Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Review Notes on CO:
The Nature of Organizatons: An Introduction to Complex Organizations
|
|
External
Links
|
|
Link
|
Why Study Organizations? |
|
|
Link
|
Organizations have many outcomes & effects |
|
|
Link
|
Struggle / Conflict at Work is
an Organizational Outcome
Richard Edwards calls the workplace
Contested
Terrain |
|
|
Link
|
Organizations are an important social
conduit for Social Change |
|
|
Link
|
Orgs have standing in the Legal System |
|
| |
Organizations form / aggregate to create TEN Social Structures
PF REG MCEML |
|
| |
d. Work / Economic Organizations |
|
|
Link
|
- Enterprises
/ Sole Proprietorships: the most common, in numbers |
|
|
Link
|
- Partnerships |
|
|
Link
|
- Cooperatives |
|
|
Link
|
- Corporations:
the most prevalent ( biggest & most powerful )form of business org |
|
|
Link
|
Orgs are reified |
|
|
Link
|
Organizational Typologies |
|
|
Link
|
There are SIX fundamental Types of Human
Formations ranging from Aggregate to Social Group
to Formal Org to Institution to Networks
to Social Structure |
|
|
Link
|
Primary & Secondary Groups |
|
|
Link
|
Levels of organizational democracy
range from total / direct orgl democracy to totalitarian orgs |
|
|
Link
|
Democratic Org Structure |
|
|
Link
|
Marx said little on his vision
of the future on what orgs or society would look like after capitalism |
|
|
Link
|
Weber's corporate groups delineate
charismatic, traditional, & bureaucratic orgs |
|
|
Link
|
Barnard's conception of org types
is similar to Weber's bureaucracy & Scott's rational org |
|
|
Link
|
Etzione uses types of members'
compliance as the key variable |
|
|
Link
|
Mintzberg based a typology on
the manners in which orgs are structured to meet goals, environment, etc.
implying that therre is an org imperative that structure follows strategy |
|
|
Link
|
Scott's rational, natural &
open orgs |
|
|
Link
|
Pugh, Hickson, & Hinings
classify organizations based on organizational structure |
|
|
Link
|
McKelvey uses an evolutionary
- population model |
|
|
Link
|
Organizational Boundaries |
|
|
Link
|
Organizational Networks |
|
|
Link
|
Org Change can & does occur, but it is an intricate & laborous
process hen org change occurs, the Type of Category of the org may change |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on the Importance of Organizational Studies or Why
Study Organizations?
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
- Project:
Why Study Orgs? |
Link
|
| |
- Video: Office
Space |
Link
|
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|
|
|
Organizations are simply people in relatively fixed
social relationships |
|
|
|
Orgs are reified, i.e. abstract relationships endowed w/ "life,
reality, etc." |
|
|
|
In the sense that organizations are made of people, equipment, &
buildings, there really are organizations |
|
|
|
In the sense that organizations are made of social relationships, there
really are no organizations, only people, equipment, & buildings |
|
|
Link
|
There are NINE reasons organizational studies are important |
|
| |
1. ORG'S IMPORTANCE IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED |
|
|
Link
|
The importance of orgs & org studies is widely recognized |
|
| |
2. ALL SOCIAL LIFE OCCURS IN ORGS |
|
| |
Nearly all life & social action takes place in orgs:
Orgs, orgs, everywhere... |
|
| |
"I am a rock.... I am an iiiiiiiisland"-- NOT! (w/ apologies to Simon
& Garfunkel)
Almost all human activity takes place in orgs:
birth, play, work, marriage, education, taxes, death
Orgs have outcomes for individual & for other orgs & societies
We spend most of every day in orgs |
|
| |
3. ORGS LINK THE PERSONAL & THE SOCIAL |
|
|
Link
|
Org studies address one of the major problems in the social sciences,
i.e., the micro / macro problem |
|
| |
Orgs are crucial part of micro / macro connection because they actually
connect individuals w/ the larger world |
|
| |
Mid range theory addresses issues of everyday life, as does micro level
theory, but instead of focusing on the individual, mid range theory focuses
on everyday life at the group, organizational & structural level |
|
|
|
Orgs are the link btwn individual & the world, btwn biography
& history |
|
| |
Orgs are a social tool for development the
sociological imagination |
|
|
|
See Also: the Micro / Macro Problem |
|
| |
4. SOCIAL STRUCTURES ARE DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL LIFE,
& THEY ARE MADE OF ORGANIZATIONS |
|
|
|
Social structures represent the way we usually do things such as raise
a family or get an education & changing the family is nearly impossible
& the changing educational system is very difficult |
|
|
Link
|
5. THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN ORGS & STRATIFICATION
SUGGESTS THAT WEALTH, POWER, STATUS, ETC. ARE DISSEMINATED THROUGH ORGS |
|
|
|
Thus orgs are the means by which we
socially measure, or rank,
people |
|
|
|
Stratification is social process where scarce social & physical
resources such as wealth, income, power, status, etc. are non randomly
distributed among members, groups, classes etc. of society |
|
|
Link
|
6. MOST SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE AN ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT |
|
| |
The discussion of many social problems is unrealized because they are
not recognized as orgl problems such as control of the police, prisons,
the military, etc. |
|
| |
There is little recognition of orgl constraints in many problems; e.g.,
changing the US environmental problem requires changes in the orgl structure
of the EPA, the USFS, & more orgs |
|
|
Link
|
7. ORGANIZATIONS ARE A TOOL FOR SOCIAL CHANGE |
|
|
|
Social change comes through
organizations
Orgs respond to social problems & to their environment |
|
|
|
While organizations are inherently conservative, they are also the
locus of social change |
|
|
|
See Also: Social Change |
|
|
|
See Also: Social Movements |
|
|
|
See Also: The Importance of Soc Mvmts |
|
| |
8. ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE SOURCE OF CATASTROPHIC HUMAN ERRORS |
|
| |
See Also: Perrow: Normal Accidents |
|
| |
Errors come not only from "operator error" but because of "systemic
or organizational problems" such as a chain or cascade of errors, orgl
myopia that chooses not to see problems, etc. |
|
| |
We accept larger accidents, i.e. normalize them, everyday |
|
|
Link
|
9. THE GOVT RULES & MISRULES THROUGH ORGANIZATIONS |
|
| |
Govts / public orgs are more often seen as being harmful as a result
of inaction, as opposed to their actions |
|
| |
In Love Canal, a city near Niagara Falls, NY, the govt denied
the effects of toxic wastes buried under a subdivision |
|
|
1. The importance
of orgs is widely recognized
Many sociologists & leaders recognize the imp of orgs
Who's Who in Orgl Analysis?
Many sociologists & leaders recognize the importance of orgs
Sociologists & Orgs:
Classical
Weber
Michels
Mannheim
Modern
Blau
Gouldner
Etzioni
Goffman
Herbert Simon
Collins: 'Org'l analysis has made more progress in accumulating explanatory
knowledge than perhaps any
other part of sociology'
Leaders:
(we did not have society as we know it until we advanced beyond tribal
orgs)
Pharaohs
Persians
Greeks
Rome: Caesar
The Popes
Kings & Queens of Western societies
What do leaders do? They organize
Org members do things? |
|
3. The micro /
macro problem
Micro macro problem
Structure: the macro ordering of micro processes
Durkheim & Marx had little orgl theory
Both had micro & macro theory
Durkheim: ritual density model on micro level
Div of labor model at macro
Marx: alienation of species being as micro- problem
Political economy as macro
Both could not connect this, hence problems of
Reification of social structure
Romanticization of personal relationships
Orgl Analysis lets us conceptualize macro orgs from micro interactions
First level: orgs: UVW, McDonalds, Norton Community Hospital...
Next level is interorg relations, which is itself a 'mega -
org' networks of ed orgs, bus orgs....:
Networks of el schools, mid schools, HS, Community College, Un &
network of all of them.....
Next is 'social structure:' family, ed, econ....
Next is society: Western, Eastern....
Am, UK, Japan....
Next: World systems: development & interaction
of societies
|
5. Orgl stratification
income/wealth
race
gender
status....
Example: Macro: social classes are based on (control)
positions w/in orgs (including ownership)
State is center for political control & a prop for the property
system & a locus of struggle
Capitalism itself is a kind of interorganizational network
Society, the World System runs via orgs
Example: Micro: where I end up in my org (wk) is
a primary determinant of my income (class) & status
|
6. All social
problems have an organizational component Most social
issues in sociology are orgl problems
| deviance |
discrimination: gender, race.... |
| police |
control of the military |
| corrections |
environmental degradation |
| medical sociology / epidemiology |
operation of democracy |
| educational problems |
urban |
|
7. Organizations
are a tool for social change
See Perrow, 1984 for example of orgl analysis & public issues from
R Collins: Theoretical Sociology, 1988, p. 450
|
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Organizational
Outcomes & Effects
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
- Project: Orgl Outcomes
& Effects: Parallel or Divergent? |
Link
|
| |
BECAUSE SOCIETY IS MADE UP OF / ORGANIZED BY ORGS, THEY IMPACT SOCIETY
ON ALL LEVELS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE GLOBAL |
|
| |
One of the major outcomes of orgs is social change |
|
| |
Organizations affect "who we are" on SIX levels including the:
a. individual level
d. social structural level
b. social practices level of culture, norms, values....
e.
societal level
c. organizational level
f. world system level |
|
| |
The debate over the outcomes & effects of orgs parallels the classic
debate in Sociology which asks, "What has the greatest impact on individuals
culture
or work (the economy) [idealism or materialism]?" |
|
| |
From an orgl studies point of view, the two most important orgs in
society are the family & the business org |
|
| |
Goods & services once supplied by individuals or small orgs
are increasingly being supplied by large orgs: multi national
corps |
|
| |
Note the trend of the simultaneous growth of large orgs, &
the downsizing, & dynamism of small orgs |
|
| |
Today 40% of all orgs are large while 60% have less that 1,000 wkrs |
|
|
|
DOMINATION AT MANY LEVELS IN SOCIETY IS AN ORGL OUTCOME |
|
| |
Antionio (1979) found that in Rome the bureaucracy was controlled
by an elite who dominated the masses
What evidence do we have that this is true today?
What evidence do we have that this is not true today? |
|
| |
Interlocking directorates are a form of intercorporate networking
via shared stock ownership & common directors that allows corps to
have great power |
|
| |
The concept of interlocking directorates holds that the linking of
two or more corps through at least one of their board members increases
power, control & networking of both corps |
|
| |
Centralization of banking & other financial orgs has increased
their power |
|
| |
Govt influence has increased |
|
|
|
ECONOMIC ORGS ( BUSINESSES) ARE A PRIMARY SOURCE OF DOMINATION IN
THE MODERN ERA |
|
| |
Useem ( 1979 ) examined the domination by econ orgs in his study of
Inner Group of Businesses |
|
| |
An inner group of business elites influence all major institutions
in society: govt, ed, charity, etc. |
|
| |
Orgs are active participants in the development & implementation
of govt / public policy |
|
| |
Orgs often measure success by growth |
|
| |
ORGS ARE SOURCES OF PURE POWER OF THE ECON, POLITICAL, STATUS, SOCIAL
PRESSURE TYPES |
|
| |
Perrow holds that: |
|
| |
- orgs generate power in society |
|
| |
- power may not be directly related to goals |
|
| |
- power may be used in pursuit of non goals (particular goals) |
|
| |
For Perrow, orgs can
- have own police force (Campus Police, USFS police, Pinkertons, etc.)
- sue
- lobby
- get media attention |
|
| |
Stratification is an outcome of orgs |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Richard
Edwards: Contested Terrain
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
- Video: Office
Space: Smash the Machine
1:36 |
Link
|
|
Link
|
- Biography & Major Works |
|
| |
EDWARDS INDICATES THAT ECONOMIC ORGS, I.E. BUSINESSES, ARE THE LOCATION
OF, PERHAPS, THE MAJOR SOCIAL CONFLICT IN SOCIETY |
|
| |
The conflict has shifted from business & unions, to the shop floor,
the new contested terrain |
|
| |
Machinery & bureaucratic regulations in industry derive from management's
desire to exert control over labor market characteristics & the attitudes
of workers |
|
| |
Edwards demonstrates that org conflict is shaped by class conflict
& that control w/in orgs is designed to control of class conflict |
|
| |
In modern society, conflict inside the organization, i.e. shop
floor conflict, replaced
class conflict |
|
| |
Richard Edwards calls the workplace Contested Terrain because
he believes that it is inside workplace is where most conflict
occurs in modern society |
|
| |
Edwards sees the workplace as a contested terrain where workers &
owners vie for power |
|
| |
Mgrs. seek to routinize work to control workers & create ever larger
profits |
|
| |
Workers seek more freedom & a higher standard of living |
|
| |
Edwards asks, 'Are the goals of mgt & workers inherently in conflict? |
|
| |
Edwards asks, 'How does org structure affect the achievement of the
goals of mgt & workers?' |
|
| |
Edwards asks, 'What is the effect of particular org characteristics
on the individual?' |
|
| |
Perrow holds that organizational structure impacts organizational struggle
& conflict |
|
| |
Just as the structure & culture of society affect class conflict,
so org structure & culture affect org conflict |
|
| |
ORGS EXERT DIFFERING TYPES OF CONTROL, INCLUDING: PERSONAL,
MACHINE & BUREAUCRATIC |
|
| |
For Edwards, the workplace has THREE organizational structures, each
of which is characterized by a method of control including personal
control, machine control, & bureaucratic control |
|
| |
For Edwards, the workplace is "contested terrain" where struggle /
conflict occurs w/in the org structures of control
as developed by mgt |
|
| |
Over history there has been an development of the control methods from
personal control to machine control to bureaucratic control |
|
| |
1. DIRECT PERSONAL CONTROL IS IMMEDIATE OVERSIGHT OF ACTIVITY
BY A PERSON WHO HAS AUTHORITY |
|
| |
Direct personal control was developed when work first became part of
the family structure & is still used in family businesses, small enterprises,
& even some medium sized enterprises today |
|
| |
Autonomous personal control occurs when a worker or craftsperson controls
all aspects of work, market relationships & is generally applicable
in small business today |
|
| |
Autonomous personal control occurs in craftswork & the smallest
of businesses where the owner can have a direct hand in all the workplace
relationships |
|
| |
Foreman control occurs when an owner hires lower level mgrs. to control
the job, while the owner retains control of market relationships |
|
| |
Foreman control occurs in businesses up to medium size where the owner
delegates authority of the work process to lower level mgrs, but can still
retain a hand in market relationships |
|
| |
Foreman control still exists in agriculture & construction |
|
|
|
Mgt control occurs when the owner hires lower level, middle, &
upper mgt to control the work process & the market relationships |
|
| |
Early in the Industrial Revolution punishments included verbal &
physical coercion & the threat of firing in all forms of direct personal
control |
|
| |
Today punishments are mainly restricted to firing, & a greater
number & diversity of positive rewards |
|
| |
Direct personal control still exists in small to medium sized businesses
but is difficult to implement in mass production systems that need more
coordination & standardized procedures |
|
| |
W/ direct personal control, w/o the rules & regs of bureaucracy,
owners & mgrs had tremendous latitude in the work process & mkt.
relationships |
|
| |
W/ direct personal control, mgrs. would not tend to use identical techniques
& thus standardization & coordination was difficult to maintain |
|
|
|
2. MACHINE CONTROL OCCURS WHEN THE TEMPO OF ACTIVITY CAN BE
CONTROLLED BY A MACHINE |
|
|
|
Machine control occurs where the worker is controlled & paced by
the machinery or assembly line |
|
| |
Machine control is aka technical control |
|
| |
Like scientific mgt, machine control was developed to standardize work
procedures & to achieve the increased efficiency of the use of technology |
|
| |
Machine control determined the: |
|
|
|
a. type of tools which impact the production process |
|
|
|
b. ownership of tools, which equals control of workplace |
|
|
|
c. division of labor through the organization of tools
& machines |
|
| |
d. activity & pace of the work which is directly controlled
by the assembly line |
|
|
|
Computer control, originally known as numerical control, is a relatively
new type of machine control that creates new structures of control |
|
| |
Before the widespread inception of bureaucratic control, scientific
mgt was developed which attempted to bring total direct & machine control
to the workplace |
|
| |
See Also: Scientific Mgt |
|
| |
3. BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL OCCURS BY ENSURING COMPLIANCE W/ RULES,
REGS, STANDARDS, ETC. |
|
|
|
3. Bureaucratic Control is unobtrusive, impersonal, &
indirect |
|
|
|
W/ bureaucratic control, rules & procedures circumscribe the unlimited
control of mgrs. |
|
| |
W/ bureaucratic control, all members of the org must follow standardized
rules & regs |
|
|
|
W/ bureaucratic control, impersonal control replaces favoritism |
|
Richard Edwards
Contact Information
Economics, CBA 357
P.O. Box 880489
University of Nebraska Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0489, USA
Phone: (402) 472-4995
Fax: (402) 472-9700
E-mail: redwards1@unl.edu
|
|
|
Major Works of
Edwards
Edwards, Richard. Contested Terrain, 1979. NY:
Basic Books
Rights at Work (Brookings, 1993);
The Forgotten Link, w/ Paolo Garonna (Rowman & Littlefield, 1991);
Understanding Capitalism, w/ Samuel Bowles & Frank Roosevelt (Oxford
University Press, 2005);
|
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Organizations
& Social Change
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
There are THREE perspectives from which to view orgl social change
including the nominalists, the realists, & the pragmatists |
|
| |
a. Nominalists see reality as constructed through individual
cognition |
|
| |
For the nominalists, the world is an artificial creation formed in
people's minds |
|
| |
If we were total nominalist, we would believe that all
things were possible at all times |
|
| |
b. Realist see the world as external to the individual |
|
| |
For the realist, the world is a real world made of hard tangible, relatively
immutable structures |
|
| |
Total realists believe nothing can change |
|
| |
We usually act according to some compromise btwn the nominalist &
realist positions |
|
|
|
c. Social change agents are pragmatists, using praxis
as a tool for change |
|
| |
Praxis is theoretically guided action |
|
| |
As pragmatists, using praxis, things can change, but
we must deal w/ historical forces (reified relationships), power, people,
etc. |
|
| |
Orgs are the source of both
- social stability in society
- social change in society |
|
| |
Orgs as Stabilizing Agents & are the source of nearly all
social stability:
Family
Ed
Church Job |
|
| |
Orgs by their very nature are not change agents, but "conservative:"
promote the status quo |
|
| |
We will see how orgs promote stability/stiffle change |
|
| |
Change occurs indirectly when orgs in these social structures
change unintentionally, or when their env changes
Examples? |
|
| |
Org conservatism |
|
| |
Some orgs are conservative to begin w/ |
|
| |
Org's intent is stability |
|
| |
The Civil Service & the Am auto mfrs are noted for their orgl conservativism
& lack of risk taking |
|
| |
In the education system, Janowitz (1969) notes that ed maintains it's
org/process despite changing demographics & ed needs |
|
| |
Orgs as Social Change Agents: |
|
| |
While orgs are inherently conservative social agents, nearly all social
change comes through orgs |
|
| |
A cause is not enough for social change; must have an
org |
|
| |
Change that direct result of org activity is called intentional
activity or change |
|
| |
Changes may be an indirect result of org action, which in an unintentional
activity or change |
|
| |
A (un)favorable outcome for an org can lead to changes in society |
|
| |
Intentional Social Change
Often orgs' goal is social change as seen in
- the US revolution
- the abolitionist mvmt & the Civil War
- the suffrage mvmt
- WW2: military & govt
- the Civil Rights mvmt
- the Vietnam War peace movement
- the env movement
- the TVA
- the Bolsheviks
- McDonalds
- the financial sector
- higher ed |
|
| |
- Supplement: TVA Website |
Link
|
| |
See Also: Orgl Co-optation & the Orgl Env |
|
| |
Social forecasting is the process of predicting the occurance
& effects of particular social changes |
|
| |
Orgs must generate/reap
support from society at large |
|
| |
Social Forecasting: major area in sociology today: |
|
| |
Predict any social change, & there is $$ in it! |
|
| |
Bus, politicians, social activists, etc. cannot determine when an idea's
time has come |
|
| |
Orgs become more conservative |
|
| |
Almost all "radical" orgs or social change orgs become more
conservative as they mature: |
|
|
|
Lipset documented the conservative movement of the Cooperative Commonwealth
Federation (CCF) |
|
|
|
Bolsheviks became "The Communist Party" in Russia & thus in many
ways became more conservative |
|
|
|
Bill Gates & Steven Jobs became Microsoft & Apple which are
innovative orgs, but are more conservative than their original forms |
|
|
|
There have been many Intentional or Unintentional Effects of
organizations: |
|
| |
Changes in orgs affect society |
|
| |
One of the unintential changes in society is the change in the membership
patterns in orgs as a result of women going to wk or wider stock ownership |
|
| |
One of the unintential changes in society is the change in the patterns
of wk such as longer hours for full time jobs, & sub 40 hr wks for
part time workers |
|
| |
Transforming wk to reward independent thinking, initiative, etc. has
an impact on personalities, attitudes, values |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on the Legal
Forms of Organizations
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVEN A SET OF RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES BY
THE GOVT WHILE ORGS ARE GIVEN A DIFFERENT SET |
|
| |
Hall notes an attitude shift: seeing orgs as more responsible
for criminal/negligent actions |
|
| |
Orgs are said to have standing in the legal system: |
|
| |
Organizations form / aggregate to create social structures |
|
| |
THE SOCIAL STRUCTURES ( PF REG M CEML ), & THE ORGS THAT COMPOSE,
THEM HAVE A UNIQUE LEGAL STANDING |
|
| |
1. Peers orgs have no special legal standing, though some
peer
unions are gaining power |
|
| |
2. The family is an organization with very strong legal
precedence behind it. The relationship of the parents, children,
even grandparents in the family is legally defined |
|
| |
3. Religions have legal standing similar to charities
& exist w/in the separation of church & state |
|
| |
4. Work / economic / business organizations have a legal
standing, & are highly regulated |
|
| |
- The enterprise /sole proprietorship: most common business org
in terms of numbers |
|
| |
- The partnership |
|
| |
- The cooperative |
|
| |
- The corporation is the most prevalent (biggest & most powerful)
form of business org |
|
| |
5. The government has legal standing, & a unique set
of laws compared to religion & business |
|
| |
6. The military has legal standing: legal to kill
& destroy; civilian control |
|
| |
7. Charity has legal standing & may be tax exempt |
|
| |
8. Education in both public & private sectors has
a legal standing which parallels that of govt & business |
|
| |
9. The media has a business like legal standing enhanced
by the Freedom of the Press |
|
| |
10. Leisure / recreational orgs have a business type of
legal standing, but many small leisure groups are informal orgs |
|
| |
WORKPLACES HAVE INNUMERABLE LEGAL FORMS, RIGHTS & OBLIGATIONS,
ESPECIALLY W/ REGARDS TO THE CORPORATION |
|
| |
The majority of workers in the developed nations go to work each day
in enormous corporations |
|
| |
Many workers do not know from day to day which corporate entity is
their employer because of reorganization, acquisitions, or mergers |
|
| |
Workers do have a good idea of approximately how many people work at
their particular work site |
|
| |
The term establishment is used by social scientists to denote
the place to which one reports for work |
|
| |
Many small businesses have one establishment, while many corporations
have numerous establishments |
|
| |
The establishment is important to workers because it is where they
perform their daily tasks, interact w/ other workers, & spend most
of their lives |
|
| |
The firm is the employing organization & may be organized as a
corporation, enterprise, etc., as discussed above |
|
| |
The parent company is the orgl entity, usually a corporation, which
may own or control several firms |
|
| |
A firm that is controlled by the parent company is called a subsidiary |
|
| |
A parent company that controls subsidiaries that are in different industries
is called a conglomerate |
|
| |
A multi national corporation is a parent company that owns or controls
subsidiaries in many different nations |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Sole
Proprietorships
|
|
External
Links
|
|
|
A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP IS AN ENTERPRISE OWNED BY ONE PERSON |
|
| |
A sole proprietorship may have many workers, i.e. be a big business,
but today most are small |
|
| |
A sole proprietorship is easiest & least expensive type of business
to form |
|
| |
Sole proprietorships are the most common form of business org
in terms of numbers, i.e. numerically there are more sole proprietorships
than any other form, but corporations control the most wealth |
|
| |
THE ADVANTAGES ARE EASE OF ESTABLISHMENT, PRIVACY, CONTROL, PROFIT
PRIVACY |
|
| |
The advantages of the sole proprietorship include
- the ease of establishment
- a high level of privacy
- that the owner has total control
- that there is no need to reveal performance (to anyone but IRS) |
|
| |
THE DISADVANTAGES ARE CAPITAL SCARCITY, LOAN LIMITATIONS, DEPENDENCE
ON OWNER, LIMITED LIFE, UNLIMITED LIABILITY |
|
| |
The disadvantages of the sole proprietorship include
- that it is difficult to raise capital
- that is is more difficult to get loan
- the dependence on the owner for the major pool of talent
- a limited life in that when the owner dies, the SP dies |
blank
|
| |
- that while they can be big businesses, usually they stay small only
16% of Sole Proprietorships have receipts of more than $ 1 mm |
|
| |
- unlimited liability in that the owner & SP are one & the
same & so if the SP is sued or goes bankrupt, all of the assets of
the owner, including personal property are available to pay the debts of
the business |
|
| |
Unlimited liability denotes that any damages or debts attributed
to the ent can also be attached to the owner(s) because the two have no
separate legal existence |
|
| |
Note: Corporations have only limited liability, &
this is one of their big advantages as compared to sole proprietorships |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
External
Links
|
|
|
- Project: Video:
The
Corporation |
Link
|
| |
- Video: The Corporation:
Segment 1: Intro: A Few Bad Apples
18:09 minutes |
Link
|
|
Link
|
- Video: Barbarians at the Gate
1993. 1 hr 47 min |
Link
|
| |
- Video: The Milton Friedman
Choir performs "The Corporation" 2:53 minutes |
Link
|
| |
A CORPORATION IS A FORM OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION WHICH ENJOYS THE
LEGAL STATUS OF A PERSON FOR CARRYING ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES |
|
| |
Most corps are organized for profit by subscribers who raise capital
(investment money) by selling shares of stock |
|
| |
A corp is a legally chartered enterprise w/ most of the legal
rights of a person including the right to:
- conduct business
- own & sell property
- borrow $$
- sue & be sued |
|
| |
One of the biggest advantageous of corps is that they have ability
to raise tremendous, unlimited amounts of capital |
|
| |
The corp is the most prevalent (biggest & most powerful) form of
business org |
|
| |
THE QUALITIES OF CORPS INCLUDE SEPARATE MGT & OWNERSHIP, SHAREHOLDERS,
STOCK -- 'UNLIMITED' CAPITAL, LIMITED LIABILITY, & UNLIMITED LIFE |
|
| |
Modern corps usually have a separation of management &
ownership |
|
| |
Corps existed in ancient Rome, but modern forms developed w/ the spread
of commerce in the Renaissance & growth of industry in the 18th &
19th centuries |
|
| |
Large sums of capital are needed for industrial development in such
sectors as:
- RR
- steel mills
- etc.
- Coal mines
- factories |
|
| |
Most corps operate under state charters |
|
| |
As a legal person, corps may hold property, carry on business, &
even commit crimes |
|
| |
Increasing power & narrowing control to a few owners by holding
companies (organized to control shares in other corps) has caused opposition
& some restriction by law |
|
|
|
Shareholders, a.k.a. stockholders, are the owners of a corp |
|
| |
A stock's "value" is found in its % or proportion of the corp |
|
| |
Issuing new stock reduces a shareholder's share, but the corp
must offer all shareholders new stock sufficient to maintain their share-
-for a price |
|
| |
The market price is what the stock is traded for on an exchange
& is based on many factors such as dividend payment record, capital
gains record, expectations for the future, competition, etc. |
|
| |
While sole proprietorships & partnerships have unlimited liability
which
means that any damages or debts attributed to the enterprise can also be
attached to the owner(s) because the two have no separate legal existence |
|
| |
Corps have limited liability which means that shareholders can
only lose the amt of $$ invested in stock & are not responsible for
any damages or debts of the corp |
|
| |
Liability is limited to corps assets |
|
| |
A corp's major value is not in the corp's assets, but what the stock
can be traded for-- which reflects both assets & market power |
|
| |
A corp can only be sued for its assets, ie the assets of the corp,
not the shareholders |
|
| |
Thus a corp can earn big money over several decades, pay that out to
shareholders in dividends & stock splits (capital gains), & have
little value left for outsiders to take |
|
| |
A corp that only owns stock in other corps is known as a shell corp |
|
| |
A corp that has paid out all real value & has little left internally,
is known as a hollow corp |
|
| |
The hollow corp phenomenon has been used by tobacco cos., asbestos
cos. coal cos. & others |
|
| |
In today's post industrial world, it is true that many corps have little
value other than the services they offer; e.g. Microsoft has very few assets,
etc. |
|
|
|
Unlimited life |
|
| |
Corp has unlimited life span & ownership |
|
| |
Stock trading means ownership can change drastically:
e-trade |
|
| |
Stock can be bequeathed |
|
| |
The death of any investor does not affect the life or operation or
a corp |
|
| |
A disadvantage of a corp is double taxation |
|
| |
CORPORATE PERSONNEL INCLUDE STOCKHOLDERS, DIRECTORS, MGT, &
WORKERS |
|
| |
1. Shareholders, a.k.a. stockholders, own the corp, they
"elect"
the board of directors, they "vote" on major issues, provide capital
(money) to the corp. through the price they pay for their stock certificates |
|
| |
Usually the election of the board is controlled by small group
of stockholders |
|
| |
In one sense, the top of the corporate hierarchy includes the stockholders |
|
| |
2. Board of directors "control" the corp, hire
top mgt, evaluate mgt, & vote to approve major changes in the corp
as proposed by mgt |
|
| |
In 2003, as a result of the biggest corp scandals in US history, notably
Enron & World Com, Congress has proposed legislation to increase the
power & responsibility of corp boards |
|
| |
There is a big debate today over 'Who
rules the corp?' The owners, the
board of directors or the top mgrs? |
|
| |
In corps today, undoubtedly power has moved to mgrs, but power probably
varies based on the unique characteristics of corp |
|
| |
In corps today, powerful board members often own large blocks of
stock |
|
| |
3. Top mgt runs the corp on a day to day basis and powerful
mgrs own large blocks of stock |
|
|
|
In theory, top mgt follows the direction of the board of directors,
but in practice top mgt may direct the directors |
|
| |
4. Mid mgt runs the corp day to day, under orders from
top mgt, & may own some stock |
|
| |
5. Lower mgt is line mgt who works regularly w/ workers |
|
| |
Lower mgt generally owns little or no stock, & has almost no control,
but may have some control over policies |
|
| |
6. Workers create most of the value for the org, own little
or no stock, & generally have no control or influence over policies
unless they work in an org that has policies to bring power down to the
shop floor level via QCs, ESOPs, or other employee participation programs |
|
| |
ESOPs, employee stock ownership plans, usually give workers
a minority, i.e. less than a majority ownership position |
|
| |
A few major corps, such as American Airlines & Hertz, have limited
employee participation plans which gives some control to the workers, but
most corps' constitutions limit the amount employees may own to prevent
employee control |
|
| |
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS INCLUDE LARGE ORGS THAT OWN MANY SHARES
OF STOCK |
|
| |
Examples of institutional investors include banks, mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, foundations, and sometimes other "cash rich"
corps who choose to invest in other corps rather than themselves |
|
| |
The NYC Employee Retirement System convinced Exxon to appoint an environmentalist
to its board following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 |
|
| |
Institutional investors can rock the stock market |
|
| |
A proxy is a document authorizing another to vote on behalf
of a shareholder |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
External
Links
|
|
|
REIFICATION MEANS TO TREAT SOMETHING AS IF IT HAS A "REAL" EXISTENCE,
I.E. WAS INDEPENDENT, PROPAGATE ON ITS OWN, ETC. |
|
| |
Reification is the regarding or treating of an idea as a thing; materialization |
|
| |
To reify means to make an abstraction material or concrete. Example:
to reify an abstract concept |
|
| |
Reification is making something appear natural which is really
the result of human action |
|
| |
Reification means to convert into or regard as a thing |
|
| |
Usually one reifies an abstract concept |
|
| |
Reification means to regard it as a thing, is to view it as having
a life, w/ all the rights & responsibilities, of it's own |
|
| |
Things & relationships are created by people, but over time, we
may forget this fact because it was a long time ago & we were not present
at the creation |
|
| |
Reification applies / operates in all sectors of society |
|
| |
Reification is similar to many symbolic interactionist concepts such
as life's taken for granted quality |
|
| |
The concept of reification connotes that people forget that all social
relationships are all human creations: religion, family, govt |
|
|
Link
|
Examples |
|
|
|
Lukacs utilized the concept of reification |
|
| |
For Lukacs, capitalism reifies more than other forms of society |
|
| |
Capitalism reifies more than other forms of society such as Hunter
Gatherer Society, Empires, Feudalism, Socialism, etc. |
|
| |
THE MAJOR DANGER OF REIFICATION IS THAT WE FORGET THAT WE HAVE CONTROL
OVER OUR SOCIAL CREATIONS |
|
|
|
The major hazard of reification is that we lose track that humans have
control over the reified object such as orgs, govt, etc. |
|
| |
The danger of reification is that humans forget that abstract constructs
are mere human relationships |
|
| |
People look at the reified thing & believe there is nothing that
can be done about it, that they have no power in relation to it |
|
| |
However if we examine the people & the relationships, we see we
do have power in relation to them |
|
| |
The opposite of reification is that "People made it [relationships].
People have power over it" |
|
| |
For many social theorists, it is dangerous, & erroneous, to reify
society & the major social relationships w/in it |
|
| |
Over 100 years ago, Saint Simon & Comte believed that society was
evolving toward a metaphysical stage |
|
| |
In the metaphysical stage we are governed by mere abstractions where
exploitation is structural & yet it is personal |
|
| |
Saint Simon & Comte criticized class society where an individuals
entire fate is determined by their class position |
|
| |
WHILE REIFICATION IS DANGEROUS, IT IS NECESSARY FOR SOCIETAL FUNCTIONING
BECAUSE W/O PATTERNS / HABITS WE WOULD BE CONTINUALLY REINVENTING |
|
| |
In relation to reification, the important point to keep in the forefront
is that all structural or processual analyses is that all economic forces,
whether they be relations of production, forces of production, etc. or
even whether the forces be cultural, religious, etc., are reified |
|
| |
The caution indicated by reification is that all social concepts are
reified, in fact all common knowledge is reified, & because reification
at it's most basic level is reductionism, whenever we reify or reduce,
we choose to ignore some information & thus may oversimplify |
|
| |
The heart of a sociological perspective holds that these immanent forces
are
- everywhere & exert considerable influence,
- but they are experienced as 1 on 1 relationships
- btwn real people in real associations |
|
| |
Relations become social / structural / reified because we act in patterns |
|
| |
But these patterns can often be influences / changed
a. if we are aware of them
b. if we have power in that sphere |
|
| |
The level of reification of orgs in our society makes it difficult
to remember that orgs are a human abstraction |
|
| |
One of the dangers of reifying orgs is that we lose track of the fact
that humans have control over them, thus believing that there is nothing
to be done to change them |
|
| |
Orgs are nothing but people & their actions, buildings, tools,
written info, etc. |
|
| |
But orgs seem so real, & they are in their effects |
|
| |
THE RELATION BTWN ORGS & INDIVIDUALS SHOWS THAT IF WE ARE AWARE,
WE CAN ACT BENEFICIALLY W/IN EVEN REIFIED ORGS |
|
| |
In relation to reification, orgs are reified in that while they are
seen as a real thing, in fact there are no orgs, only people, their activities,
buildings, etc. |
|
|
|
Benson holds that the social construction of orgs is carried
on in our minds |
|
| |
Benson notes that social construction denotes a continuous power laden
process |
|
|
|
Blau notes that orgs are made of
- individual behaviors
- based on direct / indirect exchanges |
|
|
|
Do orgs act? The individuals w/in them act in the org's interest |
|
| |
Orgs are actors in that
- they have a life cycle
- org factors influence decision making by individual & orgs |
|
| |
But many acts occur w/o exchanges |
|
| |
Routine behaviors are learned w/o mental reference to the interaction
process |
|
| |
Thus actions in orgs are often org based rather than self based |
|
| |
People learn to take on appropriate emotions for the task at hand as
seen in:
- friendly airline hosts
- mournful funeral home wkrs |
|
| |
Structure, properties & acts of people w/in orgs are sufficiently
stable to be treated as independent of the particular person in the org's
role |
|
Examples of reified
things:
Society
Orgs
Govt |
My car!
emotions
places such as stores |
things we want
rules & regs
goals |
|
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Organizational
Typologies
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
ORG CLASSIFICATION IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF DIVERSE MISSIONS, ORGL
DYSFUNCTIONING, 'SIDE' GOALS, ORGL REIFICATION, INFORMAL OPS |
|
| |
It is difficult to classify orgs for the FIVE reasons that
a. orgs do not always follow / adhere to their missions
/ goals which makes classification difficult
b. orgs are not perfect which makes classification
difficult
c. many things go on in orgs that are not goal related
which makes classification difficult
d. goals seem to take on a life of their own: Goals
are reified. Orgs themselves are reified which makes classification
difficult
e. orgs have non formal, or not officially recognized
goals,
which makes classification difficult |
|
| |
It is difficult to classify orgs because orgs are not internally
uniform
Orgs have internal differences
Orgs are political entities in that they form coalitions, power
is a factor, etc.
Orgs have oppositional forces |
|
| |
Orgl Typologies are useful because unless we have an adequate
typology, both theorists & practitioners have little guide for action |
|
| |
ORG TYPES SHOULD INCLUDE LARGE POPULATIONS, SAMPLES, METHODOLOGY,
ATTRIBUTES, BE INCLUSIVE, BE STRATIFIED |
|
| |
McKelvey believes that a strong orgl typology has SIX qualities
including the use of
a. broad populations of orgs
b. a probability sample
c. as inclusive methodology as possible
d. probability samples of attributes
e. measures of org characteristics that are inclusive
f. stratified probability samples |
|
| |
The major dangers of orgl typologies are over-simplification &
over complexity |
|
| |
There is no single adequate org typology & experts must determine
critical variables, which have a tendency to change over time |
|
| |
OTHER IMPORTANT VARIABLES FOR ORG TYPING INCLUDE CONDITIONS, ENV,
INTERNAL ACTIONS, OUTCOMES, PUBLICNESS, PRIVATENESS, DOMINANCE, ORGL DEMOCRACY,
ETC. |
|
| |
For Hall, there are FOUR critical variables in the construction of
an org typology including
a. external conditions
b. actions w/ the external environment
c. interactions w/in the org
d. the outcomes of the org actions |
|
| |
For Scott, there are innumerable critical variables |
|
| |
A critical variable in organizational classification is publicness
vs privateness |
|
| |
Publicness & privateness in orgs is impacted by the degree the
org is affected by political authority & econ authority
Pub orgs have hi political & lo econ influence
Private orgs have lo political & hi econ influence |
|
| |
A critical variable in organizational classification is mkt power
& envl dominance |
|
|
Link
|
Mkt & envl power is closely related to size, which may develop
into monopoly power |
|
| |
Mkt & envl power is closely related to whether an org can dominate
it's competitors, govt, or even significant portions of society itself |
|
| |
There are SIX fundamental types of human formations ranging
from aggregates to a social groups to formal orgs to
institutions to networks to social structures |
|
| |
The level of organizational democracy ranges from total / direct
democracy to totalitarian rule |
|
| |
Each of the TEN social Structures is composed of unique types of orgs;
for example the work /econ/ business soc struc is generally composed of |
|
| |
i. Sole Proprietorship |
|
| |
ii. Partnership |
|
| |
iii. Cooperative |
|
| |
iv. Corporation |
|
| |
The charity social structure is generally composed of |
|
| |
i. religious orgs |
|
| |
ii. non profit orgs |
|
| |
iii. social service orgs |
|
| |
iv. NGO: nonprofits are a growing sector |
|
| |
Sectors of the Economy |
|
| |
FROM MARX TO MCKELVEY, SOC THEORISTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE
OF UNDERSTANDING ORGS FOR UNDERSTANDING SOCIETY, & HAVE VIEWED ORGS
AS THE BANE, BOON OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH, FOR SOCIETY |
|
| |
Marx said little on his vision
of the future: what orgs or society would look like after capitalism |
|
| |
Weber's corporate groups delineate charismatic, traditional,
& bureaucratic orgs |
|
| |
Both Marx & Weber believed that organizations are likely to dominate
society |
|
| |
Barnard's conception of org types is similar to Weber's bureaucracy
& Scott's rational org |
|
| |
Parsons bases org type on the function or goals served by the
org:
- Parsons establishes a link btwn organizations & society
- But Parsons is so abstract, his schema is useful for only some org
act |
|
| |
Etzione uses types of members' compliance as the key variable |
|
| |
Mintzberg based a typology on the manners in which orgs are
structured to meet goals, environment, etc. & he sees an orgl imperative
to dev an orgl structure which follows the org's strategy |
|
| |
Scott categorizes orgs as rat, nat, open orgs |
|
| |
Pugh, Hickson, & Hinings classify organizations based on
organizational structure |
|
| |
McKelvey uses an evolutionary - population model |
|
| |
Organizational Boundaries mark different types of orgs |
|
| |
Organizational Networks affect the type of an org |
|
| |
Org Change can & does occur, but it is an intricate &
laborious process |
|
| |
When org change occurs, the Type of Category of the org may change |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Primary
& Secondary Groups
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
- Supplement: Study Reports
People Have Fewer Friends |
Link
|
| |
- Monkey Sphere |
Link
|
| |
1. PRIMARY GROUPS ARE CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING PERSONAL,
REGULAR, FACE TO FACE CONTACT |
|
| |
Primary groups:
Small, close knit group
Members interact because they value or enjoy one another
Primary groups are always small
Usually made up of significant others & some role models
Relationships are the most important purpose of the group's existence |
|
| |
A primary group may be a social group, or a small group |
|
| |
Primary groups are usually not very large |
|
| |
Examples: family, friends, close work mates, etc. |
|
| |
A primary group is a small social group whose members share personal
& enduring relationships |
|
| |
People in primary groups share many activities, spend a great deal
of time together, & feel they know one another well |
|
| |
Members think of the primary group as an end in itself rather than
as a means to other ends & they view each other as unique & irreplaceable |
|
| |
2. SECONDARY GROUPS ARE CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING IMPERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS THAT EXIST FOR PURPOSES BEYOND THE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
AMONG GROUP MEMBERS |
|
| |
Examples of secondary groups include businesses, political organizations,
schools, voluntary orgs, etc. |
|
| |
Secondary groups include generalized others & some role
models |
|
| |
Personal or primary relationships become secondary to the goal of the
group |
|
| |
Secondary groups are large & impersonal social groups devoted to
some specific interest or activity |
|
| |
Secondary groups involve weak emotional ties |
|
| |
See Also: The Strength of Weak Ties |
|
| |
Secondary groups are commonly short term; they are goal oriented; &
they are typically impersonal |
|
|
|
Primary groups can & do form w/in secondary groups |
|
| |
SECONDARY GROUPS HAVE PROLIFERATED AS SOCIETY MODERNIZED |
|
| |
Secondary groups have proliferated as society modernized |
|
| |
Secondary groups have been added to primary grouping
But do we have less primary relationships? |
|
| |
Secondary groups may be a social group, a small group or a large group |
|
|
|
There is a continuum from primary to secondary groups & therefore
the line btwn them is never clear |
|
|
|
We have the same amount of primary relationships today as we did in
the past |
|
| |
A secondary group is the most important group in a workplace |
|
| |
Examples of secondary groups include the Chamber of Commerce, Walmart,
a religion, the Army, etc. |
|
| |
A secondary group has members who may not know each other very well |
|
| |
A secondary group is one in which the relationships among people are
less personal |
|
| |
Secondary groups have grown but have not replaced primary groups in
industrial societies |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Marx
on Organizations
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
MARX BELIEVED THAT PRAXIS, THE MELDING OF THEORY & PRACTICE,
SHOULD PRAGMATICALLY GUIDE ORGL BEHAVIOR |
|
| |
Marx's critique & vision: |
|
| |
Most of Marx's large volume of work constituted a critique
of
laissez faire capitalism & of the political events
of his time |
|
| |
Thus, Marx said little on his vision
of the future, what orgs or society would look like after capitalism |
|
| |
Marx's notion of praxis is useful in understanding his view
on orgs |
|
| |
Praxis is theoretically guided action |
|
| |
Praxis implies action w/ long term goals in mind |
|
| |
Praxis is historically guided action |
|
|
blank
|
PRAXIS ORIENTED ORGS HAVE GOOD COMMON, ESCHEW ALIENATION, &
ESTB MODES FOR ATTAINING HUMAN POTENTIAL |
|
| |
Orgs then, even more than individuals, should be able to utilized praxis |
|
| |
In order to practice praxis in orgs, people first must meet their subsistence
or survival needs, must have a language & communications system,
& must seek innovation |
|
| |
Marx's concepts of alienation & realizing one's species being are
also useful in designing orgs |
|
| |
A person must be able to realize their full humanity, or they become
alienated |
|
| |
The concept of alienation has been widely used in the study of orgs |
|
| |
Workplace alienation is a common pitfall of large bureaucratic
corporations |
|
| |
Orgs should be the modus operendi of achieving one's species being,
i.e. humanity or human potential |
|
| |
ORGS ARE AT THE CENTER OF DOMINATION |
|
| |
For Marx, bureaucracies only meet the needs of the rich & powerful |
|
| |
For Marx, bureaucracies are class oriented social structures |
|
| |
Bur today, to us, large bureaucratic corporations seem "natural" in
that we grew up w/ it |
|
| |
But as we see, it is relatively new & has a unique socio historical
development |
|
| |
Bureaucracy is a method through which the dominant class maintains
control of orgs |
|
| |
Rationalization & efficiency are as important to functionalists
as to Marxists |
|
| |
But Marxists thought we should have a whole life:
- prevent alienation in the workplace
- by having fulfilling work
- control of the work
- & control of the fruits of the work |
|
| |
Productivity studies consistently find that giving workers more control
in the workplace increases productivity |
|
| |
Reducing or eliminating the hierarchical features of bureaucratic orgs
should increase the org's production |
|
| |
Marx believed that socialism would be less sufficient than capitalism
But he wanted to sacrifice efficiency
to preserve humanity |
|
| |
THE WITHERING OF THE STATE DENOTED THAT ORGS, ESP THE GOVT, AS AN
ORGAN OF DOMINATION WOULD FADE & BE REPLACE BY STRUCTURES ENABLING
HUMAN POTENTIAL |
|
| |
Withering of the state: Marx & Engels thought the
state bureaucracy would wither away because the state is merely a method
of class domination |
|
| |
The withering away of the state is a similar process to that pursued
by the Republican party & "Founding Fathers:" in their beliefs that
the govt which governs the best, governs the least |
|
| |
The withering away of the state is a similar process to laissez faire
govt |
|
| |
Marx & Engels believed we would live in self governing enclaves |
|
| |
Many analysts note that the state is growing, not shrinking |
|
| |
But Marx & Engels thought in the very long term |
|
| |
The pervaisiveness of Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy is estimated to
operate in 95% of orgs |
|
| |
But it is changing in that 70% of Fortune 500 practice some form of
non bureaucratic relationships such as enhanced worker involvement in org
decision making |
|
| |
Many soc theorists, such as Farley, believe that no independent society
can exist w/o bureaucracy |
|
| |
A more radical view is that no independent society can exist with complex
orgs, but Weber's bureaucracy is not the only type of complex organization |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Weber
on Organizations
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
- Project: The Qualities of Corporate
Groups |
Link
|
| |
ORGS ARE CORPORATE GROUPS IN THAT THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY FORMED
TO ACCOMPLISH SOME TYPE OF GOAL |
|
| |
Weber distinguishes btwn formal & informal orgs e.g.
a business & a family |
|
| |
Here Weber is primarily concerned w/ formal orgs |
|
| |
There are TWO types of corporate groups & these types make
up a continuum, w/ no real org exhibiting pure or ideal characteristics,
which ranges from non bureaucratic orgs to bureaucratic orgs |
|
| |
Weber uses the term corporate, not in the modern sense of the corporation,
but in the archaic, broader meaning of any formal org |
|
| |
Weber recognized SEVEN qualities of corporate groups including:
1. social relationships
2. closed or limited admission
3. rules ( formal & informal )
4. individuals have regular functions |
5. associative interaction
6. common interests
7. power & / or authority |
|
|
| |
1. SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS CHARACTERIZE ORGS IN THAT THEY
ESTB HABITUATED INTERACTION |
|
| |
In relation to Weber's corp grp quality of soc rel, people interact
w/in the org in regular or patterned ways that form consistent soc relations |
|
| |
Soc relationships in general & social relationships in orgs are
not random or informally structured; they are structured by the "rules"
of the org |
|
| |
2. CLOSED OR LIMITED ADMISSION CHARACTERIZE ORG IN
THAT THEY HAVE BOUNDARIES THAT MUST BE CROSSED TO ENTER |
|
| |
Orgs do not have random admission |
|
| |
Admission into an org is usually based on some need or goal of the
org & structured by the rules of the org |
|
| |
3. RULES CHARACTERIZE ORGS IN THAT THE HABITUATED INTERACTION
CAN BE SANCTIONED BY NORMS |
|
| |
Rules ( formal & informal ) estb the pattern of interaction through
rewards & punishments & the formalization of goals |
|
| |
4. REGULAR FUNCTIONS CHARACTERIZES ORGS IN THAT THEY
HAVE BASIC TASKS, SUCH AS THE DIV OF LABOR, WHICH MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED
FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE ORG |
|
| |
In orgs, individuals have regular functions which are estb by
rules, & organized in the hierarchy of authority & the div of lab |
|
| |
5. ASSOCIATIVE INTERACTION CHARACTERIZE ORGS
IN THE RULES, GOALS, ETC. ARE RATIONALLY AGREED TO, USUALLY INVOLVING COMPROMISE |
|
| |
In formal, corporate orgs, interaction is associative rather
than communal |
|
| |
Associative orgs are goal oriented via purposively, i.e. rational,
patterned processes, such as a business |
|
| |
Communal orgs are interest oriented, i.e. they exhibit "unconscious
goals" via natural, i.e. "unconscious traditional" processes such as characterize
family decisions |
|
| |
6. COMMON INTERESTS CHARACTERIZE ORGS IN THAT IT IS
THIS AFFINITY WHICH IS FORMALIZED IN THE GOALS, RULES, ETC. OF THE ORG |
|
| |
In orgs individuals have some common interests & in some cases,
it may be the formal goal of the org |
|
| |
7. POWER & / OR AUTHORITY CHARACTERIZE ORGS IN
THAT DIRECTING THE ORG CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH FORCE OR CONSENSUAL
PARTICIPATION |
|
|
|
Weber distinguishes btwn power & authority |
|
|
|
Power involves force or coercion: threat of aggression |
|
|
|
Authority involves a suspension of judgment on part of recipients |
|
| |
Under conditions of authority, as opposed to power, directives are
followed because it is believed that they ought to be followed & thus
compliance is "voluntary" |
|
| |
Under conditions of authority, there is the requirement of a common
value system |
|
|
|
See more on bureaucracy: a type of corporate org |
|
|
|
There are TWO types of non bureaucratic orgs: |
|
|
|
- traditional |
|
|
|
- charismatic |
|
|
|
Examples of non bureaucratic orgs include:
- family business
- feudal govt
- feudal mil
- religious orgs: churches, mosques, synagogues.... |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Henry
Mintzberg on Organizational Types
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
ORGS ARE /SHOULD BE STRUCTURED TO MEET GOALS GIVEN THE CONTINGENCIES
OF THE ENV |
|
| |
Mintzberg based a typology of orgs on the manners in which orgs
are structured to meet goals, & address the env |
|
| |
Mintzberg based a typology on the manners in which orgs are
structured to meet goals, environment, etc. implying that there is an org
imperative that structure follows strategy |
|
| |
Mintzberg believes there is an organizational imperative which dictates
that structure follows strategy |
|
| |
For Mintzberg, the structure strategy imperative dictates that an orgl
structure must be based on its orgl strategy to be effective |
|
| |
That is, an organization's structure should be formed in such a manner
as to support the organizational strategy |
|
| |
Another way of saying that structure follows strategy is that 'a tool
should be suited for the task' |
|
| |
Org types should be based on orgl strategy |
|
| |
Strategy should be based on the situation in the env, & the strategy
or goals of the the dominant coalition in the org |
|
| |
MINTZBERG BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE FIVE FUNDAMENTAL TYPES OF ORGS
INCLUDING THE:
A. SIMPLE STRUCTURE
B. MACHINE BUREAUCRACY
C. PROFESSIONAL BUREAUCRACY
D. DIVISIONALIZED FORM
E. ADHOCRACY |
|
| |
A. THE SIMPLE STRUCTURE IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL SMALL
BUSINESS W/ DIRECT SUPERVISION |
|
| |
For Mintzberg, the simple structure type of org:
- has direct supervision
- is generally small
- exists in a dynamic env
- generally employs low tech |
|
| |
Examples of a simple structure orgs include:
- auto dealers
- small colleges
- family businesses |
|
| |
B. THE MACHINE BUREAUCRACY IS THE MFR / PRODUCTION
ORG WHERE CONTROL IS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PACE OF THE MACHINES / ASSEMBLY
LINE |
|
| |
For Mintzberg, the machine bureaucracy type of org:
- has a standardization of the work process
- is generally large in size
- exists in a stable env
- is generally controlled by an external body |
|
| |
Examples of a machine bureaucracy structured orgs include:
- the postal system
- manufacturing firms
- airlines
- prisons |
|
| |
C. THE PROFESSIONAL BUREAUCRACY IS THE STANDARD OFFICE
STRUCTURE ORG WHERE CONTROL IS ACHIEVED THROUGH PERSONAL EVAL |
|
| |
For Mintzberg, the professional bureaucracy type of org:
- exhibits standardization through professional or craft training
- exists in a stable env
- there is little external control
- a monopoly on skills & knowledge is key |
|
| |
Examples of professional bureaucracy orgs include:
- universities
- law firms
- welfare agencies
- craft production firms |
|
| |
D. THE DIVISIONALIZED FORM IS OFTEN A PROF BUREAUCRACY
THAT IS LARGE, REQUIRING DIVISIONS / GLOBAL STRUCTURE |
|
| |
For Mintzberg, the divisionalized type of org:
- has a unique structure
- is structured as a bureaucracy
- is generally large size |
|
| |
Examples of the divisionalized form include:
- corporations
- multi campus universities
- socialist economies |
|
| |
E. THE ADHOCRACY IS AN ORG PURSING AN NON PRODUCTION,
NON MONETARY GOAL, USUALLY AN INTEREST ORIENTED OR INTANGIBLE GOAL |
|
| |
For Mintzberg, the adhocracy type of org:
- exists in a dynamic env
- exhibits a flexible, changing structure |
|
| |
Examples of the adhocracy type of orgs include:
- space agencies
- artistic orgs
- R & D labs |
|
Internal
Links
Top
|
|
External
Links
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION: NETWORKS ARE LOOSE LINKING OF A NUMBER OF ORGS
TO PURSUE COMMON INTERESTS |
|
|
|
Networks are a human formation which consists of any combination
of the other human formations in a relatively organized, unified system |
|
|
|
Networks may be considered as operating on two levels: the org
level, & the individual level |
|
|
|
Orgl networks are often called business connections |
|
| |
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGS HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF NETWORKS VARYING
ON THE CONNECTIVITY OF LINKS, GOALS, BOUNDARIES, COSTS & BENEFITS,
ETC. |
|
|
|
Orgs have ties / linkages |
|
|
|
Org boundaries are not always clear, so network boundaries are not
always clear |
|
|
|
Orgs are always linked to other orgs sometimes formally, sometimes
informally |
|
|
|
Because orgs are always linked to other orgs, org theorists say that
all orgs are in networks |
|
|
|
The level of autonomy of any node in a network depends on many
factors |
|
|
|
Collegiate Network: |
|
|
|
- MECC & Radford are a formal network |
|
|
|
- UVW & UVa are a formal network |
|
|
|
- Many local colleges belong to the SAC ( informal network
) |
|
|
Link
|
- Other Nodes in in the Collegiate Network? |
|
| |
A SOCIAL NETWORK IS A SOCIAL STRUCTURE MADE OF NODES WHICH
ARE GENERALLY INDIVIDUALS OR ORGS |
|
| |
Individual networks are often called social networks, friends,
contacts, circle of friends etc. |
|
| |
Networks may be formally or informally organized, but most networks
are informally organized |
|
| |
The line btwn org & social networks is never clear because
a friend may be a work related friend, & a work associate may also
be a friend |
|
| |
The type of reward that an actor perceives they may receive from a
network delineates the org network from a social network |
|
| |
A network reward may be perceived to be primarily career oriented
or a reward may be perceived to be socially or personally oriented,
or a reward may be perceived to be both career & socially or
personally oriented |
|
| |
Individuals may be offended or flattered if they perceive that what
was an org connection is now being pursued as a social connection, &
vice versa |
|
| |
Soc nets are connected through various social familiarities
ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds |
|
| |
The term soc net was first coined in 1954 by JA Barnes (in: Class and
Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish, "Human Relations") |
|
| |
For many soc theorists, the maximum size of social networks
tends to be around 150 people (Dunbar's number) & the average
size around 124 (Hill & Dunbar, 2002) |
|
| |
Soc nets operate on many levels, from families up to the level
of nations, & play a critical role in determining the way problems
are solved, orgs are run, & the degree to which individuals succeed
in achieving their goals |
|
| |
Recently, the term social networking also refers to a category of internet
applications to help connect friends, business partners, or other individuals
together using a variety of tools |
|
| |
A UTILITARIAN NETWORK IS THE LOOSE LINKAGE OF CORPS &
OTHER PRODUCTION / MONETARY ORIENTED ORGS |
|
|
|
Utilitarian orgs, e.g. businesses have their networks of suppliers,
customers, govt agencies |
|
| |
A GOVERNMENTAL NETWORK MAY BE LOOSELY LINKED, OR MORE TIGHTLY
LINK, IF COOPERATION IS REQUIRED BY LAW |
|
|
|
Most govt agencies have mutual support agreements, & thus
are in networks |
|
| |
A NORMATIVE NETWORK IS THE LOOSELY LINKED SET OF ORGS PURSING
INTEREST / VALUE BASED GOALS |
|
|
|
Almost any org w/ "association" in it's title is a normative
network |
|
|
|
Normative orgs, e.g. charities, unions, interest groups, NGOs, etc.
are very dependent on their networks |
|
| |
NETWORKS CREATE POWER BY ACHIEVING SCALE, PROVIDING ACCESS TO RESOURCES,
SUPPLEMENTING MISSIONS, ETC. |
|
|
|
A network creates power for an organization or an individual |
|
|
|
Associations of similar orgs creates power for the association as well
as for the individual orgs |
|
|
|
Suppliers |
|
|
|
Users of output |
|
|
|
Regulatory agencies |
|
| |
SOCIAL / INDIVIDUAL NETWORKS WHICH COMBINE W/ ORGL NETWORKS ARE
THE MOST POWERFUL TYPE OF NETWORK |
|
|
|
Individuals have networks that operate w/ the same dynamics
as organizational networks |
|
|
|
Individual & org networks both may have individuals & other
orgs in their networks |
|
|
|
Networks continue to function based on the perceived possibilities
of rewards (one assumes everyone has something to offer) as well as
actual
rewards accumulated in the past |
|
|
|
Often individual or org networks are unbalanced in that one
actor perceives more rewards than the other |
|
|
|
Orgs may network based on org priorities, but they often network more
effectively when combined w/ individual networks |
|
|
|
An example of individual networks enhancing org networks is interlocking
directorates |
|
|
|
An individual & org networking example of interlock directorates
is if Steven Forbes is a tennis partner w/ Henry Ford the 4th, they both
have children in the same private prep school, & they are buddies,
then they end up on the Board of Directors of Time Warner |
|
|
|
A fruitful org network will also serve to build fruitful individual
networks |
|
|
Other Nodes in
in the Collegiate Network
State Legislature
City of Wise
Students
AAUP
VA Dept of Ed
High Schools
Grad Schools
|
|
|
Internal Links
Top
|
|
Outline on Organizational
Change
|
|
External Links
|
| |
- Project: Orgl Change
Examples |
Link
|
| |
ORGL CHANGE IS THE MUTUAL CHANGE OF PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR AS WELL
AS CHANGE IN VARIOUS OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS STRUCTURE, GOALS, MISSION, OUTCOMES,
ETC. |
|
| |
Orgl change is just one type of social change: see Orgs
& Social Change |
|
| |
Orgl change can & does occur, but it is an intricate & laborious
process |
|
| |
Orgl change is said to be intentional when someone ( any orgl
actor ) consciously tries to change the org |
|
| |
The process of intentional orgl change is called orgl development |
|
| |
Org change is said to be evolutionary or natural when the org
changes w/o the intention of any org actor |
|
| |
When org change occurs, the type or category of the org may change
or one or more components of the org may change |
|
| |
The ideographic approach to examining org change offers a detailed
analysis of meanings that soc actors attach to situations, orgs, envs &
seeing that these meanings should be stated in their own words |
|
| |
The nomothetic approach to examining org change offers hypotheses
testing w/ the sci meth & the use of sys research methods |
|
| |
In both the ideographic & the nomothetic approach to examining
org change, the research obtains data from key informants & from the
gen members of the org & outsiders in it's immediate org env |
|
| |
A COMMON TYPE OF ORG CHANGE IS STRUCTURAL CHANGE, FROM FOR
EXAMPLE, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP TO A CORP, ETC. |
|
| |
SEVEN examples of the type of the org changing from one fundamental
structure to another include: |
|
| |
1. a sole proprietorship incorporating to become a corporation |
|
| |
2. Weber's analysis of the transformation of a charismatic org
to a bureaucracy |
|
| |
3. a totalitarian org to a democratic org or vice versa |
|
| |
4. a social group formalizing to become a formal org
like a business or charity |
|
| |
5. Scott's analysis of the transformation of a rational to natural
or open orgs |
|
| |
6. the changing of the boundaries of an org leading to orgl
growth or decline |
|
| |
7. a change in the level of networking of an org leading to
orgl change |
|
| |
ORG CHANGE OCCURS BOTH IN REACTION TO THE ENV & BY USING THE
ENV AS A RESOURCE |
|
| |
Org change occurs w/in a broad context including the env of
other orgs, econ, political, & soc patterns & changes, & the
change efforts of the orgs themselves |
|
| |
Thus org change occurs as the result of an orgl actor, as the
result of natural processes, or as the result of env factors |
|
| |
At times orgl change flows nearly automatically while at other times
orgl change is forced on an unwilling org |
|
| |
Kimberly, Miles, ( K & M ) & Associates, 1980, examine the
"life
cycle" of orgs |
|
| |
For K & M, orgs are born, grow, & decline & sometimes
they reawaken & sometimes they disappear |
|
| |
For K & M, investors try to determine the phase of an org, preferring
growth over decline |
|
| |
For K & M, orgs can change in form irrespective of the life cycle |
|
| |
Hage, 1980, defines org change as "the alteration & transformation
of the form so as to survive better in the environment" |
|
| |
ORG CHANGE OCCURS AS THE ORG CHANGES ITS GOALS, AS GOALS 'NATURALLY
EVOLVE' AS GOALS BECOME OUTDATED BY THE ENV, AS GOALS EXPAND, ETC. |
|
| |
Org goals should be clearly considered when addressing org change
which delineates btwn planned & spontaneous org change |
|
| |
Org survival is the ultimate test of an org |
|
| |
But some argue that this should not be the goal, rather a more task
oriented goal should dominate & if that task is complete, the org
should disband |
|
| |
Orgl change is based on environmental pressure & internal pressure,
including goals |
|
| |
McKelvey, 1982, argues that most changes are due to external (allogenic)
forces as opposed to internal (autogenic) forces |
|
| |
Thompson, 1967, emphasizes internal or goal directed forces such as
managers
actions under conditions of rationality |
|
| |
Benson, 1977, sees org change as developing dialectically |
|
| |
Organizational Change Potential |
|
| |
THE ORG CHANGE PROCESS HAS THE STAGES OF CONCEPTION, BIRTH &
FOUNDING, TRANSFORMATION, INNOVATION, DEATH |
|
| |
a. Conception
b. Births & Foundings |
|
| |
c. Orgl Transformation
Stasis
Growth
Decline |
|
| |
Population Ecology |
|
| |
d. Orgl Innovation |
|
| |
e. Orgl Death |
|