With the growth of populations and the increase in the size of nation states has come the issue of how to deal with the size of the groups that are present in the text. Governments increase from intimate groups involve 700 people in Washington's day to better than 3 million today. During the rule of Napoleon the French army grew for 60-70,000 men to between 600 and 800,000. Businesses changed from ones dealing with a single community to monstrous entities covering the globe. The issue became how to man age the huge numbers of individuals to accomplish some clearly defined task?
In a small community or enterprise each individual could be expected to know the whole and to be able to figure out how he or she fits into the scheme of things, what needs to be done to accomplish any given goal. With growth, the increase in size of the community increases the number of people involved in achieving any given task. The perspective on the issue or problem is limited to those parts with which s/he is often personally acquainted. When an action or decision is needed the individuals carry it out in terms of her/his limited range of knowledge and the perspective s/he has of the whole. Others who also are involved with the decision will do the same thing. The difficulty is that their individual perspectives probably do not coincide. The result is likely to be chaos, or in the case of Napoleon defeat at Waterloo simply because he could not control his army, they were unable to carry out his orders.
Organization, formal organizations are the solution to the problem. These organizations have the following characteristics:
Each of these elements will be discussed more fully in the following sections. At this point we must make clear that formal organizations have become the dominant feature of modern society. These formal organizations are present in the form of local, state and federal government bureaucracies, large businesses and colleges and universities. Stark provided examples of each in the text (Moltke's German Army, the geographic divisions of the railroads in the late 19th Century, and the functional division and vertical integration of Swift and company).
We have encountered Weber in several earlier contexts. First when we talked about inequality and the multidimensional character of stratification, second in our discussion of religion and the protestant ethic.
Weber's original interest in these matters centered on the changes that had taken place in the society and the increasing rationalization of that society. This interest focused on the organizations of the society, but most particularly the increasing bureaucratization of the social order. Weber saw societies moving toward increasing rationalization and structure. In order to help him understand these kinds of changes he proposed we take a number of societies and abstract from them the ideal type, what we would expect something to look like or to be in the abstract or ideal sense of the word.
He examined organizations in this way and abstracted from them what he saw as the essential characteristics or ideal structure and elements. He proposed four central features of the rational organization:
This is simply the division of production into simplified tasks as one finds in the modern factory or in the university. When you examine the table of organization of the university it is divided into colleges and schools, within each of these there will be divisions or departments specializing in a particular task.
The factory is similarly divided into functional units with individual workers carrying out very special tasks and duties.
The city government is also divided into departments and divisions with people in each of these responsible for a limited range of activities.
Specialization and division of labor in this manner is taken to mean a very efficient organization, one that will accomplish its goals by bring to bear the skill and expertise represented in the people filling the positions in the university, factory or government.
The colleges and schools mentioned in the previous section represent functional divisions. However, each is headed by a dean who is responsible for the operation of the her / his school or college. Within each college or school are the divisions and departments headed by a chair or division head. Below these individuals are the instructors and support staff. Each position in the hierarchy has explicit responsibilities and duties that are clearly spelled out. The principal feature of this kind of structure is that the positions and duties will operate largely independent of the person who is filling the position. For example, the President of the United States is the Chief Executive officer of the federal government. His duties are very clearly spelled out and for the most part it does not make any difference who occupies the office, he is expected to do certain things according the rules. The hierarchy also makes very clear which position is responsible for what range of activities and structures in the total organization.
Given that each position has clear responsibilities it is possible to train people for these positions and to promote (or retain) them in the positions based upon how well they perform in the position (or are suited for the position). This has an interesting consequence when compared to earlier means of filling positions when the king or head of the unit chose his friends or relatives to take on a particular function whether or not they were qualified for that function. Please note that the original in tent of affirmative action was to remove the tendency for white managers to select other white people for a given position, clearly not based on merit or fitness for the position. It did this by making sure that qualified minorities were included in the pool under consideration for promotion or hiring. The emphasis is upon qualified in this context!!
Written rules made available to all in the organization spell out what it takes to qualify for a given position, how decisions are to be made and so forth. Our constitution and laws are just such rules as are the variety of executive orders and administrative rules promulgated by the government organizations. Increasingly businesses have available rules stating how they will treat the customer in given circumstances, sometimes these are developed as a matter of course by the business itself or often at the behest of the government to insure that everyone will be treated equally by the business. For example, in the home mortgage industry there are clear rules stating how the lending institutions will treat minority individuals and areas of the community . They are prohibited from denying mortgage money simply because the property is located in a minority area. These rules have to be prominently posted and available to anyone who asks for them.
Recall that when we discussed primary and secondary interactions and relationships that we made a distinction between particularistic and universalistic interactions. The bureaucratic rules are of the latter type, that is they apply universally to everyone in a given category, with no exceptions. Without rules it is possible to treat some people in a special manner, giving them an advantage. The rules are step toward fairness and equity of treatment of employees and customers alike.
As Stark has pointed out, the changes associated with organizations have taken place on a hit or miss basis. Groups have tried out different ways of dealing with the problems created by the increase in size and complexity of modern societies. These changes have lead to the modern day, rational bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has become so successful that it has penetrated virtually every facet of modern society.
Nevertheless, the bureaucracy and the modern day organization has its problems, not the least of which are the solutions that make them work better than the earlier forms of organization. Among the problems are the relationship between efficiency and effectiveness, the written record and rules (otherwise known as red-tape), specialization and authority.
Contemporary studies have shown that 'natural organizations' live alongside the formal, rational bureaucracy. These natural organizations have a character that is often different from that of the bureaucracy. Natural organizations are often based on the networks that people establish to get things done, they involve friends and the more traditional, particularistic links that the bureaucracy attempts to replace.
We will look next to some of these features: efficiency and effectiveness, ritualism, the Peter Principle and Parkinson's Law (the last two come from somewhat humorous examinations of bureaucracies, but are still informative when it comes to organizations).
Efficiency is easily measured as the ratio between costs and benefits. An efficient organization or operation is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs. Usually this is measured in terms of profits, dollars and cents. Consider how to make the university most efficient: first we must determine what is the product--any ideas? (Hint -- you are the product, students.) Now how do we make the university efficient, that is how do we turn out the maximum product with the least cost? (Hint -- where is the cost? In instruction. What is the chief cost there? (Instructor's salaries) Okay, now how do we make it efficient -- increase the student / teacher ratio (more students per teacher) to give us more bang for the buck.
At one time many universities used this approach, large lectures conducted by graduate students who are paid the minimum allowed salary, or by hiring more temporary instructors or by using honorarium instructors. (Note that many large scale organizations are attempting to become more efficient in this manner by laying off regular employees with lots of benefits and hiring them back as consultants who are not provided with benefits.) Now we have an efficient organization, one that is producing the maximum product at a minimum cost.
Assembly line production is another example of maximum product at minimum cost -- note that these kinds of organizations are very important for the kind of consumer society that we have today. They mean that we can deliver a lot of product at little expense and we as consumers are happy with this. Compare prices at Best Buy with Lefty's Appliances, or the prices at Safeway with the mom and pop grocery store on the corner in the neighborhood. You can come up with many other examples I am sure (share them with others by placing your list in the discussion topic).
Now lets turn to effectiveness. Pause for a moment and try to think what makes learning and teaching effective. Okay - what is your answer? Aha!! Smaller, more personal classes, preferably one-to-one tutorials. What abstract idea is covered by this? Could it be how well the organization achieves its goals? That is indeed what we have in mind here. An effective organization is one that accomplishes its goals well. Students are taught in a manner that suits their needs and objectives (note this could very well be what occurs in the large classroom!! But most of us prefer to think it doesn't happen that way.)
I think it instructive to think of the current debate in Congress (the fall of 1995) over medicare and medicaid relates to this issue of efficiency and effectiveness. The Republicans in their Contract with America are emphasizing efficiency while the Democrats seem to be on the side of effectiveness. Suggest how one is efficient, but not effective and vis versa.
Every organization eventually develops people who fill positions and do not want to put out the effort to make it work well or the organization may be structured in such a fashion that the incumbents of the positions have to fall back upon the rules to protect themselves and their place in the organization. What I have in mind here is the individual who blindly adheres to the rules even when it is quite apparent to continue to do so will fail to accomplish the goals of the organization. This is the per son who will tell you that this is the rule and that s/he cannot do anything about it.
Ritualistic adherence to the rules can take some interesting forms. An anecdote will demonstrate what I have in mind.
First, one from my term of service in the U.S. Army at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Washington, D.C. Reed was a premiere post and one that engaged in cutting edge research both at the institute and at the associated hospital. Most of the enlisted personnel at Reed were college graduates, quite a few of them held advanced degrees (drafted with M.A.s or with Ph.D.s).
Our work in the labs was very much like what one would do on a university research campus - a great deal of autonomy on the part of the enlisted men and we related to the officers as senior colleagues, which in many instances they were. About half way through my stay at Reed, the commanding officer in charge of our quarters and mess was replace with a gung-ho, airborne trained Lieutenant Colonel who was going to straighten out this rag-tag bunch of escapees from the university. He set up some very rigid rules for cleaning the barracks, inspections, standing retreat, and other routine duties.
Now keep in mind that the barracks were clean, floors waxed, latrines and showers spotless, the requisite number of men and women were present for retreat duty and for various cleanup tasks (even if they were not the ones assigned that duty by the first sergeant). At first we thought the guy was just having fun, but then he went on a tirade and restricted us when we failed to be present for inspection!
So we played the game. No one stayed late in the lab if an experiment was running, if some were required in surgery at 5:30 a.m., they didn't show up, instead they stayed and cleaned the barracks so that they could stand inspection and went on duty in the wards at 8:00 when the duty day normally started. When a group of enlisted men would see an approaching officer, we would string out (more than two steps apart) so that s/he would have to salute each of us individually. Most of the officers were drafted physicians with an interest in the Army similar to ours.
Any way, you get idea. We followed the rules to the letter, even if it meant that we could not carry out the duties that we were supposed to be doing in our other positions on the post (Reed and most medical facilities at that time had a peculiar command situation, one command for pay, billeting and routine duties and another for the actual work that we did).
In about two weeks we managed to screw up the functioning of the post badly enough that the unit commanders in the hospital and research sections had a long talk with the commanding officer who in turn had a long talk with the billet commander. Things were back to 'normal' the next week.
With a bit of reflection, I am sure that you can come up with other instances of ritualistic behavior of this type that actually gets in the way of the functioning of the organization.
Earlier we pointed out that individuals in an organization get hired based upon their qualifications for a particular position. Promotions also occur within the organization as people move up through the levels. This brings into focus the 'Peter Principle.'
It is really quite simple, individuals come to the attention of management through performance on the job, in their current position. Since they are doing a good job, they will often be rewarded for the excellent work by being promoted to the next level of responsibility. In this manner an organization or business will have the best people in responsible positions that know the school, business or government office inside out. It also has the unfortunate consequence that often individuals will be promoted until they get into a position where they can no longer perform the duties and this is where they will spend the rest of their career in the organization! The Peter Principle states quite simply that one will be promoted until s/he reaches her / his level of incompetence!
How do we keep it from happening? Think about it. That is a question I like to ask on quizzes and exams.
This is statement comes from casual observation of the organization and its working. All of us have seen a position created that is very efficient and completes is able to handle all of the work that comes to it. Often the work will be completed in less time than before. This may occur when a company reorganizes to improve efficiency - it is indeed efficient in the early days. However as time goes on, the organization seems to bog down again. The work has expanded to fill the available time!! And the organization is back to the previous level of efficiency or effectiveness.
| Introduction to Social Change | ||
| Unit 13: Population Growth and Change | Unit 14: Urban Growth | Unit 15: Organizational Growth and Change |
| Topical Outline | ||
Copyright © 1996, 1997 by Richard H. Anderson, the Department of Sociology and the University of Colorado at Denver.
This page last revised: January 12, 1999. Please contact Richard H. Anderson (randerso@carbon.cudenver.edu) if you experience any problems or have comments about these pages.