Week 8 - Chapter 6 PDF

Groups, Networks, 6 and Organizations Military discipline at West Point Academy is most heavily dependent on: a fear of punishment by superiors. b positive reinforcement from superiors. c group loyalty and conformity to social norms. d personal motivation and self-discipline. Turn the page for the correct answer. 151 T he U.S. Military Academy (West Point) is very hard to get into. More than 50,000 high school students, of whom perhaps 12,000 are qualiﬁed to apply, open ﬁles at the academy. Another 4,000 are nominated by a congressional representative, a senator, or the White House. Yet out of all these, barely 2,000 pass the physical ﬁtness test, and only 1,200 are admitted. David Lipsky, a writer for Rolling Stone who tried to understand how and why cadets at West Point would “subject themselves to the intense discipline,” conducted a four-year study that culminated in the publication of his book Absolutely American: Four Years at West Point (Lipsky, 2003). From “Reception Day” (R-Day) on, Lipsky explains, the acad- emy emphasizes conformity to group norms: At R- Day you surrender your old self in stages. You’ve already left behind family and control over your environment. In the fluorescent Thayer hallways, you hand over your belongings, then file to the treasurer’s office to give up your cash; any sum greater than forty dollars gets banked.... “No talking,” cadre announces. “Do not move, do not smile. Hands will remain cupped at all times. You need to look at anything, look at my wall.” Unless you had an unlucky home life, this is the first time anybody has spoken to you this way. The candidates are just blank eyes now, mouths so tight the lips appear to be hiding.... Now the Army demands your clothing. In their dressing room, male candi- dates tuck on black gym shorts and white T-shirts with a speed that suggests graded events. “You must put on a jockstrap,” a TAC- NCO commands. “Let’s go—move with a purpose.”... Then the academy takes custody of your actual skin. “If you have,” the ser- geant booms, “any tattoo, brand or body piercing, regardless of whether it is LEA R NING OBJECTIV ES 1 BASIC CONCEPTS Learn the variety and characteristics of groups, as well as the effect groups have on individual behavior. Know how to define an organization and understand how organizations developed over the last two centuries. 2 THEORIES OF GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND NETWORKS Learn Max Weber’s theory of organizations and view of bureaucracy. Understand the importance of the physical setting of organizations and Michel Foucault’s theory of surveillance. Understand the importance of social networks and the advantages they give some people. 3 CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ON GROUPS AND NETWORKS Learn what the term “McDonaldization” means. Understand how social networks can influence you in unexpected ways. Discover how the Internet has transformed relationships between groups and social networks. 4 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Learn what Robert Michels meant by the iron law of oligarchy. Consider how information and communication technology is transforming organizations. 152 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations visible while wearing a uniform, you must declare it at this time to the registration social groupŚĊŚA collection of people who regularly interact with one another on the basis desk at my rear.”... of shared expectations concerning behavior and Then the army takes your hair.... Every who share a sense of common identity. few minutes the guy working the push broom sweeps away what looks like a whole discarded wig. (The barbers place bets on R-Day yield.)... Now you’re shorn of everything. You look, act, dress like everyone beside you, for maybe the first time in your life. In five hours, West Point has reduced you to just the meat your parents made, topped by its frenetic, calculating brain.... The cadre introduces [you] to the basics of the Army body language: how to stand, how to listen, how to respond with the grammar of obedience. (Lipsky, 2003) If it were the case that individuals at West Point were extraordinary—extremely disci- plined individuals who intuitively surrender themselves to directives from superiors— such measures would likely be unnecessary. After all, what business would the army have to reduce you to “just the meat your parents made,” if you were already well versed in the language of subordination to your superiors? Having said that, you might expect that this subordination to authority would result from fear of punishment (answer a). Given the brutal nature of military punishment repre- sented in the mass media (being forced to scrub the ﬂoor or do endless push-ups), you might suspect that new entrants would live in mortal fear of being on the receiving end of such a shameful treatment. What Lipsky discovered, however, was a place where people tried their best and where most at least looked out for one another. Though they liked to complain, the cadets at West Point were the happiest young people he had met. Part of the reason, he con- cluded, was the military value system, which emphasizes self-sacriﬁce, discipline, honor, respect, and loyalty, and the “unit cohesion” that bonds cadets. As Lipsky points out, “In battle, what often drives soldiers isn’t simply courage but a complicated version of crisis loyalty, the desire not to let down their friends” (Lipsky, 2003). Thus, the answer is c. It is, of course, possible that each of the other elements listed in the question just posed also contributes in some small way to the disciplined social life of West Point; certainly, we are not disregarding the existence of self-motivation among the cadets, nor the possibility that fear of one’s superiors might factor into social order. However, Lipsky’s study shows that a strong sense of group loyalty and a willingness to conform to norms are the most evident elements that structure the ordered social world at West Point. In this chapter, we will examine the ways in which all of us, not just West Point cadets, are creatures of human groups and organizations. We will look at the rise of the network as a key social form in modern society. T HE ANSWER I S C. 1 BASIC CONCEPTS Groups Much of importance in life occurs through some type of social group. You and your room- mate make up a social group, as do the members of your introductory sociology class. A social group is a collection of people who have a common identity and who regu- Basic Concepts153 larly interact with one another on the basis of shared expectations concerning behav- ior. People who belong to the same social group identify with one another, expect one another to conform to certain ways of thinking and acting, and recognize the boundaries that separate them from other groups or people. In our need to congregate and belong, we have created a rich and varied group life that gives us our norms, practices, and values—our whole way of life. We sometimes feel alone, yet we are seldom far from one kind of group or another. Every day, nearly all of us move through various social situations. We hang out with friends, study with classmates, play team sports, and go online to meet people who share our interests. But just being in one another’s company does not make a collection of individu- als a social group. People milling around in crowds, waiting for a bus, or strolling on a beach make up what is called a social aggregate —a collection of people who hap- pen to be together in a particular place but do not signiﬁcantly interact or identify with one another. People waiting together at a bus station, for example, may be aware of one another, but they are unlikely to think of themselves as a “we”—the group wait- ing for the next bus to Poughkeepsie or Des Moines. By the same token, people may make up a social category—people sharing a common characteristic such as gender or occupation—without necessarily interacting or identifying with one another. The sense of belonging to a common social group is missing. Group life differs greatly in how intensely members experience it. Beginning with the family—the ﬁrst group to which most of us belong—many of the groups that shape our personalities and lives are those in which we experience strong emotional ties. This is common not only for families but also for groups of friends, including gangs and other peer groups, all of which are known as primary groups. Primary groups are small groups characterized by face-to-face interaction, intimacy, and a strong sense of commit- ment. Members of primary groups often experience unity, a merging of the self with the group into one personal “we.” The sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) termed such groups “primary” because he believed that they were the basic form of association, exerting a long-lasting inﬂuence on the development of our social selves (Cooley, 1964; orig. 1902). In contrast, secondary groups are large and impersonal and seldom involve intense emotional ties, enduring relationships, powerful commitments to the group itself, or a feeling of unity. Examples of secondary groups include businesses, schools, work groups, athletic clubs, and governmental bodies. We rarely feel we can be ourselves in a secondary social aggregate Ċ A simple collection of group; rather, we are often playing a role, such as people who happen to be together in a particular employee or student. Cooley argued that while place but do not significantly interact or identify people belong to primary groups mainly because with one another. membership is fulﬁlling, people join secondary social category Ċ People who share a common characteristic (such as gender or occupation) groups to achieve a speciﬁc goal: to earn a living, but do not necessarily interact or identify with get a college degree, or compete on a sports team. one another. Secondary groups may become primary groups. primary groups Ċ Groups that are For example, when students taking a course characterized by intense emotional ties, face-to- together socialize after class, they create bonds face interaction, intimacy, and a strong, enduring sense of commitment. of friendship that constitute a primary group. secondary groups Ċ Groups characterized by For most of human history, nearly all interac- large size and by impersonal, fleeting relationships. tions took place within primary groups. This pat- tern began to change with the emergence of larger 154 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations agrarian societies, which included such secondary groups as those based on governmental roles or occupations. Today, most of our waking hours are spent within secondary groups, although primary groups remain a basic part of our lives. Some early sociologists, such as Cooley, worried about a loss of intimacy as more and more interactions revolved around large, impersonal organizations. However, what Cooley saw as the growing impersonality and anonymity of modern life may also offer increas- ing tolerance of individual differences. Primary groups often enforce strict conformity to group standards (Durkheim, 1964; orig. 1893; Simmel, 1955). Secondary groups are more likely to be concerned with accomplishing a task than with enforcing conformity. Conformity Not so long ago, the only part of the body that American teenage girls were likely to pierce was the ears— one hole per ear, enough to hold a single pair of earrings. For the vast majority of boys, piercing was not an option. Today, earrings are common for men. From teenage boys to male professional athletes to college students, a growing number of males now sport multiple earrings. Pressure to conform to the latest styles is especially strong among teenagers and young adults, among whom the need for group acceptance is often acute. While sporting earrings or the latest style of jeans—or rigidly conforming to the military code of West Point—may seem relatively harmless, conformity to group pres- sure can lead to destructive behavior, such as drug abuse or even murder. For this rea- son, sociologists and social psychologists have long sought to understand why most people tend to go along with others and under what circumstances they do not. GOING ALONG WITH THE GROUP: ASCH’S RESEARCH Some of the earliest studies of conformity to group pressures were conducted by psy- chologist Solomon Asch (1952). In a classic experiment, Asch asked subjects to decide which of three lines of different length most closely matched the length of a fourth line (Figure 6.1). The differences were obvious; subjects had no difficulty making the correct match. Asch then Figure 6.1 arranged a version of the experiment The Asch Task in which the subjects were asked to make the matches in a group set- In the Asch task, participants were shown a standard line ting, with each person calling out the (left) and then three comparison lines. Their task was sim- answer in turn. In this version, all ply to say which of the three lines matched the standard but one of the subjects were actually line. When confederates gave false answers ﬁrst, one-third Asch’s confederates. Each confed- of participants conformed by giving the wrong answer at erate picked as matches two lines least half the time. that were clearly unequal in length. The unwitting subject, one of the last to answer, felt enormous group pressure to make the same match. Amazingly, one-third of the subjects gave the same answer as the others in the group at least half the time, 1 2 3 even though that answer was clearly wrong. They sometimes stammered Basic Concepts155 and ﬁdgeted when doing so, but they nonetheless yielded to the unspoken pressure to con- form to the group’s decision. Asch’s experiments showed that many people are willing to discount their own perceptions rather than buck group consensus. OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY: MILGRAM’S RESEARCH Another classic study of conformity was conducted by Stanley Milgram (1963). Mil- gram’s work was intended to shed some light on what had happened in Nazi Germany dur- ing World War II. How could ordinary German citizens have gone along with, and even participated in, the mass extermination of millions of Jews, Romanies (Gypsies), homo- sexuals, intellectuals, and others who the Nazis judged to be inferior or undesirable? Obedience is a kind of conformity, and Milgram sought to ﬁnd its limits. He wanted to see how far a person would go when ordered by a scientist to give another person increasingly powerful electric shocks. So he set up an experiment that he told the sub- jects was about memorizing pairs of words. In reality, it was about obedience to author- ity. Milgram’s study would not be permitted today, because the deception of subjects and its potential for doing psychological harm would violate current university ethics standards. The subjects who volunteered for the study were supposedly randomly divided into “teachers” and “learners.” In fact, the learners were Milgram’s confederates. The teacher was told to read pairs of words from a list that the learner was to memorize. Whenever the learner made a mistake, the teacher was to give him an electric shock by ﬂipping a switch on a fake but official-looking machine. The control board indicated shock levels ranging from “15 volts—slight shock” to “450 volts—danger, severe shock.” For each mistake, the voltage was to be increased, until it reached the highest level. In reality, the learner, who was usually concealed from the teacher by a screen, never received any shocks. As the experiment progressed, the learner began to scream out in pain for the teacher to stop delivering the shocks. (The screams, which grew louder as the voltage rose, had actually been prerecorded.) Milgram’s assistant, who was administering the experi- ment, exercised his authority as a scientist and, if the teacher tried to quit, ordered the teacher to continue administering shocks. The assistant would say things such as “the The Milgram experiment required participants to “shock” the confederate learner (seated). The research partici- pant (left) helped apply the electrodes that would be used to shock the learner. An obedient participant (center) shocks the learner in the “touch” condition. More than half obeyed the experimenter in this condition. After the experiment, all the participants were introduced to the confederate learner (right) so they could see he was not actually harmed. 156 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations experiment requires that you continue,” even when the learner was tearfully protesting— even when he shrieked about his “bad heart.” The teacher was confronted with a major moral decision: Should he obey the scientist and go along with the experiment, even if it meant injuring another human being? Much to Milgram’s surprise, over half the subjects administered the shocks until the maxi- mum voltage was reached and the learner’s screams had subsided into an eerie silence as he presumably died of a heart attack. How could ordinary people so easily obey orders that would turn them into possible accomplices to murder? The answer, Milgram found, was surprisingly simple. Although it is obvious that sol- diers in training, such as ﬁrst-year plebes at West Point, will obey orders given by someone in a position of power or authority, ordinary citizens will often do the same—even if those orders have horrible consequences. From this experience, we can learn something about Nazi atrocities during World War II, which were Milgram’s original concern. Many of the ordinary Germans who participated in the mass executions in concentration camps did so on the grounds that they were just following orders. Milgram’s research has sobering implications for anyone who thinks that only “others” will bend to authority, but “not me” (Zimbardo, Ebbesen, and Maslach, 1977). Organizations People frequently band together to pursue activities that they cannot do by them- selves. A principal means of accomplishing such cooperative actions—whether it’s raising money for ALS research, winning a football game, or becoming a profitable corporation—is the organization , a group with an identifiable membership that engages in concerted collective actions to achieve a common purpose (Aldrich and Marsden, 1988). An organization can be a small primary group, but it is more likely a larger secondary one. Universities, religious bodies, and business corporations are all examples of organizations. Such organizations are a central feature of all societies, and their study is a core concern of sociology. Organizations tend to be highly formal in modern industrial and postindustrial soci- eties. A formal organization is designed to achieve its objectives, often by means of explicit rules, regulations, and procedures. The modern bureaucratic organization, dis- cussed later in this chapter, is a prime example of a formal organization. As Max Weber (1979; orig. 1921) recognized almost a century ago, there has been a long-term trend in Europe and North America toward formal organizations, in part because formality is often a requirement for legal standing. For a college or university to be accredited, for example, it must satisfy explicit written standards governing everything from grad- ing policy to faculty performance to ﬁre codes. Today, formal organizations are the dominant form of organization throughout the world. organization Ċ A large group of individuals with a definite set of authority relations. Many types Social systems in the traditional world of organizations exist in industrialized societies, developed as a result of custom and habit. Mod- influencing most aspects of our lives. While not ern organizations are designed with deﬁnite all organizations are bureaucratic, there are close links between the development of organizations aims and housed in buildings or physical set- and bureaucratic tendencies. tings constructed to help realize those aims. formal organization Ċ A group that is rationally Organizations play a more important part in designed to achieve its objectives, often by means our everyday lives than ever before. Besides of explicit rules, regulations, and procedures. delivering us into this world (hospital), they Basic Concepts157 also mark our progress through it (school) and networks Ċ Sets of informal and formal social see us out of it when we die (hospital, funeral ties that link people to each other. home). Even before we are born, our mothers, and often our fathers, are involved in birth- ing classes, pregnancy checkups, and so forth, all carried out within hospitals and other medical organizations. Today, every child born is registered by government organiza- tions, which collect information on all of us from birth to death. Most people today die in a hospital—not at home, as was once the case—and each death must be formally registered with the government. It is easy to see why organizations are so important today. In the premodern world, families, relatives, and neighbors provided for most needs—food, the instruction of chil- dren, work, and leisure-time activities. In modern times, many of our requirements are met by people we never meet and who might live and work thousands of miles away. Sub- stantial coordination of activities and resources—which organizations provide—is needed in such circumstances. But the tremendous inﬂuence organizations have on our lives cannot be seen as wholly beneﬁcial. Organizations often take things out of our own hands and put them under the control of officials or experts over whom we have little inﬂuence. For instance, we are required to do certain things the government tells us to do—pay taxes, obey laws, ﬁght wars—or face punishment. As sources of social power, organizations can sub- ject people to dictates they may be powerless to resist. Networks “Who you know is often as important as what you know.” This adage expresses the value of having good connections. Sociologists refer to such connections as networks— all the direct and indirect connections that link a person or a group with other people or groups. Your personal networks thus include people you know directly (such as your friends), as well as people you know indirectly (such as your friends’ friends). Personal networks often include people of similar race, class, ethnicity, and other types of social background, but some networks have a different basis. For example, if you sub- scribe to an online mailing list, you are part of a network that consists of all the people on the list, people who may be of different racial or ethnic backgrounds. Because groups and organizations, such as sororities or religious groups, can also be networked— for example, all the chapters of Gamma Phi Beta or Hillel belong to their respective national organizations—belonging to such groups can greatly extend your reach and inﬂuence. Social groups are an important source for acquiring networks, but not all networks are social groups. Many networks lack the shared expectations and sense of common CONCEPT CHECKS 3 identity that are the hallmarks of social groups. For example, you are not likely to 1. What is the difference between social aggre- share a sense of identity with the subscrib- gates and social groups? Give examples that ers to an online mailing list, nor will you illustrate this difference. probably know the neighbors of most of your 2. Describe the main characteristics of primary and secondary groups. coworkers at the office, even though they do 3. What role do organizations play in contempo- form part of your social network. rary society? Networks serve us in many surprising ways that we will take up shortly. 158 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations 2 THEORIES OF GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND NETWORKS In-Groups and Out-Groups The “sense of belonging” that characterizes social groups is sometimes strengthened by scorning other groups (Sartre, 1965; orig. 1948). This is especially true of racist groups, which promote their identity as superior by hating “inferior” groups. Jews, Catholics, Afri- can Americans and other people of color, immigrants, and gay people historically—and Muslims more recently—have been the targets of such prejudice in the United States. This sense of group identity created through scorn is dramatically illustrated by the website rantings of a racist skinhead group called Combat 18 (1998): “We are the last of our warrior race, and it is our duty to ﬁght for our people. The Jew will do everything to discredit us, but we hold that burning ﬂame in our hearts that drove our ancestors to conquer whole continents.” Such proud, disdainful language illustrates the sociological distinction between in-groups and out-groups. In-groups are groups toward which one feels loyalty and respect—the groups that “we” belong to. Out-groups are groups toward which one feels antagonism and contempt—“those people.” At one time or another, many of us have used in-group/out-group imagery to trumpet what we believe to be our group’s strengths vis-à-vis another group’s presumed weaknesses. For example, fraternity or sorority mem- bers may bolster their feelings of superiority—in academics, sports, or campus image—by ridiculing the members of a different house. Similarly, a church may hold up its “truths” as the only ones, while native-born Americans may accuse immigrants—always outsiders upon arriving in a new country—as ruining the country for “real Americans.” Reference Groups We often judge ourselves by how we think we appear to others, which Cooley termed the “ looking- glass self.” Groups as well as individuals provide the standards by which we make self- evaluations. Robert K. Merton (1968; orig. 1938) elaborated on Cooley’s work by introducing the concept of the reference group —a group that provides a stan- dard for judging one’s attitudes or behaviors (see also Hyman and Singer, 1968). Family, peers, classmates, and coworkers are crucial reference groups. However, you don’t have to belong to a group for it to be a reference group. Regardless of his or her station in life, a person may identify with the wealth and power of Fortune 500 corporate execu- tives, admire the contributions of Nobel Prize–winning scientists, or be captivated by the glitter of Hollywood stars. Although few of us interact socially with such reference groups, we may take pride in identifying with them, glorify their accomplishments, and even imitate the behavior of their members. This is in-groups Ċ Groups toward which one feels why it is critical for children—minority chil- particular loyalty and respect—the groups to which “we” belong. dren in particular, whose groups are often represented with negative stereotypes in the out-groups Ċ Groups toward which one feels antagonism and contempt—“those people.” media—to be exposed to reference groups that reference group Ċ A group that provides model positive standards of behavior. a standard for judging one’s attitudes or Reference groups may be primary (such as behaviors. the family) or secondary (such as a group of Theories of Groups, Organizations, and Networks159 soldiers). They may even be fictional. One of dyad Ċ A group consisting of two persons. the chief functions of advertising is to create triad Ċ A group consisting of three persons. a set of imaginary reference groups that will influence consumers’ buying habits. For example, when cosmetic ads feature thin mod- els with flawless complexions, the message is simple: “If you want to look as though you are part of an in-group of highly attractive, eternally youthful women, buy this prod- uct.” In reality, the models seldom have the unblemished features depicted; instead, the ideal features are constructed through artful lighting, photographic techniques, and computer enhancement. Similarly, the happy- go-lucky, physically perfect young men and women seen sailing or playing volleyball or hang gliding in beer commercials have little to do with the reality of most of our lives— or, indeed, with the lives of the actors in those commercials. The message, however, is otherwise: “Drink this beer, and you will be a member of the carefree in-group in this ad.” The Effects of Size Another signiﬁcant way in which groups differ has to do with their size. Sociological interest in group size can be traced to Georg Simmel (1858–1918), a German sociologist who studied and theorized about the impact of small groups on people’s behavior. Since Simmel’s time, small-group researchers have examined the effects of size on both the quality of interaction in the group and the effectiveness of the group in accomplishing certain tasks (Bales, 1953, 1970; Homans, 1950; Mills, 1967). DYADS The simplest group, which Simmel (1955) called a dyad , consists of two people. Simmel reasoned that dyads, which involve both intimacy and conflict, are likely to be simul- taneously intense and unstable. To survive, they require the full attention and coop- eration of both parties. If one person withdraws from the dyad, it vanishes. Dyads are typically the source of our most elementary social bonds, often constituting the group in which we are likely to share our deepest secrets. But dyads can be fragile. That is why, Simmel believed, numerous cultural and legal supports for marriage—an example of a dyad—are found in societies in which marriage is regarded as an important source of social stability. TRIADS Adding a third person changes the group relationship. Simmel used the term triad to describe a group of three people. Triads tend to be more stable than dyads because the presence of a third person relieves some of the pressure on the other two members to always get along and energize the relationship. In a triad, one person can temporarily withdraw attention from the relationship without necessarily threatening it. In addi- tion, if two of the members have a disagreement, the third can play the role of mediator, as when you try to patch up a falling- out between two of your friends. On the other hand, alliances (sometimes termed coalitions) may form between two members of a triad, enabling them to gang up on the third and thereby destabilize the group. Alliances are most likely to form when no one member is clearly dominant and when all three members are competing for the same thing—for example, when three friends are given a pair of tickets to a concert and have to decide which two will go. The TV series Survivor 160 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations provides many examples of alliance forma- tion, as the program’s characters forge spe- Figure 6.2 cial relationships with one another to avoid Dyads being eliminated in the weekly group vote. In forming an alliance, a member of a triad The larger the number of people, the greater the is most likely to choose the weaker of the possible number of relationships. Note that this ﬁg- two other members as a partner, if there is ure illustrates only dyads; if triads and more complex one. In what have been termed revolution- coalitions were to be included, the numbers would be ary coalitions, the two weaker members still greater (4 people yield 10 possibilities). Even a form an alliance to overthrow the stronger 10-person group can produce 45 possible dyads! one (Caplow, 1956, 1959, 1969). Number of Possible Dyads Number of People Relationships LARGER GROUPS Going from a dyad to a triad illustrates 2 Bob Mary 1 an important sociological principle ﬁrst identiﬁed by Simmel: In most cases, as groups grow in size, their intensity Bob decreases while their stability and exclusiv- 3 3 ity increase. Larger groups have less intense Mary Carlos interactions, simply because a larger num- ber of potential smaller group relation- ships exist as outlets for individuals who Bob Mary are not getting along with other members of the group. In a dyad, only one relation- 4 6 ship is possible; in a triad, three different Carlos Wendy two-person relationships can occur. Adding a fourth person leads to six possible two- person relationships without counting the Bob Mary potential subgroups of three. In a 10-person group, the number of possible two-person 5 10 relationships explodes to 45 (Figure 6.2)! Carlos Wendy When one relationship doesn’t work out, you can easily move to another, as you probably often do at large parties. Li At the same time, larger groups tend to be more stable than smaller ones because they can survive the withdrawal of some Bob Mary members. A marriage or romantic rela- tionship falls apart if one person leaves, 6 Carlos Wendy 15 whereas an athletic team or drama club routinely survives, though it may tempo- rarily suffer from the loss of its graduat- Li Juanita ing seniors. Larger groups also tend to be more exclusive because it is easier for members to limit social relationships to the group itself and to avoid relationships with nonmem- bers. This sense of being part of an in-group, or clique, is sometimes found in fraterni- ties, sororities, and other campus organizations. Cliquishness is especially likely to Theories of Groups, Organizations, and Networks161 occur when a group’s members are similar in bureaucracy Ċ A type of organization marked such social characteristics as age, gender, class, by a clear hierarchy of authority and the existence of written rules of procedure and race, or ethnicity. People from rich families, for staffed by full-time, salaried officials. example, may be reluctant to fraternize with working- class groups, men may prefer to go to the basketball court with other men, and stu- dents who belong to a particular ethnic group (for example, African Americans, Latinos, or Asian Americans) may seek out one another in the dorm or cafeteria. Even so, groups do not always restrict relationships with outsiders. A group with a socially diverse mem- bership is likely to foster a high degree of interaction with people outside the group (Blau, 1977). For example, if your social group or club has members from different social classes or ethnic groups, you are more likely to appreciate such social differences from ﬁrsthand experience and seek them out in other aspects of your life. Beyond a certain size (perhaps a dozen people), groups tend to develop a formal struc- ture. Formal leadership roles may arise, such as president or secretary, and official rules may be developed to govern what the group does. Theories of Organizations Max Weber developed the ﬁrst systematic interpretation of the rise of modern orga- nizations. Organizations, he argued, are ways of coordinating the activities of human beings or the goods they produce in a stable way across space and time. Weber empha- sized that the development of organizations depends on the control of information, and he stressed the central importance of writing in this process. An organization needs written rules to function and ﬁles in which to store its “memory.” Weber saw organiza- tions as strongly hierarchical, with power tending to concentrate at the top. Was Weber right? It matters a great deal, for Weber detected a clash as well as a connection between modern organizations and democracy that he believed had far-reaching consequences for social life. BUREAUCRACY All large-scale organizations, according to Weber, tend to be bureaucratic in nature. The word bureaucracy was coined in 1745 by Jean- Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay, who combined the word bureau, meaning both an office and a writing table, with the suffix cracy, a term derived from the Greek verb meaning “to rule.” Bureaucracy is thus the rule of officials. The term was ﬁrst applied only to government officials, but it gradually came to refer to large organizations in general. From the beginning, the concept was used disparagingly. De Gournay spoke of the developing power of officials as “an illness called bureaumania.” The nineteenth- century French novelist Honoré de Balzac saw bureaucracy as “the giant power wielded by pygmies.” This view persists today. Bureaucracy is frequently associated with red tape, inefficiency, and wastefulness. Others, however, have seen bureaucracy as a model of carefulness, precision, and effective administration. Bureaucracy, they argue, is the most efficient form of human organization, because, in it, all tasks are regulated by strict procedures. Weber’s account of bureaucracy steers between these two extremes. A limited number of bureaucratic organizations, he pointed out, existed in traditional civiliza- tions. For example, a bureaucratic officialdom in imperial China was responsible for 162 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations the overall affairs of government. But only in modern times have bureaucracies developed ideal type Ċ A “pure type,” constructed by emphasizing certain traits of a social item that fully. do not necessarily exist in reality. An example According to Weber, the expansion of is Max Weber’s ideal type of bureaucratic bureaucracy is inevitable in modern societ- organization. ies; bureaucratic authority is the only way of coping with the administrative requirements of large- scale social systems. However, as we will see, Weber also believed bureau- cracy exhibits a number of major failings that have important implications for modern social life. To study the origins and nature of bureaucratic organizations, Weber constructed an ideal type of bureaucracy. (Ideal here refers not to what is most desirable but to a pure form of bureaucratic organization, one that accentuates certain features of real cases so as to pinpoint essential characteristics.) Weber (1979; orig. 1921) listed several charac- teristics of the ideal type of bureaucracy: 1. There is a clear-cut hierarchy of authority. Tasks in the organization are distributed as “official duties.” A bureaucracy looks like a pyramid, with the posi- tions of highest authority at the top. A chain of command stretches from top to bottom, thus making possible the coordination of decisions. Each higher office con- trols and supervises the one below it in the hierarchy. 2. Written rules govern the conduct of officials at all levels of the organiza- tion. This does not mean that bureaucratic duties are just a matter of routine. The higher the office, the more the rules tend to encompass a wide variety of cases and to demand ﬂexibility in their interpretation. 3. Officials work full time and are salaried. Each job in the hierarchy has a deﬁnite and ﬁxed salary attached to it. Individuals are expected to make a career within the organization. Promotion is possible on the basis of capability, senior- ity, or a combination of the two. 4. There is a separation between the tasks of an official within the organiza- tion and his or her life outside. The home life of the official is distinct from his or her activities in the workplace and is also physically separated from it. 5. No members of the organization own the materials with which they oper- ate. The development of bureaucracy, according to Weber, separates workers from the control of their means of production. In traditional communities, farmers and craft workers usually had control over their processes of production and owned the tools they used. In bureaucracies, officials do not own the offices they work in, the desks they sit at, or the office machinery they use. Weber believed that the more an organization approaches the ideal type of bureaucracy, the more effective it will be in reaching its goals. He likened bureaucracies to sophisticated machines operating according to rational principles (see Chapter 1). Yet he also recognized that bureaucracy could be inefficient and that many bureaucratic jobs are dull, offering little opportunity for creativity. Although Weber feared that the bureaucratization of society could have negative consequences, he concluded that bureaucratic routine and the authority of officialdom were the prices we pay for the technical effectiveness of bureaucratic organi- zations. Since Weber’s time, the bureaucratization of society has become more widespread. Critics of this development who share Weber’s initial concerns have questioned whether the efficiency of rational organizations comes at a cost greater than Weber imagined. The Theories of Groups, Organizations, and Networks163 most prominent of these critiques is known as “the McDonaldization of society,” which we will discuss later in this chapter. FORMAL AND INFORMAL RELATIONS WITHIN BUREAUCRACIES Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy gave prime place to formal relations within orga- nizations, relations as stated in the organization rules. Weber had little to say about the informal connections and small-group relations that exist in all organizations. But in bureaucracies, informal ways of doing things often allow for a ﬂexibility that couldn’t otherwise be achieved. In a classic study, Peter Blau (1963) looked at informal relations in a government agency that investigated possible income-tax violations. Agents who came across difficult cases were supposed to discuss them with their immediate supervisor; the rules of proce- dure stated that they should not consult colleagues at their same level. Most agents were wary about approaching their supervisors, however, because they felt it might suggest a lack of competence on their part and reduce their chances for promotion. Hence, they usually consulted one another, violating the official rules. This breaking of the rules not only helped provide concrete advice but also reduced the anxieties involved in working alone. A cohesive set of loyalties representative of a primary group thus developed among those working at the same level. The problems these workers faced, Blau concludes, were probably addressed more effectively as a result. The group was able to develop informal procedures that allowed for more initiative and responsibility than the formal rules of the organization permitted. Informal networks tend to develop at all levels of organizations. At the top, personal ties and connections may be more important than the formal situations in which deci- sions are supposed to be made. For example, meetings of boards of directors and share- holders supposedly determine the policies of business corporations. In practice, a few members of the board often run the corporation, making their decisions informally and expecting the rest of the board to approve them. Informal networks of this sort can also stretch across different corporations. Business leaders from different ﬁrms frequently consult one another informally and may belong to the same clubs and social circles. John Meyer and Brian Rowan (1977) argue that formal rules and procedures are usually quite distant from the practices an organization’s members actually adopt. Formal rules, in their view, are often “myths” that people profess to follow but that have little substance in reality. The rules serve to legitimize—to justify—ways in which tasks are carried out, even while these ways may diverge greatly from how the rules say things are supposed to be done. Formal procedures, Meyer and Rowan point out, often have a ceremonial or ritual character. People make a show of conforming to them but get on with their real work using other, more informal procedures. For example, rules govern- ing ward procedure in a hospital help justify how nurses act toward patients. Thus, a nurse will faithfully fill in the chart at the end of a formal relations Ċ Relations that exist in groups and organizations, as laid down by the norms, or patient’s bed but will actually check progress rules, of the official system of authority. by means of other, informal criteria—how the informal relations Ċ Relations that exist in patient looks and whether the patient seems groups and organizations developed on the basis alert and lively. Rigorously keeping up the of personal connections; ways of doing things that depart from formally recognized modes of charts impresses the patients and keeps the procedure. doctors happy, but it is not always essential to the nurse’s assessments. 164 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations Deciding how much informal procedures help or hinder the effectiveness of orga- nizations is not a simple matter. Systems that resemble Weber’s ideal type tend to give rise to a multitude of unofficial ways of doing things. This workaround happens partly because the ﬂexibility that is lacking ends up being achieved by unofficial tinkering with formal rules. For those in dull jobs, informal procedures often create a more satisfying work environment. Informal connections among officials in higher positions may be effective in ways that aid the organization as a whole. THE CONTROL OF TIME AND SPACE Michel Foucault (1971, 1975) showed that the architecture of an organization is directly involved with its social makeup and system of authority. By studying the physical char- acteristics of organizations, we can shed new light on the problems Weber analyzed. The offices Weber discussed abstractly are also architectural settings—rooms, separated by corridors. The buildings of large ﬁrms are sometimes actually constructed as a hierar- chy, in which the more elevated one’s position, the nearer to the top of the building one’s office is; not for nothing does “the top ﬂoor” refer to those who hold ultimate power in an organization. In many other ways, the geography of an organization affects its functioning, especially when systems rely heavily on informal relationships. Physical proximity makes form- ing primary groups easier, whereas physical distance can polarize groups, resulting in a “them” and “us” attitude between departments. The arrangement of rooms, hallways, and open spaces in an organization’s buildings provides basic clues to how the organization’s system of authority operates. In some orga- nizations, people work collectively in open settings. Because of the dull, repetitive nature of certain kinds of industrial work, such as assembly-line production, regular supervision is needed to ensure that workers sustain the pace of labor. The same is often true of routine work carried out by telephone operators who respond to calls for information and who sit together where their activities are visible to their supervisors. Foucault laid great emphasis on how visibility, or lack of it, in the architectural settings of modern organizations inﬂu- ences and expresses patterns of authority. The level of visibility determines how easily sub- ordinates can be subject to surveillance—the supervision of activities in organizations. In modern organizations, everyone, even those in relatively high positions of authority, is subject to surveillance; but the lowlier a person is, the more his or her behavior tends to be scrutinized. Surveillance takes two forms. One is the direct supervision of the work of subordi- nates by superiors. Consider the example of a school classroom. Pupils sit at tables or desks, usually arranged in rows, all in view of the teacher. They are supposed to look alert or be absorbed in their work. Of course, how far this actually happens depends on the abilities of the teacher and the inclinations of the children to do what is expected of them. The second type of surveillance is subtler but equally important. It consists of keep- ing ﬁles, records, and case histories about people’s work lives. Weber realized the impor- tance of written records (nowadays usually computerized) in modern organizations but did not fully explore how they could be used to regulate behavior. Employee records usually pro- surveillanceŚĊŚThe supervising of the activities vide complete work histories, including per- of some individuals or groups by others in order sonal details and often character evaluations. to ensure compliant behavior. Such records are used to monitor employees’ Theories of Groups, Organizations, and Networks165 behavior and assess recommendations for promotion. In many businesses, individuals at each level in the organi- zation prepare annual reports on the performances of those in the level just below them. In schools, transcripts are used to monitor students’ performance as they move through the organization. Records are kept on ﬁle for academic staff, too. Organizations cannot operate effec- tively if employees’ work is haphazard. In business ﬁrms, as Weber pointed out, people are expected to work regu- In addition to direct supervision of subordinates’ work, lar hours. Activities must be consis- surveillance also takes the form of files, records, and work tently coordinated in time and space, histories. something promoted by both the physi- cal settings of organizations and the precise scheduling of detailed time- tables, which regularize activities across time and space. In Foucault’s words, timeta- bles “efficiently distribute bodies” around the organization. They are a condition of orga- nizational discipline because they organize, or schedule, the activities of large numbers of people. If a university did not observe a lecture timetable, for example, it would soon collapse into complete chaos. THE STRENGTH OF WEAK TIES Networks serve us in many ways. Sociologist Mark Granovetter (1973) demonstrated that there can be enormous strength in “weak ties,” particularly among higher socioeconomic groups. Granovetter showed that upper-level professional and managerial employees are likely to hear about new jobs through connections such as distant relatives or remote acquaintances. Such weak ties can be beneﬁcial because relatives or acquaintances tend to have very different sets of connections than one’s close friends, whose social contacts are likely to be similar to one’s own. After graduation, you may rely on good grades and a strong résumé to ﬁnd a job. But it also may help that your roommate’s uncle went to school with a top person in the organization where you are seeking work. Most people depend on personal networks to gain advantages, but not everyone has equal access to powerful networks. Among lower socioeconomic groups, Granovetter argued, weak ties are not necessarily bridges to other networks and so do not really increase opportunities (see also Knoke, 1990; Marsden and Lin, 1982; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988). In general, whites and men have more advantageous social networks than do ethnic minorities and women. Some sociologists argue, for example, that women’s business, professional, and political networks are fewer and weaker than men’s, so that women’s power in these spheres is reduced (Brass, 1985). The Bohemian Grove is a case in point. This annual political gathering has been held on the Russian River, north of San Francisco, each summer since 1879. Its all-male membership includes timetables Ċ The means by which organizations Republican leaders such as former presidents regularize activities across time and space. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, for- mer secretary of state Colin Powell, and former 166 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; the heads of major corporations; businessmen; and entertainers (Bohan, 1999; Domhoff, 1974). The highly exclusive weekend includes horseback riding, meetings, entertainment, “lakeside talks,” informal discussion groups—and some serious deal making. In general, sociologists have found that women’s job-market networks comprise fewer ties than do men’s, meaning that women know fewer people in fewer occupations (Marsden, 1987; Moore, 1990). Meager networks tend to channel women into typically “female” jobs, which usually offer lower pay and fewer opportunities for advancement (Drentea, 1998; Roos and Reskin, 1992). Still, as more and more women move into higher- level positions, the resulting networks can foster further advancement. One study found that women are more likely to be hired or promoted into job levels that already have a high proportion of women (Cohen, Broschak, and Haveman, 1998). Networks confer more than economic advantage. You are likely to rely on your networks for a broad range of contacts, from 3 obtaining access to your congressperson to scoring a summer internship. Similarly, CONCEPT CHECKS when you visit another country to study 1. When groups become large, why does their a foreign language or to vacation, your intensity decrease but their stability increase? friends, school, or religious organization 2. What does the term bureaucracy mean? may steer you to its overseas connections, 3. Describe five characteristics of an ideal type who can then help you ﬁnd your way around of bureaucracy. the unfamiliar environment. When you 4. According to Granovetter, what are the ben- graduate, your alumni group can further efits of weak ties? Why? extend your network of social support. 3 CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ON GROUPS AND NETWORKS The “McDonaldization” of Society? George Ritzer (1993) developed a vivid metaphor to express his view of the transforma- tions in industrialized societies. He argues that we are witnessing the “McDonaldization” of society—“the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world.” Ritzer uses the four guiding principles of McDonald’s restaurants— efficiency, calculabil- ity, uniformity, and control through automation—to show that our society is becoming ever more rationalized. If you have visited a McDonald’s in two different countries, you will have noticed that few differences exist between them. The interior decoration may vary slightly, and the language used will most likely differ, but the layout, the menu, the procedure for ordering, the uniforms, the tables, the packaging, and the “service with a smile” are virtually iden- tical. The McDonald’s experience is designed to be the same whether you are in Bogota or Beijing. No matter where they are, McDonald’s customers can expect quick service with a minimum of fuss and a standardized product that is reassuringly consistent. The McDonald’s system is constructed to maximize efficiency and minimize human respon- sibility and involvement in the process. Except for certain key tasks, such as taking orders Contemporary Research on Groups and Networks167 and pushing the Start and Stop buttons on cooking equipment, the restaurants’ func- tions are highly automated and largely run themselves. Ritzer argues that society as a whole is moving toward this highly standardized and regulated model. Many aspects of our daily lives, for example, now involve automated systems and computers instead of human beings. E-mail and texts are replacing letters and phone calls; e-commerce is threatening to overtake trips to the store; ATMs outnum- ber bank tellers; and prepackaged meals provide a quicker option than cooking. And if you have recently tried to call a large organization such as an airline, you know that it is almost impossible to speak to a human being. Automated touch-tone information services are designed to answer your requests; only in certain cases will you be connected to a live employee. Ritzer, like Weber before him, is fearful of the harmful effects of rationalization on the human spirit and creativity. He argues that McDonaldization is making social life more homogeneous, more rigid, and less personal. Personal Taste Are our music choices a matter of personal taste or an example of conforming behavior? We tend to think of the music we listen to as an intensely personal choice made inde- pendently of the people around us and one that reﬂects our individual personalities and preferences. How much, however, do our group memberships and social networks shape our most personal of decisions, such as our aesthetic tastes? Social scientists Matthew Salganik, Peter Dodds, and Duncan Watts (2006) conducted research to test the effects of the inﬂuence of social networks on musical choices. To do so, they created an artiﬁcial cultural market on a website named Music Lab. More than 14,000 participants registered with the site and were asked to listen to music by bands with which they were unfamiliar and then rate how much they liked the songs. If they liked the music, they could download songs. The researchers ﬁrst divided their sample into two groups. Those in the control group were unable to use the website to see what other participants were listening to. Members of the experimental, or “treatment,” group, the “social inﬂuence” group, were able to see what other participants on the site were listening to as well as downloading. The social inﬂuence group was further placed into eight “worlds,” and participants could see only the rankings and number of downloads of people in their world. The researchers found that in the social inﬂuence groups, the most popular songs were more popular than those in the control group—that is, when participants knew what songs were favored by others, they were more likely to favor those songs themselves. The most popular song in each world was also different, providing further evidence of the impor- tance of group inﬂuence. This suggests that the determinants of popularity in music were based on the listener’s social “world.” That is, the “intrinsic” quality of the music mattered less than the number of people in each world who were listening to the song, giving it high ratings, and downloading it. The authors of the study described the effect of social networks as a “cumulative advantage” where “if one object happens to be slightly more popular than another at just the right point, it will tend to become more popular still. As a result, even tiny, random ﬂuctuations can blow up, generating potentially enormous long-run differences among even indistinguishable competitors—a phenomenon that is similar in some ways to the famous ‘butterﬂy effect’ in chaos theory” (Watts, 2007). The butterﬂy effect proposes that small variations may produce large variations in the long-term behavior of a system or 168 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations organism. Salganik, Dodds, and Watts’s study revealed the impact of our social networks, which are now increasingly virtual networks, on our music decisions. Studying how consumers make decisions is a part of a much deeper sociological tradi- tion that is concerned with conformity, propaganda, and the question of how leaders have persuaded whole populations to take part in horriﬁc deeds. The Holocaust, which claimed the lives of more than 6 million Jews and millions of others, left many social scientists searching to understand how, why, and under what conditions ordinary people would conform to authority. Many students who have seen or read about Stanley Milgram’s laboratory experiments or the “make-believe jail” experiment (discussed in Chapter 2) tend to think that they would not conform to the demands of an authority ﬁgure as the study participants did. Yet the music lab study reveals how social environments affect our behavior and how we all, at times, conform to the movements of larger social groups, even when it comes to something as personal as the music we like. Obesity One major public health problem that sociologists have studied in recent years is obesity. In the United States today, the number of obese people has been growing steadily. More than one-third (36.5 percent) of American adults are obese, and 17 percent of children and teen- agers ages 2 to 19 are obese (Ogden et al., 2015). Although obesity may have a signiﬁcant biological component, signiﬁcant social factors should not be ignored. Most obviously, soci- ologists have discovered that particular communities, sometimes known as “food deserts,” are short of healthy food options. Poor inner-city neighborhoods tend to have fewer grocery stores and health food outlets, and more fast-food restaurants than do wealthier neighbor- hoods (Walker, Keane, and Burke, 2010). More controversial has been the ﬁnding by soci- ologist Nicholas Christakis of Harvard Medical School and social scientist James Fowler of the University of California, Davis, that having fat friends can make you fat. Their study, titled “The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years,” published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2007), showed that obesity was “contagious.” Christakis and Fowler found that if one person became obese, then per- sons closely connected to him or her had a greater chance of becoming obese. If a per- son once considered a “friend” became obese, then one’s own chances of becoming obese increased by 57 percent. However, a mere neighbor’s weight change had no effect on one’s body weight. The media were eager to report the findings of the Christakis and Fowler study. It was the first- ever study to examine the ways that one’s social networks affected one’s body weight. The researchers had access to a unique data source that allowed them to ask questions such as, How do one’s friends affect one’s weight? Does it matter if one’s friends live nearby or far away? Christakis and Fowler analyzed data from a sample of 12,067 adults who were followed over a period of 32 years, from 1971 to 2003. These adults were participants in the renowned Framingham Heart Study. The data source revealed with whom the study participants were friends and who was a spouse or sibling or neighbor. It also obtained information on each person’s address and body weight at each interview point. Because of their unique data and rigorous methodology, the researchers could rule out competing explanations for their ﬁndings. For example, because they had data from many time points throughout the 32-year study, they could ascertain the order in which events unfolded. It was not the case that obese people would simply seek out Contemporary Research on Groups and Networks169 similar-weight people as friends. Rather, Christakis noted, there was a “direct, causal relationship.” Christakis and Fowler also found that it didn’t matter whether one’s friend lived near or far; they found that a friend who lived 500 miles away had just as powerful an impact on one’s own weight as a friend who lived across the street. The study also found that the “contagion” of body weight was not due to the fact that friends might share lifestyles, hobbies, and dietary choices—such as eating large meals together or discouraging one another from exercising. If it’s not the “birds of a feather ﬂock together” explanation or “gluttony loves company” explanation, what accounts for the spread of body weight? The authors believe that their study is a testimony to the power of social norms. People develop their ideas about what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around them. Christakis stated: “People come to think that it is okay to be big- ger since those around them are bigger, and this sensibility spreads.” However, the researchers were adamant that Americans should not come away think- ing that it is wise or healthy to abandon their obese friends. Rather, Christakis noted, it is good for one’s health to have friends, period: “It is unlikely that severing ties with people on the basis of any of their particular traits—as some have supposed that our results might suggest—would necessarily be beneﬁcial.” Instead, they concluded that overweight or obese people could befriend a healthy-weighted person and then allow themselves to be inﬂuenced by the positive model set by the healthy-weight friend. Other researchers have criticized their methods. Lyons (2011) and other statisticians have argued in scathing critiques that the researchers did not properly use their statis- tics and that most of the association was due to error. However, even the most skeptical critics of Christakis and Fowler’s work do acknowledge that human health and health behaviors are powerfully shaped by one’s peers and signiﬁcant others, although they would not go so far as to say that it is “contagion,” instead suggesting that people associate with others like themselves, or they may model and inﬂuence each other’s behaviors. The Internet as Social Network Our opportunities to belong to and access social networks have skyrocketed due to the Internet. Until the early 1990s, when the World Wide Web was developed, there were few Internet users outside of university and scientiﬁc communities. Today, nearly 9 in 10 Amer- ican adults are online, and 7 in 10 use social media (Pew Research Center, 2017b). With such rapid communication and global reach, it is now possible to radically extend one’s personal networks. Fully 57 percent of American teens have made new friends online (Lenhart et al., 2015). The Internet is especially useful for networking with like-minded people on speciﬁc issues such as politics, business, hobbies, or romance (Southwick, 1996; Wellman et al., 1996). It also enables people who might otherwise lack contact with others to become part of global networks. For example, people too ill to leave their homes can join online communi- ties to share common interests, people in small rural communities can now take online col- lege courses (Lewin, 2012), and long-lost high school friends can reconnect via Facebook. The Internet fosters the creation of new relationships, often without the emotional and social baggage or constraints that go along with face-to-face encounters. In the absence of the usual physical and social cues, such as skin color or residential address, people can get together electronically on the basis of shared interests like gaming, rather than similar social characteristics. Factors such as social position, wealth, race, ethnicity, gender, and physical disability are less likely to cloud the social interaction (Coate, 1994; Jones, 1995; Kollock and Smith, 1996). In fact, technologies like Twitter allow people from all walks of life to catch glimpses into the lives of celebrities (as well as noncelebs). 170 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations One limitation of Internet-based social networks is that not everyone has equal access to the Internet. Lower-income per- sons and ethnic minorities are less likely than wealthier persons and whites to have Internet access. However, the “digital divide” has narrowed in recent years, and cyber- space is among the most egalitarian planes of social interaction (Pew Research Center, 2017b). For example, in 2000, 81 percent of American adults in households earning $75,000 or more a year used the Internet, compared to just 34 percent of those who Launched in 2004, Facebook has more than 1 billion made less than $30,000. By 2016, this nearly registered accounts and is one of the most popular tools for 50 percent gap had narrowed to 19 percent, building online social networks. with 79 percent of those who make less than $30,000 per year now using the Internet. There remains a larger gap in usage by level of education: While 98 percent of adults with a college degree are Internet users, that proportion drops to 68 percent for those with less than a high school education. However, we still see the largest gap in Internet use between young adults (ages 18 to 29) and older adults (65 and older): While 96 percent of young adults are using the Internet, the same can be said of only 64 percent of older adults. The United States has one of the high- est rates of Internet use in the world. Along- side North America, Internet use is highest in the wealthy countries of Europe and emerging economies of East Asia. Some soci- ologists think that the Internet’s inevitable CONCEPT CHECKS 3 strengthening of global ties may come at the 1. What does Ritzer mean by the concept “Mc- expense of local ones. Being able to connect Donaldization” of society? with anyone in the world who has similar 2. What evidence do Watts et al. have for their claims about social influence on personal taste? interests may mean that one’s own commu- 3. How do Christakis and Fowler explain the nity becomes less important. If this happens, spread of obesity through social networks? Why will the ties that have bound people to locality are some researchers critical of their findings? throughout human history slowly disappear? 4 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Is Democracy Meaningless in the Face of Increasingly Powerful Bureaucratic Organizations? Even in democracies such as the United States, government organizations hold enormous amounts of information about us, from records of our birth dates, schools attended, and jobs held, to data on income used for tax collecting and information for issuing driver’s licenses and allocating Social Security numbers. Because we don’t have access to the ﬁles of most gov- ernment agencies, such surveillance activities can infringe on the principle of democracy. The diminishing of democracy with the advance of modern forms of organization worried Weber a great deal (see also Chapter 13). What especially disturbed him was Unanswered Questions171 the prospect of rule by faceless bureaucrats. After all, Weber reasoned, bureaucracies are necessarily specialized and hierarchical. Those near the bottom of the organization inevitably carry out mundane tasks and have no power over what they do; power resides with those at the top. Weber’s student Robert Michels (1967; orig. 1911) invented a phrase: “Who says organization says oligarchy.” It has come to refer to this loss of power, in large-scale organizations and, more generally, in a society dominated by organiza- tions. Michels called this concept the iron law of oligarchy. Oligarchy means “rule by the few.” According to Michels, the ﬂow of power toward the top is an inevitable part of an increasingly bureaucratized world—hence the “iron law.” Was Michels right? It surely is true that large-scale organizations involve the central- izing of power. Yet there is reason to believe that the iron law of oligarchy is not quite as hard and fast as Michels claimed. The connections between oligarchy and bureaucratic centralization are more ambiguous than he supposed. First, unequal power is not just a function of size. Marked differences of power exist even in modest-sized groups. In a small business, for instance, in which the activities of employees are directly visible to the directors, much tighter control might be exerted than in larger organizations. As organizations expand in size, power relationships often become looser. Those at the middle and lower levels may have little inﬂuence over poli- cies forged at the top. However, because of the specialization and expertise involved in bureaucracy, people at the top may lose control over many of the administrative deci- sions made by those lower down. In many modern organizations, power is often delegated downward from superiors to subordinates. The heads of huge corporations are so busy coordinating different depart- ments, coping with crises, and analyzing budget and forecast ﬁgures that they have little time for original thinking. Consequently, they delegate consideration of policy issues to others, whose task is to develop proposals. Many corporate leaders admit that, for the most part, they simply accept the conclusions given to them. How Are Late-Modern Organizations Reinventing Themselves? For quite a long while in Western societies, Weber’s model, closely mirrored by Fou- cault’s, held fast. In government, hospital administration, universities, and business organizations, bureaucracy was dominant. Even though, as Peter Blau showed, infor- mal social groups always develop in bureaucratic settings, and are in fact effective, it seemed as though the future might be what Weber had anticipated: constantly increas- ing bureaucratization. Bureaucracies still exist in the West, but Weber’s idea that a clear hierarchy of author- ity, with power and knowledge concentrated at the top, is the only way to run a large orga- nization is starting to look archaic. Numerous organizations are overhauling themselves to become less, rather than more, hierarchical. In the 1960s, Burns and Stalker concluded that traditional bureaucratic structures could iron law of oligarchy Ċ A term coined by stiﬂe innovation and creativity in cutting-edge Weber’s student Robert Michels meaning that industries. In today’s electronic economy, few large organizations tend toward centralization of power, making democracy difficult. would dispute these ﬁndings. Departing from oligarchy Ċ Rule by a small minority within an rigid vertical command structures, many organi- organization or society. zations are turning to “horizontal,” collaborative models to become more responsive to ﬂuctuat- 172 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations ing markets. In this section, we examine some of the forces behind these shifts, including globalization and information technology, and consider some of the ways in which late- modern organizations are reinventing themselves. Anyone who draws money from a bank or buys an airline ticket depends on a computer-based communication system. Because data can be processed instantaneously in any part of the world linked to such a system, there is no need for physical proximity among those involved. As a result, information and communication technology has allowed many companies to reengineer their organizational structures (Attaran, 2004; Bresnahan et al., 2002; Castells, 2000, 2001; Kanter, 1991; Kobrin, 1997; Zuboff, 1988). Such changes, while good for efficiency, can have negative as well as positive consequences for the individuals within the organization. For example, one company found the sales of some of its products falling and needed to reduce costs. The traditional route would have been to lay off staff. Instead, the ﬁrm set up as independent consultants those who would have been laid off. The company then bought back a substantial proportion of the former employees’ working time for a number of years but also left them free to work for other clients. The idea was that the new arrangement would provide the corporation with access to the skills of its former employees but at a cheaper rate because it no longer provided office space or company beneﬁts (pension, health insurance, and so on). The former employees, in turn, had the opportunity to build up their own businesses. Initially, at least, the arrangement has worked well for both parties. In such a scheme, though, the burden is on the former employees, because they have to compensate for the loss of beneﬁts with new business. This is just one example of how large organizations have become more decentralized and ﬂexible (Burris, 1998). Another example is the rise of telecommuting. A good deal of office work can now be carried out by remote workers using the Internet and other mobile technologies, such as smartphones and tablets, to work at home or somewhere other than their employer’s primary office. In 2016, 43 percent of workers spent some time working remotely, while 20 percent of employees worked remotely all of the time. People are also spending more time working remotely: Currently, nearly one-third of remote workers are working outside the office 80 percent or more of the time, up from about a quarter of workers in 2012 (Gallup, 2017). We see the highest proportions of remote workers in industries such as transportation and computer/information systems as well as arts, design, entertainment, and media. Remote workers are typically older (50+) and college educated, and they work in salaried professional or managerial positions. To reduce costs and increase productivity, large ﬁrms may set up information networks connecting employees who work from home with the main office. In 2009, the computer company Cisco released a study of its own employees, which found that telecommuting sig- niﬁcantly increased productivity, work-life ﬂexibility, and job satisfaction. The company reportedly accrued annual savings of $277 million in productivity by allowing employees to telecommute and telework. In addition to productivity gains, Cisco estimates that its tele- work and telecommuting policies have resulted in a reduction of the company’s carbon foot- print, saving approximately 47,320 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions due to avoided travel (Cisco, 2009). It is estimated that if all the workers whose jobs are compatible with working at home could do so, the sav- ings would total over $700 billion information and communication technology Ċ Forms each year and reduce the need for Per- of technology based on information processing and sian Gulf oil imports by 37 percent requiring microelectronic circuitry. (Global Workplace Analytics, 2014). Unanswered Questions173 One reason that telecommuting increases productivity is that it eliminates com- muting time, thereby permitting greater concentration of energy on work. Hartig, Johansson, and Kylin (2003) found that telecommuters actually spend more time on paid work when working at home than their counterparts do when working in the office. Employers view these longer hours as a primary beneﬁt of telecommuting (International Telework Association and Council, 2004). However, these new work arrangements are not perfect. First, the employees lose the human side of work; computer monitors are no substitute for face-to-face interaction with colleagues and friends at work. Second, tele- commuters experience isolation, distraction, and conﬂicting demands of work and home responsibilities (Ammons and Markham, 2004). In addition, female telecommuters face more stress from increased housework and child- care responsibilities (Ammons and Markham, 2004; Olson, 1989; Olson and Primps, 1984). In recent years, however, some large corporations have opted to buck this trend in remote work by terminating or scaling back their work-from-home policies, including Best Buy, Yahoo, and Bank of America, citing an effort to boost collaboration and communication (Gallup, 2017). On the other hand, management cannot easily monitor employees working off-site (Dimitrova, 2003; Kling, 1996). While this lack of supervision may create problems for employers, it allows employees greater ﬂexibility in managing their nonwork roles, thus contributing to increased worker satisfaction (Davis and Polonko, 2001). Telecommuting also creates new possibilities for older and disabled workers to remain independent, pro- ductive, and socially connected (Bricourt, 2004). Finally, telecommuting is contributing to new trends in housing and residential development as space for home offices becomes more of a priority. With people able to work at a distance from city centers, residential development no longer needs to be tied to commuting practices. While computerization has resulted in inc reased flexibility and a reduction in hierarchy, it has created a two-tier occupational structure composed of techni- cal “experts” and less- skilled production or clerical workers. In these restructured organizations, jobs have been redeﬁned more in terms of technical skill than rank or position. For expert professionals, traditional bureaucratic constraints are relaxed to allow for creativity and ﬂexibility (Burris, 1993). Although professionals beneﬁt from this expanded autonomy, computerization makes production and service workers more visible and vulnerable to supervision (Wellman et al., 1996; Zuboff, 1988). For instance, organizations can now monitor work patterns to the point where they can count the number of seconds per phone call or keystrokes per minute, which in turn can lead to higher levels of stress for employees. Granted, workplace computerization does have some positive effects. It has made some of the mundane tasks of clerical jobs more interesting. It can also promote social network- ing (Wellman et al., 1996). Office computers can be used for recreation; private exchanges with coworkers, friends, or family; and work-related interaction. And, as in the case of tele- commuting, computerization can contribute to greater ﬂexibility for workers to manage both their personal and professional lives. Can the Traditional Organization Survive? Traditionally, identifying the boundaries of organizations has been fairly straight- forward. Until recently, organizations were generally located in defined physical spaces, such as an office building, a suite of rooms, or, in the case of a hospital or univer- sity, a campus. In addition, the mission or tasks of an organization were usually clear- cut. A central feature of bureaucracies, for example, was adherence to a defined set of 174 CHAPTER 6Groups, Networks, and Organizations responsibilities and procedures for carrying them out. Weber’s bureaucracy was a self- contained unit that intersected with outside entities at limited and designated points. We have already seen how the physical boundaries of organizations are being broken down by the capacity of information technology to transcend countries and time zones. The same process is affecting the work that organizations do and the way in which it is coordinated. Many organizations no longer operate as independent units. A growing number are ﬁnding that they run more effectively when they are part of a web of complex relationships with other organizations and companies. No longer is there a clear dividing line between the organization and outside groups. Globalization, information technology, and trends in occupational patterns mean that organizational boundaries are more open and ﬂuid than they once were. In The Rise of the Network Society (1996), Manuel Castells argues that the “network enterprise” is the organizational form best suited to a global, informational economy. By this he means that it is increasingly impossible for organizations (large corporations or small businesses) to survive if they are not part of a network. What enables networking to occur is the growth of information technology, whereby organizations around the world are able to enter into contact and coordinate joint activities through an electronic medium. Castells cites several examples of organizational networking that originated in diverse cultural and institutional contexts but nevertheless all represent what he calls “different dimensions of a fundamental process”—the disintegration of the traditional, rational bureaucracy. Organizations can function as networks via the powerful alliances formed between top companies. Increasingly, the large corporation is less and less a big business and more an “enterprise web”—a central organization that links together smaller ﬁrms. IBM, for example, used to be a highly self-sufficient corporation, wary of partnerships with others. Yet in the 1980s and early 1990s, IBM joined with dozens of U.S.-based companies and more than 80 foreign-based ﬁrms to share strategic planning and cope with production problems. Decentralization is another process that contributes to organizations functioning as net- works. When change becomes more profound and more rapid, highly centralized Weberian- style bureaucracies are too cumbersome and too entrenched in their ways to cope. Stanley Davis (1988) argues that as business ﬁrms and other organizations come to be networks, they go through a process of decentralization by which power and responsibility are devolved downward throughout the organization, rather than remaining concentrated at the top. Networked organizations offer at least two advantages over more bureaucratic ones: They can foster the ﬂow of information, and they can enhance creativity. As we’ve seen, bureaucratic hierarchy can impede the ﬂow of information: One must go through the proper channels, ﬁll out the right forms, and avoid displeasing people in higher posi- tions. These processes not only hinder the sharing of information but also stiﬂe creative problem solving. In networked organizations, when a problem arises, instead of writing a memo to your boss and waiting for a reply, you can simply pick up the phone or dash off an e-mail to the person responsible for working out a solution. As a result, mem- bers of networked organizations learn more easily from one another than do CONCEPT CHECKS 3 1. What is the iron law of oligarchy? bureaucrats. It is therefore easier to solve 2. How are technology an

Week 8 - Chapter 6 PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue