Scott Organizations Cap1 TheSubjectIsOrganizations

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

Raflono l) N.o-rorQ \
ord Ope(J 5y0tem5.
.-;.
.CHA PTER 1
The Subject Is Organizations
Therecurrent problem insociology isto conceiveof corporate organization,and
to study it, inwaysthat do not anthropomorphize it and do not reduce it to the
behavior of individuals or of human aggregates.
GUY E.SWANSON(1976)
THE IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS
Ubiquity. There isnoneed tobelabor the assertion that ours isan organiza-
tional society-that organizations areaprominent, ifnot the dominant, char-
acteristic of modern societies. Organizations were present in older
civilizations-Chinese, Greek, Indian-but only in modern industrialized so-
cietiesdowefindlargenumbers of organizations engaged inperforming many
highly diverse tasks.Tothe ancient organizational assignments of soldiering,
public administration, and tax collection havebeen added such varied tasks
asdiscovery (research organizations), child and adult socialization (schools
anduniversities), 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 tomedical care and investment counse1ing),
protection of personal andfinancial security (police departments, insurance
firms, banking and trust companies), preservation of culture (museums, art
galleries, universities, libraries), communication (radio andtelevision studios,
telephone companies, the U.S.Postal Service), and recreation (bowling al-
leys, pool halls, the National Park Service, professional football teams). Even
such apartiallisting testifies tothe truth of Parsons's statement that "the de-
velopment of organizations isthe principal mechanism bywhich, in ahighly
differentiated society,itispossibleto'get things done,' toachievegoals beyond
the reach ofthe individual" (1960: 41) .
1
f
'.
3
4
An Introduaion lo Organizations
Until very recently, even highly developed societies such as the United
Statesdidnot keep accurate records on organizations. Wekept closewatchof
thenumbers of individuals andthe flowof dollars, but gavelessscrutiny toor-
garuzanons. It was not until the 1980s that the U.S. Bureau of the Census
launched aStandard Statistical Establishment List for aIl businesses distin-
guishing between an establishment-an economic unit at asinglelocation-e-and
z firm or .company-a business organization consisting of one or more domes-
ncestabhshments under common ownership. In 1997, theU.S.Census Bureau
r~ported theexistence of "more than 5.3 million single-establishment compa-
mes.andabout 210,000 multi-unit forms representing another 1.6million es-
tabhshments, for a total of 6.9 million establishments and 5.5 million firms"
\Knoke, ~001: 77).Impressive asthese numbers are, they donot include pub-
licagencies or voluntary associations, which maybealmost asnumerous.
The first attempt tocreate a representative national survey of all em-
ployment settings in the United States wascarried out during the early 1990s
bya teamof organizational researchers (KaIleberg et al., 1996). Toconduct
this "nation~l organizations study," Kalleberg andassociates developed an in-
gen~ou~deslg~togenerate their sample. Because nocomplete census of or-
gatlIZatlOnsexisted, they began bydrawing arandom sample of adults in the
UnitedStateswhowereaskedtoidentify their principal employers. A sasecond
step, data were gathered bytelephone, from informants in the organizations
nan:
ed
asempl~yers, regarding selected features of each of these employment
settmgs, Inparticular, human resources practices. This procedure resulted in
a.random sa~pl.e of employment organizations (establishments), weighted by
sizeof organizanon (Kalleberget al., 1996;chap. 2).Their results indicate that,
~sof 19!H, 61percent ofrespondents were employed in prvate sector estab-
lishrnents, 27percent in the public sector, and 7percent in the nonprofit sec-
tor (1996: 47).
Even though organizations al-enow ubiquitous, their development has
been sufficierrtlvgr~dual anduncon.troversial that they haveemerged during
~hepast fewcenturies almost unnoticed. The spread of public bureaucracies
1~1tO~very~rena and the?is~l~cem~nt of the family business by the corpora-
non conslttutes arevolution InSOCial structure, but one little remarked until
recently.
Nevermuchagitated, neverevenmuchresistec\,arevolutionfor whichnoflags
wereraisec\,it transformec\our livesduring thoseverydecades inwhich, un-
mindful of whatwashappening,A mericansandEuropeansdebatedinsteadsuch
issuesassocialism,populism,freesilver,cIericalism,chartism,anc\colonialism.It
nowstanc\sasamonument todiscrepancybetweenwhatmenthink theyarede-
signingandtheworldtheyareinfactbuilding.(Lindblom, 1977:95)
Organizati~::msin theformthat weknowthememerged during the nine-
teen~h century In Europe and A merica, during the period of economic ex-
pansIO~occaslO~ed by the industrial revolution. Not only did organizations
rapidly mercase Innumber andrange of applications, but theyalsounderwent
a transformation of structure as formerIy "cornmunal" forms based on the
bonds of kinship and personal ties gavewayto "associative" forms based on
The Sybject Is Organizations 5
contractual arrangements among individuals having notiesother than awill-
ingness topursueshared interests or ends (Starr, 1982: 148).
Source o[social ills? Theincreasing prevalence of organizations in every
arena of social lifeisone indicator of their importance. A nother, rather dif-
ferent index of their significance isthe increasing frequency with which or-
ganizations are singled out as the source of many of the ills besetting
contemporary society.Thus, writingin 1956,C.Wright MilIspointed withalarm
tothe emergence of a "power elite" whose members occupied the top posi-
tions in three overlapping organizational hierarchies; the state bureaucracy,
themilitary, andthelarger corporations. A t about thesametime, Ralf Dahren-
dorf (1959trans.) in Germany wasengaged in revising andupdating Marxist
doctrine byinsisting that thebasisof the classstructure wasnolonger theown-
ership of themeans of production but the occupancy of positions that allowed
the wielding of organizational authority. Such views,which remain controver-
sial, focus on the effects of organizations on societal stratification systems, tak-
ing account of the changing bases of power and prestige occasioned by the
growth in number andsizeof organizations.
A relatedcriticismconcerns theseemingly inexorable growthin thepower
of public-sector organizations. The twogreat German sociologists MaxWeber
(1968 trans.) and Robert Michels (1949 trans.) wereamong the first toinsist
that acentral political issueconfronting all modern societieswasthe enormous
influence exercised by the (nonelected) public officials-e-the bureaucracy->
over the ostensible political leaders. A n administrative staff presumably de-
signed toassist leaders in their governance functions too often becomes an
independent branch with itsowndistinctive interests (Skocpol, 1985) .
Other criticisms point tothe negative consequences of the growth'of or-
ganizations in virtually every area of social existence. Borrowing from and en-
larging on atheme pervading the thought of Weber, these critics decry the
rationalization of modern life-in Weber's phrase, the "dsenchantrnent of the
world" (1946 trans.: 51). The essence of this viewisgraphical1y captured by
Norman Mailer: "Civilization extracts itsthousand feesfrom the best nights of
man, but none socruel asthereplacement of thegoodfairy bythe expert, the
demon bytherational crisis, andthewitchbythe neurotic female" (1968: 83).
Organizations are viewedasthe primary vehic1ebywhich, systematically, the
areasof our livesarerationalized-planned, articulated, scientized, made more
efficient andorderly, andmanaged by"experts." (See, for example, Mannheim,
1950trans.; Ellul, 1964trans.; Goodman, 1968;andGalbraith, 1967.) A prosa-
ic but powerful example isprovided by the worldwide success of fast-food
chains=-the "Macdonaldization ofSociety" (Ritzer, 1993)-which haveration-
alizedfood preparation, depersonalized employee-customer relations, and
stimulated thegrowth ofmass production techniques in agribusiness (Schloss-
er,2000).
A new generation of feminist crities reminds us that women aswell as
men aretrapped within organizational cages.Glennon (1979: chap. 1) decries
the growth of bureaucracy, but on the feminist grounds that it feeds the "du- .
alismof private-expressive andpublic-instrumental selvesandworlds" anden-
genders aruthless rationality that extends instrumental and administrative
I
,.
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 tocornbat. (1984: 203)
Bureaucratic structures are argued to give priority tomasculine 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 ofwomen's values: equalitarian and personalized asso-
ciations. A nd 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. A lienation, 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 A rgyris, 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. A nd 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 isperhaps best in-
trodu<;ed by an a?alogy: "The medium is the message." This twentieth-century
aphonsm was comed by Marshall McLuhan to focus attention on the charac-
teristics ofthe mass media themselves-print, radio, movies, television-in con-
trast to the content transmitted by these media. McLuhan defines media very
The Subject Is Organizations 7
broadly as "any extension of ourselves": e1aborating his thesis, he notes, "The
message of any medium is the change in scale or pace or pattern that it intro-
duces into human affairs" (1964: 23, 24).
McLuhan's thesis appears to be more clearlyapplicable to our subject-
organizations-than to any specific media of communica~on ..First, like me.dia,
organizations represent extensions of ourselves. Organizations can achieve
goals that are quite beyond the reach of any individual-from building sky-
scrapers and dams to putting a person on the moon. But to focus on what or-
ganizations do may conceal from us the more basic and far-rea~hing eff~cts
that occur because organizations are the mechanisms--the media-e-by which
those goals are pursued. A few examples suggest some of these unanticipated
and, often, unrecognized organizational effects:
In his crucial decision on how toreact to the installation of Russian missiles in
Cuba, President Kennedy had toselect from among anaval blockade, a"surgic~l"
air strike, and amassive land invasion, not because these were the only conceiv-
able responses, but because these were the principal organizational routines that
hadbeen worked out by the Pentagon (A llison, 1971).
A lthough weseek "health" when wevisit the clinic or the hospital, what weget is
"medical care." Clients are encouraged toview these outputs as synonyrnous, al-
though there may be no relation between them. In some cases, the relation can
even be negative; more care can result in poorer health (Illich, 1976).
While most of us believe schools are designed toincrease the knowledge and skills
of student participants, their major function may well be the indirect effects they
have in preparing students to assume acompliant role in the organizational so-
ciery: tolearn how tobe dependable employees (Bowles and Gintis, 1977).
Organizations may exert only weak effects on the activities of their parti~ipants,
but stiU exert influence in situations because they embody and exemplify pur-
poseful and responsible action. They depict rationaJ ity, enabling providers tooffer
an acceptable account ofhow resources were used and policies pursued (Meyer
and Rowan, 1977).
To suggest that our organizational tools shape the products and services
they produce in unanticipated ways and, in some cases, subs~tut~ "accounts"
for outcomes indicates the quite substantial impact that orgarnzanons have on
individual activity. However,even this expanded view does not reveal the full sig-
nificance of these forms.
As collective actors. We will fail to perceive the importance of organi-
zations for our lives ifwe view them only as contexts-as arrangements influ-
encing the activities of individual actors. Organizations must also be viewed as
actors in their own right, as collectiveactors. They can take actions, utiliz~ re-
sources, enter into contracts, and own property. Coleman (1974) descnbes
how these rights have gradually developed since the Middle A ges to the point
where now it is accurate to speak of two kinds of persons-natural persons
(such as you and me) and collectiveor juristic persons (such as the Red Cross
and General Motors). The social structure ofthe modern society can no longer
be described accurately as consisting only of relations among natural personsj
our understanding must be stretched to include as well those relatio?s be-
tween natural and collective actors, and between two or more .collective ac-
8 An Introduction to Organizations
tors.' In short, wemust come to"therecognition that thesocietyhaschanged
over the past fewcenturies in thevery structural elements ofwhich it iscom-
posed" (Coleman, 1974: 13).
Theoretical significance. Tothis point, wehave assembled avariety of
evidence and arguments tosupport the case that organizations merit atten-
tion.A lI of theseclaims relate totheir social significance: their ubiquity, their
impact on power andstatus, their effectson personality andperformance. A dif-
ferent kindof rationale forjustifying the study of organizations points totheir
sociological significance: thecontribution their study can make toour under-
standing of the social world.
George Homans points tothevaluefor social science of studying organ-
izations when heasserts:
Thefactisthattheorganizationof thelargeformal enterprises,governmental or
prvate,inmodernsocietyismodeledon, isarationalizationof,tendenciesthat
existinall humangroups.(Homans, 1950:186-87)
Tosaythat organizations exhibit "tendencies that exist ir all human groups" is
tosuggest that organizations provide the setting for awidevariety of basic so-
cial processes, such associalization, communication, ranking, the formation
of norms, theexerciseof power, andgoal setting andattainment. If thesegener-
ic social processes oprate in organizations, then wecan addasmuch toour
knowledge of the principles that govern their behavior bystudying organiza-
tions asby.studying any other specific typeof social system.But Homans as-
serts something more.
Tosaythat weobserve in organizations "arationalization of tendencies
that exist in all human groups" istosuggest that organizations are character-
izedbysomewhat 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 aresomeforms or mechanisms of con-
trol-for instance, ahierarchical authority structure-that arebest studied in
organizations, since it iswithin 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
isaccounted 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 twokinds of law practice are the twohemispheres of the profession. Most lawyers re-
side excJ usively in one hemisphere or the other and seldom, if ever, cross over the equator.
(Heinz and Laumann, 1982: 379)
It isalso instructive that lawyers who represent collective actors rather 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 aset of generic social processes--such associalization, integration, status, power, adaptation-
ischaracteristic of a11social structures. However, each of these processes',operates differently de-
pending on the structural context in which it is acting, so that, for example, the process of
integration iseffected in a small group differently than in an organization, and both differ from
the same process occurring within acommunity, and soon.
tion, decision-making-are more highly formalized in or.ganiz.ation.s.It isour
belief that thestudyof organizations cancontribute ~obas~csociological knowl-
edgebyincreasing our understanding of howgenenc SOCIal processes operate
within distinctive social structures.
ORGANIZATIONS AS AN AREA OF STUDY
Emergence of the Area
The study of organizations isboth aspecialized.field of inquiry ~i~hi?
thediscipline of sociology andan increas~nglyrecogll1z~dfo~usof m.u~tldlsCl-
plinary research andtraining. It isimpossible todetermme withprecision the
moment of itsappearance, but it issafetoconcJ u.det~at until the late 1940s,
organizations didnot exist asadistinct fieldof sOClologlcalmqUlry.Precursors
maybeidentified, but each lackedsomecritical feature ..T~lUs,th:re wassome
empirical research on organizations by,for example, criminologists whostud-
iedprisons (Clemmer, 1940), political analystswhoex~mmed pa.rtystructures
(Gosnell, 1937), and industrial sociologists who studied factones and labor
unions (Whyte, 1946).But theseinvestigators rarely att:mpted tog~nerahze b.e-
yondthespecificorganizational forms theywerestu~ym? The ~u~J ectw~spns-
ons or parties or factories or unions-not orgamz~tl?ns. Sirnilarly, 1~1the
neighboring disciplines, political scientistswere ~xammmg the fu.nctlOnmgof
legislativebodies or public agencies, andeconomlsts were.developmg their the-
ory of the firrn, but theywere not attempting togenerahze beyond these spe-
cificforms.
Industrial psychologists didpursue suchge~er~l proble~s aslowmoral:,
fatigue, andturnover within several typesof orgamzau<;>nalsettmgs, ~u~theydid
not attempt todetermine systematically howthe varymg c~aractenstlcs of dif-
ferent organizational contexts influenced theseworker reacuons. A n? althoug~,
from early in this century, administrative and management theorists ~uch as
Taylor (1911), Fayol (1949 trans.) , and Gulick and Urwlc~ (1937).~Idcon-
centrate on the development of general principies co~cermng adn:l~llstratlVe
arrangements, their approach wasmoreoften prescnpuve th~~1empJ [lc~,I:That
is, theywereinterested in determining what t~eproper form shouldbe l,n~he
interests of maximizing efficiency andeffectiveness ra~her than mexammmg
andexplaining organizational arrangements asthey e~lsted. They alsofocused
primary attention on managerial activities ~~dfunct~o~s rather than <;>nthe
wider subjects of organizations and organlZl,ng (?Ulllen, 1994). Engmeers
playedacentral role early in attempting toratlon~l~zea~proaches towork, at-
tending tothe design of both technical andadministrative systems (Shenhav,
1999). .. b
Within sociology, the emergence of the field of orgalllzatlOns may e
roughly dated from the translation intoEnglish ofWeber's (1946trans.; 1947
trans.) and, toalesser extent, Michels's (1949 trans.) ~nalyses of bureaucr~-
cy.Shortly after these classic statements became acces.slbletoA mencan SOCI-
ologists, Robert K.Merton andhisstudents at Colu~bla Umversl~ attempte?
tooutline the boundaries of this newfield of mqUlry by compllm!? theoreti-
cal andempirical materials dealing withvarious aspects of orgamzatlons (Mer-
10 An Introduction lo Organizations
ton et al., 1952).Equally important, aseries of pathbreaking andinfluential
casestudies of diversetypesof organizations waslaunched under Merton's in-
fluence: includi~g an examination of afederal agency-the Tennessee Valley
A uthonty (Selznick, 1949)-a gypsummine andfactory (Gouldner, 1954), a
state employrnent agency andafederallaw-enforcement agency (Blau, 1955),
and aunion (Lipset, Trow, and Coleman, 1956).Por the first time, sociolo-
~istswere.enga?ed in the development and empirical testing of generaliza-
tions ?ea~mgwith the structure and functioning of organizations viewedas
orgarnzanons.
A tabout thesametime, an important interdisciplinary developmen twas
under wayattheCarnegie Institute ofTechnology (nowCarnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity). Herbert Simon became head of the Department of Industrial Man-
age~ent in 1949;assembledaneclecticgroup of political scientists,economists,
en?l~eers, andp~ychologists;andencouraged themtofocustheir energies on
building abe~avlOrallyoriented science of administration. FollowingSimon's
le~d, emphasiswasplacedon decision making andchoicewithin organizations
(Sl~on, 1997).The unrealistic assumption ofa single, towering entrepreneur,
ratonal andall-knowing, that dominated economic models of thefirmwasre-
placed first bythe viewof intendedly rational but cognitively limited actors
(.MarchandSimon, 1958), andsubsequently bymodels emphasizing the mul-
tiple and competing objectives of participants in organizations (Cyert and
March, 1963).Economic models of administrative behavior weremodifiedand
enriched bytheinsights of psychologists andpoltical scientists. .
These central andother related efforts gaverisetotheidentification of
anewarea of study-organizations; an area defined at alevel of theoretical ab-
straction sufficientlygeneral tocall attention tosimilaritiesinformandfunction
acrossdifferent arenas ofactivity;andasubject matter that exhibitedsufficient
diversityandcomplexitytoencourage andrewardempirical investigation. Thekey
elements for creating anewarena of scientific studywere in place.A sA lfred
North Whitehead (1925: 3-4), theastute philosopher of scienceobserves:
A lItre worldoverandatal1timestherehavebeenpractcal men, absorbedin
"rreducble andstubbornfacts":all theworldoverandatall timestherehave
beenmenof aphilosophicaltemperamentwhohavebeenabsorbedintheweav-
ingof general principies.It isthisunion~f passionateinterestin thedetailed
factswithequaldevotiontoabstraergeneralizationwhichformthenoveltyof our
presentsociety.
~cc<:>mpanyingthecreation of the newsubject area wasasearch for ap-
prop.natel~tellectual ancestorstoproviderespectabilityandlegitimacy-Machi-
avelh, StoSimon, Marx, andWeber wereobviouscandidates. A ndmore recent
forebears, such asTaylor, Barnard, andMayo, wererediscovered andreprint-
ed.~v~nacou;>leof token women contributors wereidentified, in thepersons
?f Lilhan M.GIlbreth-who collaborated withher husbarid in finding waysto
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 by the Dozen-and Mary Parker Follett (1941), an earlystudent
of management and change working in the human relations tradition (see
Green, 1995).
The Subject 1s Organizations 11
A fter about adecadeof empirical research andtheory development, three
textbook treatises-by MarchandSimon (1958), Etzioni (1961), andBlauand
Scott (1962)-provided needed integration and heightened interest in the
field.A lso, anewjournal, Administrative Science Quarterly, beginning publica-
tion in 1956under theeditorship ofJ ames D.Thompson, emphasized thein-
terdisciplinary character of thefield."
Common and Divergent Interests
Common [eatures, What features doall organizations exhibit in com-
mon? What are the general organizational issues analysts began toperceive
among thegreat diversityof specificgoalsandstructural arrangements? Most
analystshaveconceivedof organizations associal structures created by indiuiduals
to support the collaborative pursuit 01specified goals. Given this conception, all or-
ganizations confront anumber of common problems: al! must define (andre-
define) their objectives;all must induce participants tocontribute services;all
must control andcoordinate thesecontributions; resources must begarnered
fromtheenvironment andproducts or servicesdispensed; participants must be
selected, trained, andreplaced; andsomesort ofworking accommodation with
the neighbors must beachieved. .
In addition tothese common operational requirements, some analysts
havealsoemphasized that al! organizations are beset byacommon curse.A lI
resources cannot bedevoteddirectly togoal attainment; some-in somecases
ahigh proportion=-of the resources utilizedbyany organization must beex-
~ndeiTi:unaii:J .tain~theorganization itself.A lthough organizations areviewed
asmeans toaccomplish ends, themeans themselves absorb much energy and,
ir t~eextreme (but perhaps ntrare) case, become ends in thernselves.
There isaconvergence of interest around thesecommon features, but we
must not overlook the many bases of divergence. These include differences
among the organizations themselves asobjects of study, differences in the in-
terests andbackgrounds of thosewhostudy organizations, anddifferences in
thelevel of analysisat which inquiry ispitched.
. !
Diverse organizations, Organizations come in abewildering variety of
sizesandshapes.The largest of themareimmense.A lthough theexact numbers
depend on how the boundaries are defined, the largest organizational units
found inmodern societyarethemilitary services.The U.S.Department of the
A rmyin 1995ernployedapproximately 790,000employees, 510,000activecom-
missionedofficers andenlistedpersonnel, and280,000civilians.A nadditional
642,000servedinthereservecorps (Kaufman, 1996).Under thethreat of world
terrorism, thesizeof themilitary isagain expanding. Large organizations also
existwithinthecivilianworld.In2001, thelargest corporate employer, Wal-Mart
Stores, employed 1,244,000employees.Thelargest manufacturing corporation,
SOther brief histories of thedevelopment of organizations asan ideritifiable fieldof inquiry
areoffered byMarch (1965: ix-xvi) andPfeffer (1982: 23-33). A nentertairung, if'jaundiced, vrew
of the evolution of organization theory isprovided byPerrow (1973). Summaries of the contri-
butions of major organizational theorists together with brief biographical information havebeen
assembled byPugh and Hickson (1996).
12 An Introduction lo Organizations
CM, wa~su?stantially smaller at 386,000.Of theten largest U.S.corporations at
thebegmlll?g of the twenty-firstcentury, sixwerein salesandservices, four in
manufactunng tFortune, 2001).
Mostworkers in thiscountry are employees of someone else;lessthan 5
percent of the workforce isself-employed (Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt,
1999).A nd, more workers are employed byfewer and larger companies: by
1975,3percent of theemployingorganizations accounted for 55percent of the
er,uployed,andabout one-quarter of thetotal workforcewasemployedbyfirms
withmore than 1,000employees.
. Size, ~oweve:, shouldnot beequated withsuccess.Perhaps for atimein
theindustrial agesize,asmeasured byemployees or productive capacity,wasin-
strumental tosuccess (survival, profitability), but such an association isill-suit-
edtothepostindustrial era. Recent yearshaveseen efforts torestructure and
downsizemany of the corporate giants. Indeed, it issomewhat ironic that one
of thelargest corporate enterprises in the United States in the mid-1990swas
Manpower Temporary Services, with over 800,000 workers. More generalIy,
Carroll andHannan (2000: 20) report that theaveragesizeof corporations in
theUnitedStateshas declined fromabout 60employees per company in 1960
toabout 34employees in 1990.The most productive andinnovative business-
esareoften small or intermediate in size.
. In an agewhen giant organizations seemtodominate thelandscape, itis
important toemphasize that small organizations areactuallyinthemajority: in
1990, 90percent of all employing organizations in theUnitedStatesemployed
19o~fewer indivi~uals (Small Business A dministration, 1994).A ndthe pre-
d~~mant ownershp formremains thesoleproprietorship, withmore than 12
million establishments, compared with about 2.8 million corporations and
about 1.5m~llionpartnerships. Of course, the corporation far outstrips the
~ther forms massets, employees, and earnings. These employment organiza-
?ons alsovarygreatlyinthetypesof goods andservicesprovided: fromcoal min-
mg tocomputers, fromfortune-telling tofutures forecasting.
~rge numbers of people are employed in the public sector.In 1995, in
theUnitedStates, over 19million individuals-about one out of everysixnon-
farmworkers-were employed in federal, state, and local governments. The
number of units or agencies involvedisdifficult todetermine because of the
nested character of governmental forms. The United States Government Manual
(~.S. Offi<:e~f theFederal Register, 1992) provides organizational charts and
bnef descriptions of theprincipal agencies. It currently numbers almost 1,000
page.s!Federal employees make up only about 18percent of all governmental
officials.uhe vast majority ofwhom are employed at the state (5million) and
local levels.(11 million), where there exists great.variation in organizational
arrangements (Littman, 1998).
The shift in type of employment settings has been dramatic. In 1960
rou~hly half ~manyjobs weretobefound inrnanufacturing asinservices (in-
c1udmgpublic sector employment). By1990, the ratio hadshifted toone out
of five, in favor of the services sector. Indeed, more A mericans are now ern-
plo~~dingovernment servicethan in all of manufacturing. The gender com-
posiuon of theworkforce has alsochanged greatly in arelative1yshort periodo
In the 1940swomen madeup onlyabout 20percent ofthe workforce. By1996,
13
over 46percent-nearly half-of all workerswerewomen.A nd, women arenot
onlyemployees of organizations. Bythebeginning of the 1990s,women owned
about 30percent ofU.S. firms, accounting for about 14percent of all sales..
Whilefor-profit forms providethelion's shareof employment 111theUmt-
edStates, nonprofit charitable organizations provi~e.animpo~tant alternative
mode of organizing. In 1994 more than ahalf million public charities and
50,000 private foundations were in existence, providing e~pl~yment fa: al-
most 7percent of all full- and part-time employees (GalaskIewIcz and Biele-
feld,1998).
A n important trend visibleduring the past three de~ades in the United
States isareduction in the attachment of workers tospecific employers. The
number of workers employed in the samejob for more than ten years has de-
clined, andtheproportion ofworkers in "nonstandard" work arrangements-
for example, independent contractors, par t-time, t~mporary h~lp
agencies-now approaches 25percent of the workforce (MlSh~l,.~ernsteID,
andSchmitt 1999).While many workers appreciate the newflexibility afford-
edbythese changes, others suffer fromincreased insecurity and the absence
of regular job benefits. ....-
Employing organizations donot exhaust thelistof orgalllzauon~1 forms.
Yerba and Nie (1972) estimate that about two-thirds of adult A mencans be-
long toone or more voluntary associatio.ns, not counting churche.s: The n~m-
ber andvarietyof suchforms islargeandmclude.sl~bor umons, P?htlCal partle~,
professional societies, business and trade aS~~Clauons,fraterl11~IeSand sorori-
ties civicserviceassociations, reformandactivistgroups, andneighborhood or-
gadizations. Two"slices"intothisworldsuggest howdive~s~itis.A vertical slice,
extracting only one occupational group, doctors ofmedlcme.' r~vealsover 380
specialty associations listedin the Directory of Medical Specialists.A h?nzon-
tal slice, an atternpt tocompile adetailed list of all voluntary assoClatlons III
Birmingham, England, reported 4,264such organizations (~ewlOn, 1975). ".
In addition tosizeandsector, organizations varygreatly IIIstructu:al char-
acteristics. The relatively flat authority and control structu.re foun.dIII many
voluntary associations stands in sharp contrast withthemultilayer hierarchy of
amilitary unit or acivil service bureaucracy. A ndbot~seem relatlve~yclean
andsimpleincomparison withtheproject teamor m.atnxs~uctures (dscussed
inChapter 9) found inresearch anddevelopment umts ofhlgh-tech compames.
Much attention hasrecently been directed to"network" or alliance forms: co-
operative connections among formally indepen?ent or~aniz~tions that enable
themtoenjoysmultaneously the benefits associatedwith being sn:
all
, such as
rapid response, and with those of being large, such as ecoriomies of scale.
(These forms are discussedin Chapter 10.) .
Someorganizations arecapital intensive, pl~cing most?f ~heIr r~,sources
inmachinery andautomated equipment. Others nvest heavily111the hum~n
capital" of their workforce, selecting highly qualified personnel, uriderwrit-
ingtheir further, specialized training, andthen struggl111gtokeep .the~fro~
carrying off their expertise tosome other company. Som~.o.rgal1lZatlOnsdi-
rectly employ most of the personnel that carry on the actlVltl~Sof the enter-
prise; others contraer out much of their work, even the functions of general
management.
Organizations alsovarygreatly because they relate toanddrawon dif-
ferent surrounding environments. Public agencies differ fromprivatefirms,
evenwhen theycarry on thesamekindsof work, because theyfunction indif-
ferent contexts. It matte~sconsiderably whether youoperate tosatisfythede-
mandsof manydecentralizedcustomersor onecentralizedbudget or oversight
burea~.M~chof whatweknowabout organizations isdrawnfromorganizations
operaung mth: secondhalf of thetwentieth century in capitalist, democratic
socetes=-and mone such society in particular, the United States.Only re-
centlyha~e~ere .bee~extensi~eeffortstoexamine thestructure andoperation
of orgaruzauons Indifferent times, usinghistorical documents, andin differ-
ent kindsof societies.
La~ge-s~aleorganizati~msdevotedtothe pursuit of specializedgoalsde-
velopedInthl~~ountry dun?g themiddle of thenineteenth century.Manyof
the .charactensucs weassociatewithmodern organizations-the specialized
equipment, th~sizabl~a~min~strativehierarchy, thecollection of specialists-
first appeared Inassocianon withthedevelopment of therailroads.The "man-
a9"erialrevolu~on" occurred inresponse totheproblems of scaleandscope, of
~lstanceandtight scheduling posedbyrailroads (Chandler, 1977).Organiza-
tions develop~ngat this timeweredifferent in structure fromthosearriving
later.The.um~ed structure~soon gavewaytodiversifiedand conglomerate
forms, which In turn are bemg replaced bymore flexible, network arrange-
ments.(seeChapter 10).Moregenerally, asStinchcombe (1965) firstobserved,
orgamzational formsexhibit distinctivestructures that reflect thetimesinwhich
theywer~created. Th.us,~tanygiventime, much of thediversityexhibitedby
acollection of orgamzanons ISdue tothe varying conditions present at the
timeof their birth.
The remarkable recent economic performance of the East A sian
"tigers"-especially J apanese, South Korean, andIndonesian firms-has stim-
~latedgreat interest in these organizations, andinvestigations of their opera-
tionshave confirmed theimportance of context (Orr, Biggart, andHamilton,
1997): For example, onecannot understand thejapanese corporation without
atte~u0l! tothe distinctive belief systemsgoverning employrnent, tothe con-
nec~ons between acompany anditsfamilyof firms (the Zaibatsu), andtothe
relations between privatefirmsandthestate.Lessdramatic but significant dif-
ferences areassociatedwithorganizations operating on theEuropean continent
as,,:ellasinother areasofthe world(seeHofstede, 1984, 1991;Chandler 1990;
Whitley 1992a, 1992b, 1999).A mong all ofthe other sources ofvariation, we
must not overlook temporal, regional, andcultural factors.
Diverse research interests and settings. A nother basisfor divergence in
:",orkon organiza~ons re~idesnot int~e.differences amon~organizations asob-
jects of studybut.In ~e mterests, trammg, andemployment settings of those
whostudy orgaruzauons. A salready noted, researchers from different disci-
pli~~svary.tosome extent in the kinds of organizations they choose tostudy.
Political scientistsprimarily focus on political parties andstateadministrative
structures, economists onbusinessfirms, sociologistsonvoluntary associations
and on agencies engagedin social welfareand social-control functions, and
anthr?pologists on comparative administration inprimitive, colonial, andde-
velopmg societies.Disciplinary differences remain evenwhen asingletypeof
The Subject Is Grganizations 15
'organization isselectedfor study: specialiststendtolook not onlyat ~i.fferen.t
objectsbut alsoat different aspects of thesameobject.T~us, the p~htlC~1SCI-
entist will belikelytoemphasize power processes anddecision makmg "~Ithlll
theorganization; theeconomist will examine theacquisition and.allocatlOnof
scarceresources within the organization andwill attend tosuch issuesaspro-
ductivityandefficiency;thesociologist hasquitevariedinterests but if t~ere is
a,focusitwilllikelybeonstatusorderings, ontheeffectof norms andosentlI?ents
onbehavior, andon organizational legitimacy;the psychologist will bemt.e~-
.estedin variations in perception, cognition, and motivation a~ong partlcI-
.pants;andtheanthropologist will call attention totheeffectsof diversecultur~l
valueson thefunctioning of thesystemanditsmembers. The studyof orgam-
zationsembraces all theseinterests, andstudents of organizations work tode-
velop conceptual frameworks within which, all of thes.e t?pics and their
interrelations maybeexamined. A nd, increasmgly, orgamzatlO~al ~nalystsat-
tempt tospecifywhat isdistinctiveabout power or status or m~tlv~tlon or cul-
tural processes because they occur within thecontext of orgamzatlons, ." I
Cutting acrossthese disciplinary divis~on~isanother, m?re general.basis i
of divergenceamong thosewhostudyorgamzatlons:.th~adoptl~n of ~basicver-
susan applied research orientation. Basic research ISalme~p:lmanly at ac,cu-
rately describing existing features andrelations ~f orgamzatlons andotestmg
propositions about themtobetter understand their nature andoperanon. Ap-
plied studies seekknowledgeinorder tosolvespecifi~problems or tobrin~about V
desiredchanges inthesesystems.Of course, there ISnot ahard-and-fast linebe-
tween these interests. Basicresearch, particularly in the long run, can leadto :
practical applications, andapplied research often con~ibut~s importantly to .
general knowledge.Bothrest on interests andvalues: nelt~er ISva~ue-free,and__:
thesameinvestigators often conduct both basicand~pph~dstudle~.
Still, there areimportant differences intheseorientations. Bas~cresearch
isdriven more bytheory-in itschoiceboth ofproblems andofvar?ables.Par-
ticular concepts-authority, legitimacy, institutionalization-are of ~nterest.be-
cause of their place in theoretical arguments, not because.of their practical
significance. Basicresearch ismore likelytofocus on the mdependent van-
ables-on understanding the effects of certain concepts of interest-than on
thedependent variablesandtobeaimedat testingpa.rticular a:gum.ents. Con-
versely,appliedresearch isdriven byan interest insolV1~gs?~e Ider:-tlfiedprob-
lem-low morale or productivity, high turnover-and ISwllingtomcorporate
anyand all kinds of variables, whether economic, psychologica~, or cultur.al,
that mayshedlight on it.Thus, appliedstudies are~~ch. more likely to.bem-
terdisciplinary: practical problems donot resp:ct dlSClphn~ryboun~anes.
A lthough there aremanyexceptons. apphe~resea:ch IS.morelikely tobe
conducted byresearchers located mnonacadernic settmgs: Ingo~ernmental
bureaus, research units of corporations, consulting firms, or pohcy-~esear~h
organizations. The results of these studies are lesslikely tobe pubhshed m
scholarlyjournals; often theyresult innopublic~tions at all, ?nlyareport tothe
client group and/or chief executiveofficer.Baslcrese~rch.l~cond~cted l~rg~-
lywithin theacademic departments of collegesandur:-lV~rsl~es: Thisw?rk ISel-
ther unfunded-and hence subsidizedbytheacademic msntuuon (whichmay,
for example, permit lowteaching loads andrewardfaculty for their research
productivity)-or isfunded largely through research grants fromgovernment
I"
t
,
t
t
16
An Introduclion lo Organizations
sources or prvate found ti 4 Th ..
rily because of " bli .a ons." eseorgalll.za.tlOnssupport research prima-
know and II b PUfl
C
mterest .arguments: it IS better toknow than not to
, . a en~it rom thediscovery of newknowledge.
arefa: mtermedta~e group ~fscholars "swings" both ways.These academics
. l~ mem?e~s mprofessIOnal schools: business, educational administra-
non, publIc a~mmlstratlOn andpublic policy , public health, engineering rnan-
agement, SOCIalwo~k administration, and re1ated programs. These faculty
~embers are~ore llke~ytoengage inconsulting workforcompanies andagen-
cies and townte cases illustrating particular problems or conditions than are
~hoselocated~nacad:mi7 departments. A ndthey aregenerally more likelyto
arry o~t appliedstudies, mpart ?ecause ofpressures fromtheir students-past
.(alumn~).andP!esent-who aremterested musable practical information and
ma~qumng skilIsthat.will affect the "bottom line," such asprofits. Such aca-
de~lcs a~eals? more likely tofound or partieipate in afor-profit company op-
eratmg either mcol~abor~ti.o~withor independent of theemploying university.
Such entreI:>reneunal ~ctl~tles used tobefrowned on byacademic programs,
but are r~pldly becommg rmportant new loei of research, research training,
~ndfundmg (Slaughter andLeslie, 1997).A t the same time, faculty in profes-
slOna~schools ar: confronted bydemands from their school anduniversity to
contribute tobasic kn?wle?ge-that is, topublish inscholarlyjournals. A sfac-
ulty ~embers of aunrversity, they are subject tothe academic culture and its
reqmrements, although the strength of these pressures varies fromcampus to
campus andschool toschool.
. Gibbons.and colleagues (1994) describe the same distinction between
basl.candappliedresearc? as.re'pr~senting twomodes of knowledge production.
Basicre.search, ~ode 1, IS discipline based, university centered, anddorninat-
ed by~Ighly tramed individual seientists. Mode 2istransdisciplinary, less hi-
erarchical, and group based. They point out that while Mode 2 research
?~velope? inprofe~sional schools, in theorganizational arena, thistypeofwork
IS increasingly carned out byconsulting companies. These companies alsopro-
duce the typeof k?owledge most valued byorganizational managers.
Boehthe baslC.and the appl~edscience orientations havemade and may
beex~ect~dtocontmue tomake mportant contributions toour knowledge of
or!?alllzatlons-what they areandhowtheywork. In the long run, each orien-
ta~lOnde~ends on and complements the other, and ahealthy scientific enter-
pnse reqmres that both typesofresearch receiveattention andsupport (seealso
Pfeffer, 1982: 23-40; Huff, 2000).
n.ivers~ leoels of a~aly~is. ~part fromthevariety f conceptual schemes
andoonentat~ons ~hat guide mqmry and differences in research settings, in-
vesugators differ mthe leve! of analysis at which they choose towork (Blau,
1957).For present purposes, the leve! ofanalysis isdetermined bythe nature
of ~hed~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 levelsare:
. ~Increashlgly, however, scholars withinacademicdepartments alsoaffiliatewithother or-
gan~za~onal units-e-laboratories, centers,institutes-withintheuniversityandoutside.These or-
gamzatlOns serveasaresearchbaseforstudiesthatareoftenappliedincharacter.
The Subject Is OTganizations 17
Thesocial psychologicalleve!, focusingon thebehaviorof individualsor interper-
sonalrelationsinvolvingindividualparticipantswithinorganizations.A tthislevel,
organizational characteristicsareviewedascontext or environment, andthein-
vestigatorattemptstoexploretheir impact on theattitudes or behavior of indi-
viduals.Suchaperspectiveisexemplifiedbytheworkof Katzand Kahn(1978)
andof Poner, Lawler,andHackman (1975).
Theorganizational structure level,focusingonthestructural featuresor processes
that characterizeorganizations.Here, themajor concern istoexplainthestruc-
tural featuresandsocialprocessesthat characterizeorganizationsandtheir sub-
divisions.Theinvestigatorworkingatthisleve!mayfocusonthevarioussubunits
that makeuptheorganization (for example,workgroups, departments, author-
ityranks) or mayexaminevariousanalyticalcomponents (for example, special-
ization, communication networks, hierarchy) that characterize thestructural
features or operational routines of organizations.Researchers workingat this
leve!includeUdy (l959b) andBlauandSchoenherr (1971).
Theecologicallevel, focusingonthecharacteristicsor actionsof theorganization
viewedasacollectiveentityoperatinginalarger systemof relations.A tthislevel,
theanalystmaychooseeither toexaminetherelationbetweenaspecificorgani-
zationor classof organizationsandtheenvironment (e.g., Selznick,1949;Pugh
andHickson,1976) or toexaminetherelationsthatdevelopamonganumber of
organizationsviewedasan interdependent system(e.g., Laumann andKnoke,
1987;Miles,1982).
A dmittedly, distinguishing among these three levels of analysis issorne-
what arbitrary." Manymore refined levelsof analytical complexity can beideri-
tified asone moves from organizational-individual tosocietal-organizational
relations." Nevertheless, if only toremind us of the complexity of the subject
matter and the variety of aims and interests with which analysts approach ir,
thethree levelsarehelpful inproviding arough gaugefor distinguishing among
broad categories of studies.
Earlyresearch on organizations wasconducted almost exclusively at the
social psychological leve!.The structural level of analysis became prominent
in the early 1960sandcontinues tobeheavilyutilized bysociologists. The eco-
logicallevel wasthe last todevelop, emerging in the late 1960s, but it isat this
level that much of the intellectual excitement. and energy that characterizes
the fieldduring the past three decades has transpired.
Yetanother base of divergence among those who study organizations is
the theoretical perspective employed bythe analyst. However, this is, in our view,
such afundamental difference that it provides the basic themes around which
wehave organized this volume. Whether the analyst employs arational, natu-
ral, or open system perspective, or some combination, isviewedascentral toin-
terpreting the work. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are devoted to reviewing these
perspectives, while the subsequent chapters explcate the waysin which they
have been developed and combined.
'Themostcommonlyemployedlevels distinctionisthatbetween"rnicro"and"macro"oro
ganizational studies.Theformerisequivalenttothesocialpsychological level;the latter encom
passesboththe structuralandtheecological levels.
. "InChapter6weintroduceanddefineseveral additionallevelsof analysis, allof\Vhichin-
troducedistinctions withinthe ecologicallevel.
18
An Introduclion lo Organizations
Becausesomuch of our attention insucceeding chapters willbedevoted
toemphasizing divergent perspectives, it isprudent in thenext section tore-
turn toexplicate thetheme that all organizations share somebasiccharacter-
istcs,
THE ELEM ENTS OF ORGANIZATIONS
Organizations arediverseandcomplex, andsoitmaybehelpful tobegin with
asimplifyingmodeI focusing on their central features. The proposed model
shown in Figure 1-1 isadapted fromLeavitt (1965).7 Let usbrief1yconsider
each eIement.
Social Structure
Social structure refers tothepatterned or regularized aspecrsof there-
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 twoandweaddathird:
A lwaysin hurnan society there iswhat may becalled adouble reality-on the one
hand anormative systern embodying what ought to be, and on ,the other afactu-
al order embodying what is.... These twoorders cannot be completely identical,
nor can they be completely disparate. (Davis, 1949: 52)
Weshall refer toDavis'sfirst component as the normative structure; this
component includes values, norrns, androle expectations. Briefly, values are
the criteria employed in selecting thegoals of behavior; norms are thegener-
7Leavitt identifies the four "internal" elements but does not include the environment as a
separate factor. A sisobvious from our discussion, weregard the environment as an indispensable
ingredient ip.,the analysis of organizations, and one that reframes alI the other elements.
Environment
rr---------- __ -,
Organization
I So~~ I
_:;~,!
I / Slruclure"'- I
ij'-,
J
I Technology Goals I
I
"'-partlCIPants /
I
I
I
L..---- ________ ..J
FIGURE 1-1
Leavitt's Dlarnond: A Model of Organization.
Source: Adapted from Leavitt (1965), Figure 1, p. 1145.
alizedrules governing behavior that specify,in particular, appropriate means
for pursuing goals;and roles are expectations for or evaluative standards ern-
'ployedin assessingthebehavior of occupants of specific social positions. A so-
,:tial position issimplyalocation in asystemof social relationships. (For abasic
.forrnulation ofpositions androles, seeGross, Mason, andMcEachern, 1958.)
.Inanysocial grouping, values, norms, androlesarenot randomly arranged, but
'are organized soastoconstitute arelativelycoherent andconsistent set of be-
liefsandprescriptions governing thebehavior ofparticipants. It isfor thisrea-
sonthat wespeak of anormative structure.
In addition tothenormative structure, it isuseful torecognize thepres-
enceof acultural-cognitive structure: thebeliefsandunderstandings that par tic-
ipants share about the nature of their situation and interests. This symbolic
order provides aframework-of schemas, models, recipes for action-that
helpsparticipants tointerpret andcollectivelymakesenseof their world(Berg-
er andLuckmann, 1967;Weick, 1995).
Davis'ssecond (our third) component, which he refers toas "afactual
order,' wewill call thebehavioral structure. Thiscomponent focuseson actual be-
havior rather than on normative prescriptions or cognitive patterns guiding
behavior.Homans's (1950: 33-40) well-knownclassification of social behavior
intoactivities, interactions, andsentiments suggests the typesof elements that
constitute thebehavioral structure. Becauseour concern iswiththeanalysisof
behavioral structure, rather than simplybehavior, wefocuson thoseactivities, in-
teractions, andsentiments that exhibit somedegree of regularity-the recur-
rent behavior of agiven individual or similarities in the behavior of aclassof
individuals. Such actions, exhibiting someconsistency and constancy in their
general characteristics, are themselves arranged into larger patterns or net-
worksof behavior.For example, wemayobserveinagroup over aperiodof time
whichindividuals attempt toinfluence others andwithwhat degree of success,
andin thiswayobtain adescription of thepower structure within that group.
Or byobserving thepatterning of sentiments among group members-who is
attracted toor rejected bywhom-we can describe the sociometric structure of
thegroup. Both thepower structure andthe sociometricstructure arespecif-
icinstances of behavioral structures.
A sthepassagefromDavisreminds us, the normative, cultural-cognitive,
andbehavioral structures ofa social group areneither independent nor iden-
tical, but are tovaryingdegrees interrelated. The normative structure impos-
es an important set of constraints on the behavioral structure, shaping and
channeling behavior through mutually heldexpectations andobligations. The
cultural-cognitive structure provides acommon interpretive framework that
helps toaccount for much of the regu!arity and patterning that exists. Still,
much behavior departs fromthesemodels andguidelines, andsuch departures
arean essential source of additions toandchanges in the structure. Behavior
shapes norms andbeliefsjust asnorms andbeliefsshape behavior. Groups vary
in theextent towhich these structures arealigned. In somesituations precept
corresponds closelytopractice: this appears tobe the case in many utopian
communities or communes-at least intheir earlystagesof development (Kan-
ter, 1972). Inmanyprisons, on theother hand, thereisalargegapbetween what
therules specifyandhowtheguards andinmates actuallybehave.Nevertheless,
in every existing social structure, the normative, cultural-cognitive, and be-
20 An lntroduction to Organizations
havior~l structures a~ealwaysinastateof dynamic tension-each existin and
~hangm~so.me~hat mdependently of the other whileat thesametime~xert-
mgconunumg mfluence on theothers.
A lI social groups-:-or collectivities, touse the more general sociological
~onceptlare charac.t~nzedbyanormative structure applicable tothepartic-
Ip~n~s,~ut~ra1-cogmtI~ef~ameworkssupporting shared understandings and
a ~.~vlO~astru~ture linkingparticipants inacommon network or atte~nof
atI~tlVItIeths, mte~acuons, andsentiments. Thesethree interrelated struc~urescon-
s tute eS~Cta~structure of acollectivity.
. Organ~zatlOnal participants are likelytoemphasize the amount of con-
f1:151On, the.mdeterrnmacy, and the unpredictability of the actions of their
cowor.kers,mpart becausesuchmatters drawtheir attention andrequire their
ener~Ies. However, ~ofocus on the social structure of organizations istoern-
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 isnot bed-
la~, not total confu~lOnor chaos, but areasonable approximation of order.
ThISremarkable achievernent merits our attention.
Emp?asizing thei.mportanceo~thesocial structure of organizations does
not c?mmIt u.stotheviewthat relations among participants areal!sweetness
andlight: SOCIal structure does not connote social harmony. Conflict isalways
present and has helped toshape the social structure. A n emphasis on social
structure ~ho~ld~nableusto~eethat much ofwhatever conflict ispresent in
the ~rgamzatlOn ISpatterned, mthesense that it isbuilt into thestructure of
~el~tI.onsbetwe.e? individuals andgroups andisnot due toinnately aggressive
individual partICIp~nts.Not onlystabilityandorder, but tension andstress, dis-
agreements andmisunderstandings, deviance andchange can often beattrib-
uted tostructural factors (Merton, 1957: 131-60).
. Thecon~ept of structurecarresastaticconnotation that wemustresistoFor
thisreason, ~Iddens (19.79;1984) argue.s~hatweshouldsubstitute theconcept
of structurauon; adynamic termernphasizing that social structure existsonlyto
theextel'\.~that participants con~nue toproduce andreproduce thepatternsob-
served.Struc~res operate onlymspecificspatiallocations andover time.
T.heSOCIal structure of an organization varesin theextent towhichit is
formalIz~d. A formal social structure isone in which the social positions and
~herelationships among them havebeen explicitlyspecified andaredefined
mdepe?dently of th~personal characteristics andrelations of theparticipants
occ~pymg t~e~epo.smons.Bycontrast, in an informal social structure, it isim-
po~sIbletodI~tmgUlshbetween thecharacteristics of thepositions andthepre-
scn~e.d relations .and the characteristics and personal relations of the
parucipants, In.an informal structure, when specificparticipants ieaveor enter
the.system, their roles a~d.relationships develop andchange asafunction of
their personal characteristics andthe mterpersonal relations theydevelop."
. . 80f cou.rse, at any given point in the history of aparticular structure, newjobs (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 twosubtypes: "evolvedjobs," created
athroundcu.rre?t organizational mernbers, and "opportunstc hires," created around people outside
e orgamzauon.
21
Participants-Social Actors
Organizational participants arethoseindividuals who, inreturn for ava-
rietyof inducements, makecontributions totheorganization, asBarnard (1938)
: andSimon (1997) emphasize. A lI individuals participate in more than oneor-
,ganization (recall that, bydefinition, organizations arespecializedin their pur-
poses), andtheextent andintensiveness of their involvementmayvarygreatly;
..thedecision astowhoistoberegarded asaparticipant isthus often adifficult
.oneandmaylegitimately varywiththeissueat hand. For example, asinglein-
.dividual maysimultaneously bean employee of an industrial firrn, amember
of aunion, achurch mernber, amember of afraternal lodge or sorori ty, a
"member" of apolitical party, acitizen of thestate, aclient of agroup medical
practice, astockholder in one or more companies, andacustomer in nurner-
ousretail andserviceorganizations. \
Fromthe perspective of the organization, it simultaneously relates to ,
many typesof participants, all ofwhom haveadifferent interest in and make (
different demands on and contributions tothe organization. Toemphasize ---,
thisbroader collection of persons, some analysts employ the term siahehold- r
ers-a concept emphasizing that many persons, including stockholders, com- \
munity members, regulators, andexchange partners, areaffected byandhave )
legitimate claims on an organization. The concept of stakeholder is much--'
broader than that of employee.
A nalystsdisagree, asweshall see, on the extent towhich organizations
door should incorporate facets of participants. Howmuch of the personali-
tiesandprivate livesof individual participants isrelevant tothefunctioning of
theorganization alsovariesfromone typeof organization and role toanoth-
er: consider the situation of anovicein areligious order versus that of an oc-
casional customer in asupermarket.
The demographic characteristics of participants-for example, their age,
gender, ethnic distributions-have important consequences for manyaspectsof
organizational structure andfunctioning; wewil!explore these implications in
Chapter 7.A ndthestructural features of organizations-the opportunities they
createandthesorting rules they usefor selection, retention, andpromotion-
haveequallyfateful consequences for participants, aswediscussinChapter 8.
It isessential torecognize fromtheoutset.that participants are, first.and
f~l1.to_s.1,.~_~_LL<l~_to!"s. It istheir energy, their ideas, their conforrnity andnon-
conformity that constitutes and shapes the structure of the organization and
carries on itsfunctions. Without the ongoing participation of specific individ-
ual actors, there isnosocial structure, noorganization. Earlysociological the-
ories privileged social structure. More recent theorists remind us that social
structures donot exist unless-and exist onlytotheextent that-social actors
carry out the requisite activities.They alsoinsist that social actors are the in-
struments of both continuity-the reproduction of structure-and change-
theproduction of noveltyandinnovation (Bourdieu, 1977 trans.). The ability
of an actor tohavesomeeffect on theworld, toalter the rules or the distribu-
tion ofresources, isreferred toasagency (Giddens, 1984: 9).
Giddens useful1yexplicates aconception of the "duality" of social struc-
ture: itis, at one andthesametime, both medium andoutcome. Structure in-
fluences ongoing actions andit isconstituted by-made up of-such actions:
Every?rocessof actionisaproductionof somethingnew,afreshact;but atthe
sa~e.ti~.e~l actionexistsincontinuitywiththepast,whichsuppliesthemeans
of rtsininanon.Structurethusisnot tobeconceptualizedasabarrier toaction,
butasessentiallyinvolvedinitsproduction, eveninthemostradical processesof
socialchange.(Giddens,1979:70)
This~onception helps tocorrect for anall-too-comrnon sociological bias:an ern-
phasis on thepower andweight of existing social arrangements coupled with
adiscounting of the importance ofindividual imagination andintiative. Soci-
olog~'al work on organzations toooften carres an overly determinstc per-
specuve. On the other hand, it also guards against the more common
~ndividualisticbias, particularly pervasiveinA merican culture, that disernbeds
mdividuals fromtheir social moorings and attributes aIl developments toin-
dividual nterest andwiIl.
Goal s
The concept of organizational goalsisamong the most important-and
most controversial-concepts tobeconfronted in the study of organizations.
Some analysts insist that goals are indispensable tothe understanding of or-
ganizations; others question whether goalsperform anyfunction other than to
~us~rr past actions. Then, too, behaviorists are fond of pointing out that only
individuals havegoals;coIlectivities, such asorganizations, donotoWewiIl not
-atternpt totackle these prickly issues here but promise not toduck them in-
definitely. -. .
Fo~m<;>st analysts, goalsconstitute acentral point of referencein the study
of orgamzanons. Goals are tentatively defined asconceptions of desired erids-
ends that participants attempt toachievethrough their performance of taskac-
tivities.Sodefined, goals cJ earlyinvolveboth cultural-cognitiveand normative
elements, but they are asufficiently important aspect of organiztions as to
merit separate attention.
SiIKegoalsfigure prominently in some definitions of organzations, we
consider themfurther in thefollowingsection anddiscussthemajor issuesand
problems bearing on ther analysisin Chapter 11.
Technol ogy
Tofocus on the technology of an organization istoviewtheorganization
asaplace where some typeofwork isdone, asalocaton where energy isap-
pled tothe transformation of materals, asamechanism for transforming in-
puts intooutputs. The connotations of theterrn technology arenarrow andhard,
but wewiIl insist that every organization does work andpossessesatechnology
for doing that work.Sorneorganizations process material inputs andfabricate
newequipment and hardware. Others "process" people, their products con-
sisting of more knowledgeable individuals, in the caseof effective school sys-
tems, or healthier individuals, in thecaseof effectivernedical clinics.Still others
process primarily symbolic materials, such asinformation or music.The tech-
nology of an organization isoften partially embedded in machines and me-
chanical equipment but alsocomprises the technical knowledge and skillsof
;;participants. ....
l' A lI organizations possess technologies. but orgamzatlOns var~In the ex-
tent towhich thesetechniques areunderstood, routinized, or efficaclOUS.Some
of the most interesting theoretical andempirical work has focused on the re-
lation between the characteristics of technology and the structural features of
organizations. This work isdescribed andevaluated in Chapter 9.
Environment
Every organization exists in aspecific physical, technological. cultural,
and social environment towhich it must adaptoNo orgamzauon isself-suffi-
cient;all depend for survival on thetypesof relations they~s~blish withth~larg-
er systemsofwhich theyareapart. Earlyanalystsof orgamzatlOns, ~w~will se~,
tended tooverlook or underestimate the importance of orgaOlzatlOn-envl-
ronmental linkages, but recent work places great emphasis on th~se conriec-
tions. Indeed, the environment isnotjust another category ofvanables, but a
pervasiveinfluence, affecting everyorganizational actor andstructural ~eat~re.
Todrivehome this truth, webriefly reconsider each of the four orgalllzatlOn-
al components in this light. . .
Consider organizational participants. Veryfewo~galllz~t~onsassume full
responsibility for the socialization andtraining of their ~artlClpants. Em~loy-
eescome tothe organization with heavycultural andsocial bag~age obtamed
frominteractions in other social contexts. With very fewexcepuons-su~h as
inrnates in "total institutions," for example, concentration camps or cl.Ols
ters
(Goffman, 1961)-participants are involvedin more .than on~or~alllzatlOn
at anygven time. These outside interests .andcomn:ltn:ents me~ltably c~n-
strain the behavior of participants in anyglVenorgalllz
atlOn
and, msom~In-
stances, strongly influence it.Toregard participants ascompletely conta~n~d
by the organization istomisperceive one of ~hefundamen.tal. charactensUcs
of modern organizations: they are systemsbuilt on the partial involvernerrt of
their mernbers. .
What about technologies? Feworganizations cr~ate their own technol~-
gies;rather they import themfrom the environment 10the formof mec~alll-
cal ~quip~ent, packaged programs and sets of instructions, and tr<l:1Oed
workers. A nyspecific organization must alsoad~pt tothe larg~r occupational
structure-for example, union rules or profe~slO~al norms-m the sele:tlon
and deployment of workers within the orgamzatlOn. Moreov.er, .the~nvlfo~-
ment isthe source of the inputs tobe processed bythe orgalllzatlOn, J ust asrt
isthe "sink" towhich al! outputs are delivered-as products tobesold, chents
restored tofunction, or wastematerials tobeeliminated ..
How do goals relate toenvironments? Par~ons (1960) has c~lledatten-
tion tothe importance of this connection. He pomts out .that w~at isterrned a
goalor objectivebyaspecific organization is,~ro~the pomt of viewof the ~arg-
er society, its specialized function. A n orgalllzaUon I?ay thus expect societal
support for itsactivitiestoreflect the relativevaluesocieryplaces on those func-
tions. If health represents astrong positive value for asociety, for example ,
then those organizations that supply health ca.rernay expect toreceive adis-
proportional share of resources tosupport their work.
;.
Finally, thesocial structure of theorganization wilI reflect important fea-
tures borrowed fromor impressed on it bytheenvironment. Structural forms,
nolessthan technologies, are rarely invented and are usuaIly borrowed from
theenvironment. Suchmodels or templates exist in thewider worIdapart from
but available toanyspecific organization that wishestocopy them. Part Three
of thisvolume explores the thesis that the environment isthe source of much
of theorder aswell asthedisorder, asreflected bythe structural features of or-
ganizations.
While insisting on the pervasive andcritical importance of environmen-
tal influences on organizational forms and operations, wemust not assume
that thecausal processes work in only onedirection. Organizations not onlyare
influenced bybut alsoaffect their environments. A lthough modern theorists
differ in their viewsof therelative importance of these causal connections, as
wewiIl discuss inlater chapters, theygenerally agree that the relations between
organizations andenvironments arevital, complex, andinterdependent. Each
of the four organizational elements shape and issignificantIy shaped by the
wider environment. Tocomplete the diagram ofLeavitt's diamond depicted in
Figure 1-1, weshould adddouble-headed arrows linking the environment to
each of the "interna!" eIements. A sreframed, Leavitt's "diamond" might bet-
ter berenamed the "thistle."
Eachof theseorganizational elements--social structure, participants, goals,
technology, environment-represents an important component of all organi-
zations. Indeed, each eIement has been regarded asof surpassing importance
byone or another analyst of organizations. However, thechief valueofLeavitt's
model isas agraphic reminder that noone eIement issodominant astobe
safelyconsidered in isolation fromtheothers. Organizations are, first andfore-
most, systems of elements, each of which affects and isaffected bythe others.
Goals are not the key tounderstanding the nature andfunctioning of organi-
zations, nomore than are the participants, the technology, or the social struc-
ture. A nd no organization can be understood in isolation from the larger
environment. Wewill missthe essence of organization ir weinsist on focusing
on anysingle feature totheexclusion of all others.
,,_.
~ THE CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS
The foregoing discussion represents an opening attempt toidentify someof the
1
1keyelements or ingredients of organizations: tospecify their building blocks.
. . However, such an approach doesnot gofar inexplaining whyorganizations are
soprevalent. What are their distinctive capacities? Webriefly address thisques-
tion herebut will return toit again throughout thevolume.
Hannan and Carroll (1995) identify anumber of features that help to
explain whyorganizations are much indemand asvehicles for conducting the
myriadactivities associated with modern sociallife.
1.Moresothatmanyother typesof socialstructures,organizationsaredurable. they
aredesignedinsuchawayastopersistovertime,routinelyandcontinuouslysup-
porting effortstocarryon asetof specifiedactivities.Moresothan other types
of social structures, theyareexpectedtooperateaslong-distancerunners.A t-
tainingstabilityover timeandinspiteof shiftingparticipantsisoneof themajor
The Subject 1s Organizations
25
functions of formalization, asweemphasizeinChapter 2.Durabilitydoesnot
necessarilyimplyeffectiveness;organizationsoften persist that are deernedby
manytobeinept (MeyerandZucker, 1989).A nddurabilityshouldnot tobe
equatedwithrigidity.Sorneof thenewerformsof organizationsaredesignedt.o
combinegreatflexibilitywiththemaintenanceof anorganizational corethatper-
sistsacrosschangingcombinationsof personnel, structure, andevengoals.
2.A nother capacityof organizationsistheir reliability (Hannan andCarroll, 1995:
20), Organizationsaregoodatdoingthesarnethingsinthesameway,overand
over,andfor manytypesof activitiestherearemanyadvantagesassociatedwith
thischaracteristic.Inlater chapterswewilldescribeal!thenumerousrnechanisms
of control utilizedinorganizations,includingformalization,authoritystructures, t
elaboraterulesandroutines, strongcultures, andtheuseof specializedmachin- 2>,.
ery.A 11of thesefactorsandmorearedesignedinpart toincreasethereliability 1
of theworkactivitiesbeingperformed.Reliabilityof performanceisnot, of course,
anunmixedblessing.Totheextent thatconditionschangeandnewactivitiesare
calledfor, theveryfactorsassociatedwitheffectiveperformance maysuddenly
preventanorganizationfromchangingitsrulesandprocedures quicklyenough
todevelopnewwaysof behaving.Still,for manytypesof activitiesandmanysitu-
ations, there aregreat advantagesassociatedwiththeabilit.ytoproduce goods
andservicesreliably.
3. Organizationsexhibit thetrait of beingaccountable (Hannan andCarroJ l, 1995:
21;seealsoMeyerandRowan,1977). Behaviortakesplacewithinaframeworkof
rulesthat providesbothguidelinesandjustificationsfor decisionsandactivities.
Theyestablishascaffoldingof rationalitythat allowsparticipants togivean ac-
counting of their pastbehaviors(ScottandLyman,1968).In mostindustrial so-
cieties,thisframeworkisconnectedtoandsupportedbylegal codesthat define
thepowersandlimitsof organizations.Recordsarekept anda"paper trail"cre-
atedsothat, if necessary,thebasesfor past actionscanbereviewed.Thehierar-
chyof authorityisexpected.atleastinpart, toensurethat rulesarebeingfollowed
andworkisperformedinaccordancewithagreed-onstandardsandprocedures.
Of course, notal!organizationsmeasureuptothesestandards: thereismuchev-
idenceofboth incompetenceandcorruption. Moreimportant, aswewilllearn,
thetypeof rationalityinvolved-formal rationality-is itself aIimitedandflawed
basisfor ensurngreasonable, let alonemoral, conduct.Nevertheless, inanim-
perfect world,asysteminwhichindividualsattempt tooperatewithinanexplic-
itframework ofrules nestedinwiderlegal systemstowhichtheyareaccountable,
hasmuchtorecommendit.
DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATION
Consistent with the objectives of this volurne, not one but three defmitions of
organizations will be presented. These definitions pave the wayfor OUf de-
scription andevaluation, inPart Two, of three major perspectives employed in
the analysis of organizations. Weleave tolater chapters the considerable task
of spelling out theimplications of these differing definitions. Special attention
isaccorded here tothefirst definition because itcontinues tobethedominant
perspective in thefield, not only in guiding the work of the majority of orga-
nizational scholars but alsobybeing embraced at least implicitly bymost real-
world managers and other practitioners. Moreover, this definition served to
establish organizations as adistinctive field of study. The first definition un-
derpins the rational system perspective on organization. Twoother definitions-
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.
A Rational System Definition
h .Because aprimary function of adefinition is tohelp us todistinguish 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 toformulate such definitions and
d
thefilr~ews appear to be similar, as iIIustrated by the folIowing four influ;ntial
emitons,
A ccording to Barnard:
~ormal organization isthat kindof coperation among men that isconscious de-
hberate, purposeful. (1938: 4) ,
A ccording 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 acentral 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 ~ asociologica] unit comparable in significance tothe individual or-
gamsm mbiology, (1958: 4)
A ccording toBIau and Scott:
Since the di~tinctive characteristic of ...organizations isthat they havebeen for-
~ally estabhs~ed.for ~~eexplicit purpose of achieving certain goals, the term
formf ?rgamzauons IS used todesignate thern.? (1962: 5)
A nd, according to Etzioni:
'-
Organizations are social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed
and reconsuucred toseek specific goals. (1964: 3)
AlI 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 tothe ;>~r.suit of relatvely specific goals.
.y purp.oseful mthe sense that the activites and interactions of partici-
pants arecoordinated toachievespecifiedgoals.Goals arespecificto theextent that
s~mew:!~~i~tfin~tion, which1developedwithBlauagoodmanyyearsago, nowstrikesmeas
ization' onwhe:dmt It p~aces~,mphaslsontheconditionspresent atthefoundingof theorgan-
goals'Th d.ert eurutwas formallyestablishedfor theexplicitpurposeof achievingcertain
thei~tent~t~: ;:!n~~ggests thatf~c.tors. associatedwiththe.foundingof theunit-in particular,
im ortant t rs--are of cnucallffiportance.Suchhistoricalconsiderationsnowseemless
fo!rnalizatio:~e than thecurrent stateof thesystem-that is,theextent of goal specificityandof
. "
The Subject 15Olganizations 27
they are explicit, are c1earlydefined, and provide unambiguous criteria for se-
lecting among alternative activities.
Organizations are collectivities that exhibit arelatively high degree of formaliza-
tion. The cooperation among participants is "conscious" and "deliberate"; the
structure of relations ismade explicit and can be "deliberately constructed and
reconstructed." A spreviously defined, astructure is[ormalized tothe extent that
the rules governing behavior are precisely and explicitly forrnulated and tothe
extent that roles and role relations are prescribed independently of the person-
al attributes and reJ ations 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 toexhibit 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 torank 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 tomovement and frorn time
totime (Gusfield, 1968);and communities are characterized bylowlevels 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~)
nition focuses not only on the distinctive characteristics of organizations but also . _.'
on their normative structure. In Chapter 2we consider the development and
significance of this perspective on organizations.
_,
A Natural System Definition
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. A lthough organizations often espouse specific goals, the behavior
ofparticipants isfrequently 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
10Inreeentyears,analysts of movementshaveplaeedmoreemphasis011 their organizational
features=-for example, theextent towhiehtheyareguidedbyafull-time,paidstaff andhavereg
ularizedmechanismsfor obtaining resources andrecruits andfor settinggoals (ZaldandMe-
Carthy,1987),
~
otochange; participants appear asmotivated bytheir owninteresrs andseek to
~mpos~ these on theorganzation. It isrecognized that theorganization itself
IS amajor asset, avaluable resource tobecaptured. Rather than being only a
m~ans, an instrurnent topursuing other ends, themaintenance andstrength-
enmg of theorganization becomes an endinitself Informal andinterperson-
al structures areseen tobeof greater importance than areformal structures,
whichoften serveonlyasadecorative facadeconcealing the "real" agenda and
structure. A ndpower isrecognized asstemming frommany sources other than
occupancy of aformal position.
Hence, asecond definition of organizations, useful for viewingthem as
natural systems, issuggested: 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-
tions that develops among participants is more influential in guiding the behavior of par-
ticipants than is theformal structure.
The natural systemviewemphasizes the common attributes that organi-
zations share with al! social collectivities, A ndbecause organizations are not
set apart fromother social systems, theyareviewedassubject toforcesaffect-
ing all such systems.In particular, wefindreplicated in this perspective, the
twocontrasting 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 aviewof collectivities as
coomprisedof individuals sharing primarily common objectives. The assump-
non underlying thisconception isthat social order (of any type) isareflection
of underlying consensus among the participants; that organizational stability
andcontinuity reflect theexistence of cooperative behavior andsharednorms
andvalues.This widelyheIdand influential viewof the basisof social order is
generated inthewritingsofDurkheim (1961trans.) andParsons (1951), among
others, and reflected in the organizational theories of Barnard (1938) and
Mayo(1945), among others,
The contrasting, social conflict, versionviewssocial order asresulting from
thesuppression of someinterests byothers. Order results not fromconsensus,
but fromcoercion, thedominance ofweaker bymore powerful groupsoA ndan-
alyticattention isdevoted not tothe appearance of consensus, but tothe real-
ityof underlying conflicts, which provide abasisfor understanding instability
and change. The sociological progenitors of this viewinclude Marx (1954
trans.) and Coser (1956)0A pplications toorganizations are provided bysuch
theorists asGouldner (1954), Bendix (1956), and Collins (1975) o
In Chapter 3wereviewthe development of the basic assumptions of the
natural systemperspective andexamine thecompeting consensus andconflict
models,
An Open System Definition
The previous definitions tendtoviewtheorganization asaclosedsystem,
separate fromitsenvironment andencompassing asetof stableandeasilyiden-
tifiedparticipants. However, organizations are not closed systems, sealedoff
fromtheir environments, but are open toanddependen~ on flowsof person-
nel, resources, and information fromoutside. Froman open systemperspec-
tive, environments shape, suppart, and infiltrate organization:: Conne,~tions
with"external" elements canbemore critical than thoseamong ll1tern~1com-
ponents; indeed, for manyfunctions thedis~inctionbetween orgamzatlon and
environment isrevealed tobeshifting, ambiguous, and arbitrar y, o o
A lI three perspectives agree that i~an orgaonizoationistosurv,lve,oit mus:
induce avarietyof participants tocontnbut~ th:lortime and ener~ toit, H~w
ever open systemtheorists emphasize that individuals have mltiple loyaltles
andidentities. Theyjoin andleaveor engage in ong~ing exchanges with the
organization depending on the bargai~s they can sotnke-:-therelative advan~
tagetobehadfrommaintaining or endmg therelanonoViewedfromthis per
spective, participants cannot be assumoed~ohold common goals or e,vent~
routinely seek the survival of the orgazauon. Thus, much of theworkoof or
ganizing entails hard bargaining and "horse training"-as well ascreatmg af-
fectivetiesandcommon interpretive systems-as participants attempt toform
andre-forrn transitory coalitionso o o o o o al
A nopen systemperspective islessconcerned Wlt? dlstmgUlshmg for~
frominformal structures; instead, organizations are~Iewedasasystemof J l1-
terdependent activities, Some of these activities areotightly connected; others
are loosely coupled. A lI must ~e contin,uousl)' monvated-produced ~nd~e~
produced-if theorganization IStopersist.The arnval 00fthis perspective tng
gered the elaboration and elevation of levelso~analysis. No longer was the
single organization the privileged unit of analysis.Rather, analysts re~ogmze
that many organizational phenomena arebetter underst?od andexplamed ~y
viewingindividual organizations asrepresenotanvesof aglven typeof ~tructUle,
or byviewingorganizations asc?mponents mlarger systems of reloatlOns
o
Thae
open systemperspective isassociatedwiththedevelopment of stuodlesaimed t
understanding organizational sets, populations, and fields-toplCS wepursue
inChapters 6, 7, and80 o.
A lso, theopen systemperspective stres~es~heImport~nce of cultura!-co
g
-
nitiveelements intheconstruction of orgamzauonsoNothmg ISm<:>repOirable
than ideas-conceptions, models, schemas, andscripts.OrgamzatLons ~wlmIn
this cultural soup and continuously adopt andadapt these templates, mtend-
edlyand inadvertently. o o o o. .~ 'o"'"
Wearrive, then, at athird!i.~fuY~n~ useful for vlewmgorgamzatlO!1Sas \..j4; ~
open systems: Organizations ar(congenes ? : f mterdependent jlows and actunties [m/- ~')
ing shifting coalitions of paTticipanrs-7fioedded munder material-resource and mstzttt- / -
tianal environmentso. ,;.v')'\,.t!-"\ ~jof'; .._.o f
The open systemperspective isex~}catedmChapter 40
The foregoing three definitions varyin~ermsof theoretical perspective,
differing inwaystobeexamined in thefollowng three chapt~rsoThey al~odif-
fer in their underlying ontological assumptious. A reorgamzatJ Ons tobe~lewed
asentities, or as processes? The former istermoedby Emlrb~)'er (l99/! sub-
stantialist definitions; thelatter, relational conceptlOnsoSubstantialist d~fimnons
stressorganization; relational definitions, organizingoA sweW111 see, ratLona~and
natural systemtheorists are more likelyotoemploy substantialist definitions:
open systemtheorists, relational conceptlOns
o
o o
It isnodoubt unsettling tobeconfronted soearlywiththree suchdiverse
viewsof organizationso But better toknow theworst at the outset! The defini-
,
tions arequite?~f~erentin that theynot onlyencompass somewhat divergent
trPes of col!e~t1Vltle~but alsoemphasize different facets of agiven organiza-
non. But thisISprecisely why theyareusefuI.Definitions areneither true nor:
falsebut areonlymore or lesshe1pfuI in callingattention tocertain aspectsof'
thephenomenon under study.Withtheassistanceofthese definitions andthe
more general perspectives w~th~hich theyare associated, wecan exp~ct tosee
an? learn ~ore ab.outorgaruzanons than wouldbepossiblewerewetoemploy
asl.nglepom~of~ew. A sweproceed, wewilI call attention tothe remarkably
varl
7
dportraits painted bytheorists embracing each of theconceptions, Each
has itso~ charms aswel!asitsownblemishes; andeach carries itsown truth
aswelI asItSownbiases.
SUM M ARY
Organizati?ns are imp?rtant objects.of study andconcern for many reasons.
They areVItalmechanisms for pursumg collectivegoals in modern societies.
They are~ot neutral to~lsbecausetheyaffectwhat theyproduce; theyfunction
as~ol!ectlveactors that independently possesscertain rights andpowers.Both
asmstruments andasactors, organizations areallegedtobethesourceof some
of co~tem~orary society's most serious problems. Organizations encompass
genenc social processes but carry them out bymeans of distinctivestructural
arrangements.
A l~ou~h anint:res~in.orga~izational formsandprocessesmaybetraced
far b~ckmhistory,.a? mstl~tlonahzed fieldof scholarlyinquiryfocusingon the
cre.atlon .andempirical tesung of generalized knowledge concerning organi-
zations d~dnot emerge until after 1950.This developrnent waslinkedwithand
greatly stl~ulate~ bythetranslation intoEnglishofMax Weber's historical and
comparauve studl.esof administrative organizations, conducted during thefirst
twodecades of thiscentury. Thefieldof organizational studieshas become in-
creasingly interdisciplinary.
. Organizations are st~died for many purposes andfrommany points of
Vle~.Imp?rtant basc::sof.dl~e~genceinclude variation among typesof organi-
zations, <:lifferencesIn disciplinary background of the investigators, whether
research ~saddressedt~more immediate andappliedproblerns or seekslonger-
t~rmb.aslc~nderstafo1dmg,andleve!of analysisse1ected.Three levelsof analy-
SIS areidentified: soc!al psych?~ogical,organizational structural, andecological.
. Three contrastmg definitions of organizations havearisen, eachassociated
withoneof three pers~c::ctive~onorgani.zati.ons:therational, natural, andopen
system: The first definition vrewsorgaruzauons ashighlyformalized collectivi-
tres.on~nted tothe pursuit of specific goals.The second definition viewsor-
gamzatlon~associal.syste~s, forgedbyconsensus or conflict, seekingtosurvive.
A nd.~e third.defim~on ~ewsorganizations asactivitiesinvolvingcoalitions of
partl~l~ants withvarymgmterests embedded inwider environments. The three
d~fim.tlonsframe analyticallyuseful, if partial, viewsof organizations basedon
differing ontological conceptions.
PARTTWO
hree Perspectives
n Organizations
In thiscentury, three more or lessdistinct perspectives haveb:en emplo~ed in
the study of organizational structure.' The term perspectwe IS used advisedly
sincewearedealing ineach casenot withasingle, unified model of orgamza-
tional structure but rather with anumber of varying approaches that bear a
strong familyresemblance. Thus, our concern.will bewith th:ee type.sof ap-
proaches or three schools of thought, the notion of per~pectlVeservmg as a
conceptual umbrella under whichwegather therelated views.T~addfurther
tothe complexity, the three perspectives partially conflict, parually overlap,
andpartially complement one another.
A nunderstanding of these perspectives isvaluable for several reasons. 1t
isverydifficult tocomprehend or tofruitfully utilizethelargeliterature on or-
ganizations without knowledge of the differing pe~spe.ctivesunderlymg this
work.:VVhy dosomeinvestigators assume that orgamzauonal goals arecentral
andobviouswhereas others presume that goalsaredispensable andcannot be
taken at facevalue? Whydoes one analyst assert that organizations havegre~t
difficulty in changing their structures while another assumes that change IS
easyandcontinuous? These arethekinds of issuesthat cannot beunderstood
without knowledgeof theunderIying perspectives that framethework.A !so,we
shouldexpect toreceivehelp not onlyin making senseout of past studies but
alsoinexamining contemporary effortsof organizational analysts.For although
these perspectives emerged at different times, later perspectlve~havenot suc-
ceededinsupplanting earIier ones.Whiletheyhave~een comb.med1Il. various
ways,asdiscussedin Chapter 5, theperspectives continue togUldeandinforrn
work in thefield,
The perspectives should beunderstood in twosenses.00theone hand,
theyarehistorical products-systems of ideasandpractice that developed and
heldswayinspecifictimesandcircumstances.Toco~pletely dl~orcethemfrorn
their context wouldbeamistake, sincemuch of their meamng IS historicallysit-
'Others have also classified organizational theories into broader categories. A mong ihe
more nteresung schemas are those proposed byBurrell and Morgan (1979), Pfeffer (1982), A st-
leyandVandeVen (1983), and Guilln (1994).
31

Scott Organizations Cap1 TheSubjectIsOrganizations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scott Organizations Cap1 TheSubjectIsOrganizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sco-ft) G\J .1('iCho(d (-?

Cf)3) Orpn 'W-riorls'

You might also like