\

~jof; .._. o

f

The open system perspective is ex~}cated m Chapter 40

The foregoing three definitions vary in ~erms of theoretical perspective,

differing in waysto be examined in the followng three chapt~rsoThey al~odif-

fer in their underlying ontological assumptious. Are orgamzatJOns tobe ~lewed

as entities, or as processes? The former is termoedby Emlrb~)'er (l99/

sub-

stantialist

definitions; the latter,

relational

conceptlOns

o

Substan tialist d~fimnons

stress organization; relational definitions, organizing

o

Aswe

W

see, ratLona~and

natural system theorists are more likely otoemploy substantialist definitions:

open system theorists, relational conceptlOns

o

o o

It is no doubt unsettling to be confronted soearly with three such diverse

viewsof organizationso But better to know the worst at the outset The defini-


15/15


tions are quite ?~f~erent in that they not only encompass somewhat divergent

trPes of col e~t1Vltle~ut also emphasize different facets of a given organiza-

non. But this ISprecisely why they are usefuI. Definitions are neither true nor:

false but are only more or less he1pfuIin calling attention to certain aspects of'

the phenomenon under study.With the assistance ofthese definitions and the

more general perspectives w~th~hich theyare associated, wecan exp~ct to see

an? learn ~ore ab.out orgaruzanons than would be possible were weto employ

a sl.nglepom~of~ew. Aswe proceed, we wilI call attention to the remarkably

varl

7

d portraits painted by theorists embracing each of the conceptions, Each

has its o~ charms aswel as its own blemishes; and each carries its own truth

as welI as ItSown biases.

SUMM RY

Organizati?ns are imp?rtant objects .ofstudy and concern for many reasons.

They are VItalmechanisms for pursumg collective goals in modern societies.

They are ~ot neutral to~ls because they affect what they produce; they function

as ~ol ectlveactors that independently possess certain rights and powers. Both

asmstruments and asactors, organizations are alleged to be the source of some

of co~tem~orary society's most serious problems. Organizations encompass

genenc social processes but carry them out by means of distinctive structural

arrangements.

Al~ou~h an int:res~ in.orga~izational forms and processes maybe traced

far b~ckm history,.a? mstl~tlonahzed field of scholarly inquiry focusing on the

cre.atlon .andempirical tesung of generalized knowledge concerning organi-

zations d~dnot emerge until after

1950.

This developrnent waslinked with and

greatly stl~ulate~ by the translation into English ofMax Weber's historical and

comparauve studl.esof administrative organizations, conducted during the first

twodecades of this century. The field of organizational studies has become in-

creasingly interdisciplinary.

. Organizations are st~died for many purposes and from many points of

Vle~. Imp?rtant basc::sof.dl~e~gence include variation among types of organi-

zations,

05.- scott organizations cap1 thesubjectisorganizations

Documents