Internal
Links

Top
 Review Notes on  CO:  Organizational Power
External
Links
Link
 Stratification, Class & Power   
Link
       The Stratification of Power   
Link
       Status   
Link
 Power as Influence   
Link
       Organizational Power   
Link
       Who holds organizational power?   
Link
       Morgan's classification of org'l power   
Link
       Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy   
Link
       Cliques & coalitions   
Link
       Professionals   
Link
       Power of Lower Level Employees   
Link
 Weber on Orgs   
Link
       Charismatic Orgs   
Link
       Traditional Orgs   
Link
       Rational / Bureaucratic Orgs   
Link
       Rational / Bureaucratic Orgs -- Advanced 
Link
       Orgs have evolved from charismatic to rational orgs:   Comparison of Charismatic, Traditional, & Rational Orgs   
Link
 Organizational Conflict 
Link
       Etzione   
Link
       Compliance is the most frequent outcome of a power act   
Link
       Causes of Organizational Conflict   
Link
       The Conflict Situation   
Link
       Org Conflict Outcomes  
Link
       The Social Outcomes of Power   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Stratification & Interactions of Power
External
Links
  STRATIFICATION IS THE SOCIAL PROCESS WHERE SCARCE SOCIAL & PHYSICAL RESOURCES SUCH AS WEALTH, INCOME, POWER , STATUS, ETC. ARE NON RANDOMLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG MEMBERS, GRPS, CLASSES, ETC. OF SOCIETY 
 
  "Strata" means layers   
  In the social sciences, there are typically THREE foci of stratification analysis including power, status, & class which are based on power/authority, prestige, & economics   
  POWER IS THE ABILITY OR AUTHORITY TO ACT OR DO SOMETHING, OR TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE, OR CONTROL SOMETHING OR SOMEONE  
  Power:  The political scientist Robert Dahl ( 1957 ) defined power as 
-  the ability of a person or social formation (group) 
-  to get another social formation 
-  to act or believe in a particular way 
-  that they would not have done before 
 
  There is a clear distinction btwn power, authority, & influence 
 
  STATUS IS ANY POSITION W/IN A SOCIAL SYSTEM; THUS ONE IS IN A HIERARCHY OF PRESTIGE   
  Status is aka prestige, honor, respect, etc.   
  Positions are roles w/ status   
  A CLASS IS A SOCIAL GROUPING OF PEOPLE W/ SIMILAR SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS & RELATIONSHIP TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, IN ANY TYPE OF SOCIETY   
  Class represents economic power in modern, industrial, state capitalist, global economies 
 
  Thus class confers power, authority, influence & status 
 
  Individuals (e.g., Ross Perot) & orgs (PACs) often see their main task as converting one form of power into another 
 
  In our society, economic power is the predominant type of power, therefore actors often try to convert economic or class power to other types of power 
 
  Nearly all power conversions take place through organizations 
 
  All power relationships take place in a context of inequality, hence the appropriateness of linking an analysis of power to an analysis of stratification   
  Power relationships can only occur in a stratified society   
  The greater the disparity of stratified resources, the greater the opportunity for the use of power   
  In an equal society (understanding that total equality can never occur), there would be no stratification & no power, as it is defined here   
  Power, can & does occur based on the strat of other types of resources, & will inevitably continue to occur based on these other types of resources such as gender, friendship, popularity, etc.   

 
External
Links

Top
Outline on the Stratification of Power
External
Links
 
 -  Video:  Power             0:29 
Link
  POWER IS THE ABILITY OR AUTHORITY TO ACT OR DO SOMETHING, OR TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE, OR CONTROL SOMETHING OR SOMEONE   
  Review:  Stratification is the 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   
  Power is the ability to affect the actions of others   
  The political scientist Robert Dahl ( 1957 ) defined power as the ability of a person or social formation (group)  to get another social formation to act or believe in a particular way that they would not have done before   
  Power may be exercised on many levels such as 
a.  the individual level 
b.  the group level 
c.  the organizational level 
d.  the societal level 		  
  Most theorists believe power is meaningless unless it is used   
  For most social theorists, there is an interaction among class, status, & power   
  The study of power was first made important by Hobbes   
  For Hobbes & many others, power involves force or coercion, the threat of aggression, etc.   
  POWER IS OFTEN SEEN AS POLITICAL POWER WHERE THE COERCION IS POLITICIZED, & THIS IS EASILY CONFUSED W/ POLITICAL AUTHORITY OR INFLUENCE   
  For Weber, power is exercised through the political system & organizations   
  For Weber, the political dimension is the most important because this is where Weber puts "inevitable" organizational struggle   
  The power dimension of stratification is based on political position   
  For Marx, power is exercise through the economic system & orgs   
  Marx holds that the class / economic dimension is the most important, i.e. the basis & conduit more the primary exercise of power in society   
  Parsons holds that the status dimension is the most important, i.e. the basis & conduit more the primary exercise of power in society   
  Others argue power is exercised through all social structures, including 
1.  peer networks  6.  the military 
2.  the family / gender  7.  charity 
3.  religion  8.  education 
4.  work /economy  9.  the media 
5.  govt  10.  leisure / recreation 
 
  Power, in modern societies, is exercised through social structures primarily through influence, but also through authority, orgl politics, control of information, control of wealth, & even force & coercion   
 
 Most social theorists agree that in most situations, there is no fixed amount of power   
  LEGITIMATE POWER IS POWER THAT PEOPLE ACCEPT AS PROPER   
  Legitimate power is power that people agree that the people exercising the power have the right to do so or groups accept as proper   
  Legitimate power is often attached to a position in society; i.e. teachers have power in the class room, police in the street, parents in the home; & each of these people would not have power in the others' sphere   
Link
 There are SIX basic sources of power including   
  1.  Authority   
  2.  Politics:  voting, elections, etc.   
  3.  Force & Coercion   
  4.  Control of Information   
  5.  Wealth & Income   
  6.  Influence   
  There is a subtle distinction btwn power based on authority, politics, force, coercion, expertise, information, wealth, income, or influence, but the types of power often interact or reinforce each other   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Status
External
Links
  STATUS IS PRESTIGE, HONOR, RESPECT   
  Review: Stratification is a social process where scarce social & physical resources such as wealth, income, power, status, etc. are non randomly distributed among members, groups, classes etc.   
  The prestige dimension of stratification is based on status position   
  If people think highly of you and you are well known, you have a high level of status, prestige, etc.   
  STATUS IS A RELATIVE POSITION OR STANDING IS A SOCIAL SYSTEM   
  Any position, role, in a social system has a status
 
  The concept of status denotes that one is in a hierarchy of prestige   
  Positions are roles w/ status 
 
  Thus status is another form of power, in that one can use status to get people & orgs to act in ways that they would not otherwise act 
 
  Legally, status is ones legal character, position, or condition of a person or thing such as the status of a minor, a corporation, a prisoner, etc.   
  Status is often used to signify position in a social structure   
  There are particular rights & responsibilities (duties) attached to each status position in society 
      Examples:  student & teacher         parent & child          doctor & patient 		  
  But a status based analysis may or may not place one in a position w/in a hierarchy in that the ranking of status is less linear than economic or power strat   
  FOR MANY FUNCTIONALISTS, A PERSON'S STATUS IS THE MOST CENTRAL ATTRIBUTE IN UNDERSTANDING THEIR POSITION IN SOCIETY; E.G. MORE IMPORTANT THAN CLASS, WHICH IS THE MOST CENTRAL TO CONFLICT THEORISTS   
  Many analysts develop major theoretical orientations on status 
 
  Max Weber first made status important in social analysis   
  For Weber, the stratification of status is seen in a fixed hierarchy of prestige & honor   
  For Weber, Objective indicators of status stratification include 
- ones style of life 
- ones restrictions or advantages on social interactions (networking) 		  
  Talcott Parsons:  Of any theorist, Parsons gives the most prominence to status as a mode of  stratification in social analysis   
  OCCUPATIONAL PRESTIGE IS THE ESTEEM & RESPECT ASSOCIATED W/ HIGH TO LOW OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT 
 
  Examples of occupational prestige can be seen in the varying status of a plumber or an electrician, & an office wkr or a teacher, & a lawyer or doctor 
 
  While occupations may have slightly different status', the differences of status of a plumber & an office wkr are more based on economics & power   
  In relation to occupational prestige surveys done over half a century in the United States have consistently shown that the same jobs retain high status   
  Kerbo believes the concept of status does NOT explain the primary characteristics of strat in the modern industrial world 
 
  For Kerbo, strat is based more on economics & power 
 
  Status attainment research examines the exact mixture of achievement versus ascriptive factors that determine where people end up in the status hierarchy 
 
  Neo Marxists, post modernists, feminists, popular culture analysts, et al would counter Kerbo's conception of status being superseded by econ & power   
  Some analysts would note that the power of status in today's world has increased, pointing out that actors, performers, musicians, politicians, & others' social position is based more on status than econ or power   
  Kerbo points out that most people whose social position appears to be based on status, also have high economic position income, & or power   

 
Top
  
Table:  Occupational Prestige Ratings:  US Compared to 60 - Country Average
Far0506
OCCUPATION
60 COUNTRY AVERAGE
US
University Professor or Dean
86
82.4
Physician
78
 81.5
University Professor
78
78.3 
 Physicist
76
73.8
 Member, Board of Directors
75
71.8
 Lawyer
73
75.7
 Architect
72
70.5
 Dentist
70
73.5
 Chemist
69
68.8
 Sociologist
67
65.0
 Airline pilot
66
70.1
 High school teacher
64
63.1
 Clergy member
60
70.5
 Personnel director
58
57.8 
 Artist
57
57.0
 Classical musician
56
55.0
 Social Worker
56
52.4
 Journalist
55
51.6
 Professional nurse
54
61.5
 Secretary
53
45.8
 Actor or actress
52
55.0
 Union official 
50
41.2
 Real estate agent
49
44.0
 Professional athlete 
48
51.4
 Farmer
47
43.7
 Motor vehicle mechanic
44
35.8
 Policeman / woman
40
47.8
 Railroad conductor
39
40.9
 Telephone operator
38
40.4 
 Jazz musician
38
37.2
 Carpenter
37
42.5
 Dancing teacher
36
32.3
 Firefighter
35
33.2
 Sales clerk
34
27.1
 Truck driver
33
31.3
 File clerk
31
30.3
 Assembly line worker
30
27.1
 Construction worker
28
26.2
 Gas station attendant
25
21.6
 Waiter
23
20.3
 Janitor
21
16.1
 Farm worker
20
21.4
 Garbage collector
13
12.6
 Shoe shiner
12
   9.3 
Note:  In a limited number of instances, there were slight differences in job titles btwn the world average and the US average.  The closest job title was used.

Source:  Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective by Donald J. Treiman, 1977, Academic Press. 

 
External
Links

Top
Outline on Power as Influence
External
Links
  -  Project:  Power & Orgl Power in Your Org   
  POWER IS ALWAYS A BASIS OF STRATEGY, ALONG A NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS, & ORGL INFLUENCE IS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF POWER / BASIS OF STRATEGY, TODAY 
 
  Review:  Stratification is a 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   
  Review:  Power is the ability to affect the actions of others   
  Orgl power is power that is circumscribed by the rules & culture of an org, which is the ability to affect the actions of people & grps w/in the org as well as to control the org to such an extent that it may be directed to affect the actions of people, grps, & orgs outside the org   
  There are SIX basic sources of power   
           a.  Authority   
           b.  Politics:  voting, elections, etc.   
           c.  Force & Coercion   
           d.  Control of Information   
           e.  Wealth & Income   
           f.  Influence   
  f.  Influence as a Source of Power   
 
 INFLUENCE IS AUTHORITY THAT IS ACCEPTED AS A DECISION IS MADE, USUALLY IN A FORMAL ORGL SETTING 
 
  Influence is the ability to pressure, sway, control, or manipulate a decision or the use of power in an org   
  The influence dimension of stratification is based on orgl position   
  Influence occurs most frequently in formal orgl settings where there is a high degree of structure & expectations that individuals will make particular types of decisions, i.e. wield power, in particular situations   
  INFLUENCE CAN OCCUR OUTSIDE OF FORMAL ORGS, OFTEN W/ A BASIS IN CHARISMA OR COERCION   
  However, influence does occur in other, informal types of orgs such as small groups, informal orgs, etc.   
  When influence occurs in a formal org, it is usually based on the authority of the roles or positions of the org that are involved, & it is in sync w/ the rules & procedures of the org, however, "rogue" decisions can be made by individuals not authorized, or that are a breach of the rules & procedures of the org   
  Influence outside of formal orgs, because it is generally unconstrained by orgl actors' positions, or by orgl rules, is more likely to be based on charisma or coercion   
  INFLUENCE IS VERY TIME DEPENDENT IN THAT IT MAY APPEAR NON EXISTENT, THEN EXIST IN THE MOMENT OF THE DECISION, & THEN FADE AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED   
 
 Bacharach & Lawler (1980) demonstrated that authority is often accepted as a decision is made, consciously or unconsciously at the particular moment power is exercised   
  Thus the time component is critical in determining the nature power, authority & influence in most orgs   
  In most situations, there is no fixed amount of power 
Power is extremely variable 
It may come / go quickly 		  
  Emerson, 1962, describes power as residing in other's dependency because a power relationship is always tied by mutual dependence   
  In mutual dependence, it is imperative that each party may be able to control or influence other   
  In mutual dependence, each, to some degree, may grant or deny rewards,  facilitate or hinder other   
  In most power relationships there is a "mutual dependence," especially in organizations, but in today's world, power is usually disproportionately available   
 
 While mutual dependence may be difficult to validate in relationships such as abuse or slavery it is apparent in organizational relationships   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Organizational Power 
External
Links
  -  Project:  Power & Orgl Power in Your Org 
Link
  ORGL POWER IS THAT POWER EXERTED BY MEMBERS W/IN AN ORG & BY THE ORG OVER OTHERS   
  Orgl power is power that is circumscribed by the rules & culture of an org, which is the ability to affect the actions of people & grps w/in the org as well as to control the org to such an extent that it may be directed to affect the actions of people, grps, & orgs outside the org   
  All power has both individual & orgl aspects which cannot be separated in practice 
 
  Power in formal orgs is usually influence power 
 
  Influence is the the authority that is accepted as a decision is made, usually in a formal orgl setting   
  While influence is the primary form of power that is used in decision making in orgs, the other forms of power, e.g. authority, political pwr, coercions, control of info, econ pwr, are also used   
  Influence is the primary form of power utilized in an org, & in a rational org it should be the primary form of power utilized because it is power used, contained w/in the proper orgl context of actors, rules, env, etc.   
  Influence is not the only form of power utilized in orgs because even in the most rationalized orgs, the maximization or rationality is not possible because there are always unknown factors in decisions per bounded rationality   
  See Also:  Rationality   
  See Also:  Decision Making   
  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGL POWER INCLUDE THAT  IT: 
         1.  HAS A BASIS IN RATIONALITY, TRADITION/AUTHORITY OR CHARISMA 
         2.  IS AFFECTED BY INTERNAL FACTORS:  STRUCTURE, CULTURE, ECON POWER, ETC
         3.  IS AFFECTED BY  EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THE ORG'S CONTROL 
         4.  HAS ORIGINS WHICH IMPACT POWER'S LONGEVITY
         5.  USUALLY HAS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF OLIGARCHY:  IE A CABAL OR GRP OF POWER HOLDERS 		  
  1.  IDEALLY ORGL POWER IS BASED IN RATIONALITY, BUT IN PRACTICE ALL FORMS OF POWER COME INTO PLAY IN ORGS, EG:  TRADITION/AUTHORITY & CHARISMA  
  Because of the orgl factors that lie outside of rat dec mking, i.e. the context of bounded rat, some part of the decision, some part of the power utilized may be based on authority, politics, coercion, control of info, econ pwr, & not exclusively on the factors influencing the decision / use of pwr  
  Individuals acquire power both from their own unique attributes ( charisma, tradition, knowledge, etc.), & also from their organizational attributes (  authority, organizational resources, etc.)   
  Analysts look not only at individual power, but also at the power that comes in the positions & roles that people fill in orgs 
 
  Interdepartmental power is primary which is to say that important power laden conflict often exist btwn depts 
 
  Power is an act btwn people: most often from different departments 
 
  Power is used to signify power: increase awareness of others of ones power 
 
  The point of view of the one who is being affected by power is crucial in determining if a power play has occurred 
 
  If the one affected believes a power play has occurred, then it has 
 
  Organizational power varies according to internal & external factors 
 
 
 2.  ORGL POWER IS AFFECTED BY MANY INTERNAL FACTORS OF THE ORG INCLUDING STRUCTURE, CULTURE, ECON POWER, ETC.
 
  An internal orgl power base consists of the EIGHT resources held that permit the exercise of power, including 
1.  the ability to reward 
2.  coercion 
3.  legitimacy 
4.  expertise, knowledge, or info 		 5.  referent for power recipient 
6.  office or structural position (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980) 
7.  personal characteristics such as charisma 
8.  opportunity, etc. 
 
  Depts capable of dealing w/ uncertainty have more power 
 
  Depts w/ nonsubstitutible resources such as irreplaceable skills which are central to the work flow have more power 
 
  Thus power shifts depending on how well depts & individuals cope w/ the demands of the env 
 
  In uncertain situations, or situations where nonsubstitutible resources come into play, the established horizontal hierarchy & degree of centralization is often ignored 
 
  But the vertical hierarchy is often still as important as it was where power is concerned 
 
  In extreme situations, even the vertical hierarchy may come into play where power is concerned 
 
  Wamsley (1970) holds that organizational power is variable because of SIX factors, including that power 
a.  varies by hierarchic level 
b.  is situationally specific 
c.  is surrounded by checks & balances 
d.  makes one interdependent 
e.  players may utilize negotiation & persuasion 
f.  varies as coalitions change 
 
 
 3.  EXTERNAL FACTORS WHICH AFFECT ORGL POWER MAY BE TOTALLY OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE ORG, OR THEY MAY BE PARTIALLY CONTROLLABLE
 
  A network creates power for an org   
  See Also:  A Network is an association of similar orgs, including but not limited to 
    Suppliers 
    Users of output 
    Regulatory agencies 
    Similar orgs		  
  TWO General External Economic Conditions impact an org's power 
- On the Demand Side, the products' markets & price are the most important 
- On the Supply Side, price & source of material & labor are the most important 		  
  Secondary General External Economic Conditions also influence an org's power 
a.  interest rates 
b.  amount of debt holdings by the govt, corps, consumers, etc. 
c.  vitality of the stock market, etc. 		  
  Working together (cooperation) increases power for all   
  Amount of power increases w/ a joint cooperative agreement   
  Lammers, 1967, found that in a joint project, managers & workers influence each other more effectively & create joint power & are more effective   
  Factors Causing Power to Vary in Orgs:   
  Power does not generally vary dramatically from situation to situation & at any one point in time, the amount of power is fixed:  zero sum game   
  But power may change radically over time   
  Power levels changes in orgs through external & internal changes   
  The external expansion of power into org's env   
  The internal expansion of power through changed structural conditions expediting interaction & influence among all & motivational conditions result in increased interest by all & greater willingness to be controlled   
  External development affects social & psychological process w/in the org conducive to a high level of internal control   
  External & internal power are mutually supporting:   
  As external power increases, org members are more willing to submit to internal power   
  4.  THE ORIGINS OF POWER OFTEN AFFECT WHETHER IT WILL BE LONG LASTING OR NOT   
  Some depts are delegated important task in first place & these types of moves are often a power play to begin w/   
  Once a dept gains power, it tries very hard to keep power   
  Powerful depts receive more resources:  the rich get richer & poor get poorer, maintaining the incumbency of power   
  The power distribution impacts the distribution of resources e.g., rewards, budgets, etc.  
  The reverse is also true, the distribution of resources impacts the power distribution   
  Power's distribution, effect etc., in voluntary orgs is in some ways the same & in some ways different   
  Volunteer orgs need volunteer members participation   
  The importance of democratic process increases in voluntary orgs because members & voluntary & expect more participation   
  The democratic form of power tends to increase continued participation   
  Volunteer orgs need increased permeability to new ideas & interests if democracy is to be maintained   
  5.  OLIGARCHY IS THE POWER OF A SMALL, CLOSED, NETWORK OF PEOPLE, I.E. A DOMINANT COALITION, WHO COOPERATE TO CONTROL AN ORG   
  Thus prevention of oligarchy is especially important in volunteer orgs   
  Michels developed the Iron Law of Oligarchy which demonstrates that oligarchic power emerges & is maintained through FIVE processes, including 
 
  a.   the delegation of authority or tasks   
  b.   those in power having access to resources ( info, $$, etc.) that those in power do not have   
  c.   those in power having both legitimacy & a sense of obligation of the followers   
  d.   incumbency   
  e.   human "self interest:"  once power emerges, people & organizations seek to preserve & then expand it   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Who Holds Organizational Power?
External
Links
  POWER IS ALLOCATED BY THE ORGL STRUCTURE & CULTURE & VARIOUS THE ORGL ENTITIES SHAPED BY THESE, ESP 
1.  DEPTS 
2.  MGT 
3.  CLIQUES & COALITIONS 
4.  EVALUATORS 		 5.  STAFF
6.  LINE / MGRS 
7.  ACCTING & INFO SYSTEMS 
 
  Power, authority, influence, etc. is all held by individuals in their positions in the organizational hierarchy 
 
  Thus, people higher up in the org should have more power than those lower in hierarchy 
 
  Power is often held in relationships outside of the formal organizational structure 
 
  a.  Organizational culture creates & allocates power
 
  b.  Informal networks create & allocate power 
 
  c.  Individual attributes, such as charisma, tradition, knowledge, etc., create & allocate power 
 
  Horizontal power relations should, but do not have to create power 
 
  Members, at each level of the org, struggle w/ peers for resources 
 
  Power may not enter into relationships if parties have no reason to influence others 
 
  Power plays w/ peers often enters in the types of conflicts over 
a.  budgets 
b.  output quotas 
c.  priorities for personnel 
d.  what new tech is adopted & who gets it 
 
  1.  DEPARTMENTAL  POWER IS SOMETIMES SO GREAT THAT IT DOMINATES THE ENTIRE ORG
 
  Perrow (1970) notes that sales depts are overwhelmingly the most powerful in orgs 
 
  In the past it was engineering / production which were the most powerful in most orgs   
  Fligstein (1987) notes that entrepreneurs or people who came up through mfr dominated corp presidencies in early 1900s, while today it may be finance 
 
  The parts of the org w/ most power carry out the most critical functions & have the other parts of the org depend on them 
 
  2.  MANAGEMENT HOLDS POWER IN MOST ORGS TODAY   
  But there are other forms of orgs where power is more equally distributed   
  3.  CLIQUES & COALITIONS ARE INFORMAL ORGS W/IN THE ORG WHICH CAN HOLD POWER   
  May be groups of mgrs, or any of the power holders discussed below   
  4.  POWER IS HELD BY EVALUATORS THROUGHOUT THE ORG   
  Dornbusch & Scott (1975) demonstrate that regardless of who has day to day power over one power in orgs is often contained in evaluation   
  The one who evaluates, has authority   
  Dalton (1959) demonstrates that staff / line power struggles are constant occurrences in several areas   
  5.  STAFF OFTEN COMES INTO CONFLICT W/ LINE PERSONNEL   
  Staff often have SIX characteristics that bring them into conflict w/ line personnel, including that they are: 
1. younger 
2. more formalized 
3. concerned w/ dress & manners 
4. more theoretically oriented than line mgrs 
5. more expert power 
6. must secure coop from line/managers to do anything 		  
  An early innovation in bureaucracy was the development of specialized staff positions   
  Modern bureaucracies often include staff positions that are outside the linear chain of command  
  See Also:  Mintzberg, who has developed a 5 part model of the modern bureaucracy that includes staff & line segments   
  Staff positions are ancillary support positions   
  Staff positions are filled by specialized workers trained in some specific area, such as safety & health, law, accounting , personnel relations or other important functions that support the main activity of the org   
  Staff report directly to someone in a line position at a given level of the org; however, they have no direct relationship to those higher up in the hierarchy or to those in subordinate positions   
  Staff are supplementary experts needed at specific levels of the org, but they are not included in the formal chain of authority   
  Staff have less frequent promotion opportunities than for Line Workers because they have less defined job ladders   
  6.  LINE / MANAGERS OFTEN COME INTO CONFLICT W/ STAFF  
  Line / mgrs have characteristics that bring them into conflict w/ staff because they: 
a.  seek income, promotions, power 
b.  hold the power through controlling the promotion process 
c.  fear that staff may threaten their domain 
d. struggle over the same resources 		  
  Line positions are those included in the linear chain of command w/in a bureaucracy   
  7.  ACCOUNTING & INFO SYSTEMS ARE CENTRAL AGENTS OF POWER BECAUSE THEY DEAL W/ THE ORG'S MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCES   
  Accounting & info systems are important agents of power for reasons including that 
a.  incentive systems provides basis of reward distribution 
b.  power holders shape & decide what are issues & non issues 
c.  they have access to critical info that others do not 
d.  they have a range of professional discretion that can allow for divergent outcomes 		  
  Staff resents line & vice versa   

 
Internal
Links

Top
Outline on Morgan's Classification of Organizational Power
External
Links
  Morgan delineates SIX Classifications of Org Power   
  1.   IN AUTOCRACIES, POWER IS HELD BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR SMALL GROUP W/ ABSOLUTE CONTROL 
 
  See also:  Types of govt   
  Many 'closely held' corps are controlled by the primary owner / stockholders & are thereby autocracies   
  All non incorporated, privately held firms are autocracies   
  2.  IN BUREAUCRACIES, RULES & POWER RELATIONSHIPS ARE CLEARLY SPECIFIED 
 
  Morgan recognizes that the bureaucracy is the dominant form of organization today 
 
  Bureaucracies are the most common today, & weild the most power   
  The most common form of bureaucracy is the corporation   
  While the corporation is organized as a bureaucracy, it has characteristics of a representative bureaucracy, but in fact most often operates as an autocracy   
Corps often operate as autocracies because a ruling coalition of upper class investors controls it, & not the stockholders in general 
  See also:  Bureaucracy   
  3.  IN TECHNOCRACIES, KNOWLEDGE & EXPERTISE PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR RULE 
 
  Hi tech firms are known for their unique mgt style where the most scientifically influential people lead the org   
  Some hi tech firms have experimented w/ tradl mgt, but at the very least this sets up major conflicts btwn the technocrats & the mgrs   
  Some hi tech firms have successfully employed tradl mgt   
 
 4.  IN CODETERMINATION ORGS, OPPOSING PARTIES IN THE ORG SHARE IN RULING THE SYSTEM 
 
  Codetermination is often used when corps merge, but sometimes one corp's mgrs take over while the other mgrs are let go   
  Codetermination is often used when unions, or labor orgs of one type or another, participate in mgt of the org w/ the tradl mgrs   
  Codetermination is often used when profl associations such as doctor or lawyer assoc's participate in mgt of the org w/ the tradl mgrs   
 
 5.  IN REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRATIC ORGS, OFFICERS ARE ELECTED & SERVE SPECIFIC TERMS FOR AS LONG AS THEY HAVE CONSTITUENT SUPPORT 
 
  See also:  Democratic Orgs   
  Yugoslavia, under the former cold war leader Tito, used the system of representative democratic orgs extensively 
 
  See also:  Tannenbaum on Org Centralization of Power   
  Yugoslavia's system of representative democratic orgs was destroyed as Yugoslavia broke up after the fall of the Soviet Union & the breakup of the Soviet block 
 
 
 6.  IN DIRECT DEMOCRATIC ORGS, EVERYONE PARTICIPATES THROUGH VOTES OR CONSENSUS & HAS THE RIGHT TO RULE 
 
  Democracy, whether direct or indirect, in orgs in the West today is very rare   
  Formally many orgs have some vestiges of democracy as seen in the ability of people to vote their shares in a corp, union / Labor power which gives wkrs some voice, employee participation structures such as quality control circles ( QCCs ), but in fact most wkrs do not exercise this power   

 
Internal
Links

Top
Outline on the     Iron Law of Oligarchy    by Robert Michels
External
Links
  -  Project:  Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy 
Link
 
 INTRO:  THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY HOLDS THAT ALL ORGS WILL DEVOLVE TO BEING RULED BY A FEW 
 
  'Oli' means few   
  Oligarchy is the tendency to be ruled by a few 
 
 
 Oligarchy is rule by a small group of leaders w/ little or no effective influence on the part of its members   
  Oligarchy is a small group of people who rule  w/ absolute power   
  The term oligopoly is commonly used to describe a group of dominate businesses, that are not a monopoly, but together, control an entire market:  e.g. airlines, steel, auto, etc.   
  See Also:  Forms of Govt   
  THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY POSITS THAT POWER & AUTHORITY IN ORGS TENDS TO BE CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A FEW TOP PEOPLE, WHICH DOMHOFF LATER COMES TO CALL THE 'DOMINANT COALITION'   
  Michels pointed out the link btwn bureaucracy & political oligarchy, the rule of the many by the few   
  Michels conceived of the idea of the iron law of oligarchy in 191l 
 
  The "iron law of oligarchy" refers to the pyramid shape of bureaucracy placing a few leaders in charge of orgl resources   
  In any organization, power becomes concentrated in hands of the leaders, who may then use that power to protect their own interests   
  The iron law of oligarchy holds that even in democratic orgs, democracy devolves into oligarchy   
  For Michels & many other social theorists, power has a self perpetuating aspect   
 
 Michels found that the socialist parties of Europe, despite their democratic ideology & provisions for mass participation, seemed to be dominated by their leaders, just like the tradl conservative parties 
 
  Studying political parties, Michels concluded that the problem lay in the very nature of orgs   
  Modern democracy allowed the formation of orgs such as political parties, but as such orgs grew in complexity, they paradoxically became less & less democratic  
  The iron law of oligarchy states that all forms of org, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually & inevitably develop into oligarchies   
  THE OLIGARCHIC PROCESSES OCCUR AS A FEW PEOPLE GAIN POWER VIA THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, ACCESS TO RESOURCES, LEGITIMACY, INCUMBENCY, & THE PURSUIT OF SELF INTEREST   
  The reasons for the development of oligarchy are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves & to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, & the general immobility & passivity of the masses   
 
 Michels developed the iron law of oligarchy which demonstrates that oligarchic power emerges & is maintained through FIVE processes, including 
 
  a.   the delegation of authority or tasks via the division of labor   
  b.   that those in power have access to resources ( info, $$, people, the hierarchy, etc.) that others do not have   
  c.   the followers confer both legitimacy & a sense of obligation on their leaders   
  d.   incumbency   
  An Incumbent is someone who is already in office, or any position   
  e.   human "self interest" in that once power emerges, people & orgs seek to preserve & then expand it   
        See also Power   
        See also Organizational power   
  FOR MICHELS, OLIGARCHY & BUREAUCRACY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, & BOTH SEEK TO MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY   
  For Michels, oligarchy & bureaucracy are essentially the same, & both seek to maximize efficiency   
  However oligarchy & bureaucracy are quite different & any org may be more or less bureaucratic, & more or less oligarchic, independent of each other   
  Oligarchy develops out of a desire to be effective   
  Michels was a student of Weber & his analysis of oligarchy is built on Weber's theories of bureaucracy   
  The simple observation is that the day to day running of a complex org by its mass membership was impossible & therefore, professional full time leadership & direction was required   
  In theory the leaders of the org were subject to control by the mass membership, through delegate conferences & membership voting, but, in reality, the leaders were in the dominant position   
  Leaders possess the experience & expertise in running the org, they came to control the means of communication w/in the org & they monopolized the public status of representing the org   
  It became difficult for the mass membership to provide any effective counterweight to professional, entrenched, leadership   
  Michels also argued that these inherent orgl tendencies were strengthened by a mass psychology of leadership dependency  
  He felt that people had a basic psychological need to be led   
  Michels lived at a time when mass demo & the political party were new political & social phenomena  
  In mass demos the individual is powerless on his/her own to get their voice heard & their demands met   
  In mass demos, a basic need for org in that to get their voice heard & their demands met, individuals must organize themselves collectively   
  In any type of org, the elites tend to look after their own personal interests   
  The elite use their own set of knowledge & expertise to influence the decision making process w/in the org   
  'Ordinary members' of the org may be excluded effectively from the decision making processes of the org   
 
 IS OLIGARCHY AN IRON LAW OR A TENDENCY?  MOST EXPERTS AGREE IT IS A STRONG TENDENCY THAT MUST BE PURPOSELY BE GUARDED AGAINST VIA VARIOUS DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURES   
  The iron law of oligarchy is just a social tendency, but a very strong, inevitable tendency that becomes reality unless steps are taken & institutions & policies are developed to resist it  
  Our nation is based on belief that the iron law of oligarchy is just a tendency  
  Govt has extraordinary controls to limit oligarchy  
Link
  What are the systems in govt that maintain democracy?
 
  EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATE THAT THE GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE INTL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, & THE GREEN PARTY ALL SUCCUMBED TO OLIGARCHY 
 
  An example that Michels used in his book was Germany's Social Democratic Party  (SDP)   
  Early on in his adult career Michels himself was an active socialist & a member of the SDP  
  Michels' 'iron law of oligarchy' can, in some senses, be seen as the product of Michels' personal experiences as a socialist member of the German SDP   
  His 'iron law' is based upon Michels empirical study of the German SDP & a number of associated trade unions   
  Michels concluded from his studies that the German SDP whilst proclaiming a 'revolutionary' program & manifesto was quickly becoming part of the German 'establishment'   
  One of the most known exceptions to the iron law of oligarchy was the now defunct International Typographical Union, (ITU) described by Seymour Martin Lipset in his 1956 book, Union Democracy  
  The size & complexity of a group or org is important to the iron law as well   
  During the 1970s & early 1980s, the Green Party of Germany made a conscious effort to try & break the iron law   
  In the Green Party, anyone could be or could remove a party official   
  In the Green Party, there were no permanent offices or officers   
  In the Green Party, even the smallest, most routine decisions could be put up for discussion & to a vote   
  When the Green Party was small, these anti oligarchic measures enjoyed some success   
  But as the org grew larger & the party became more successful, the need to effectively compete in elections, raise funds, run large rallies & demonstrations & work w/ other political parties once elected, led the Greens to adapt more conventional structures & practices   

 
Top  
Orgs rarely operate w/ system's to maintain democracy as does govt
What are these systems that maintain democracy?

The systems in govt that maintain democracy include the separation of powers, checks & balances, the free press, fundamental rights (i.e., the Bill of Rights), two thirds majority to change the system, the vote


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on Cliques & Coalitions
External
Links
  A CLIQUE IS A RELATIVELY CLOSE & EXCLUSIVE INFORMAL SOCIAL GROUP W/ DISTINCT BOUNDARIES 
 
  A clique usually has 3 to 9 people   
  In common usage, the word "clique" has a negative connotation, however for social scientists, it is neutral meaning peers, personal network, friends, etc. 
 
  Cliques are an imp component of power systems in orgs because it is these groupings that form the informal org communication network, i.e., the "grapevine" 
 
  Dalton (1959) notes that self interest takes form in a clique formation 
 
  There are THREE types of cliques 
 
  A defensive clique functions to maintain or defend members, groups, resources, etc. 
 
  An aggressive clique functions to accomplish some purpose 
 
  A differentiated clique ( Mintzberg: 1979 ) is composed of people in different parts of the org dal w/ qualitatively different info 
 
  An example: of a differentiated clique is seen in the unity of a sales rep, sales manager, marketing VP all in same functional area, but deal w/ info w/ different time frames & referents 
 
  A COALITION IS A TEMPORARY ALLIANCE BTWN PERSONS OR GROUPS TO PROMOTE A COMBINATION OF INTERESTS 
 
  In many ways, a coalition is a formalized clique   
  Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Pfeffer, 1981 researched coalitions & found they formed as parties seek to advance their own interests 
 
  Coalitions seek to exert power over other coalitions & advance their own interests 
 
  Orgs are combinations of cliques & coalitions 
 
  Orgs are highly political w/ shifting alliances & power arrangements 
 
  Mouzelis, 1967, found that  orgs are a bewildering mosaic of swiftly changing & conflicting cliques which cut across depts & traditional loyalties 
 
  Clique formation is not random   
  Clique & coalition formation begins from the established organizational order & then becomes a variation of that order   
  There SEVEN common influences impacting clique & coalition formation: 
1.  age 
2.  position in org 
3.  education 
4.  length of time in org 		 5.  personal values 
6.  issue interest 
7.  issue expertise 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Professionals 
External
Links
  -  Project:  What are Professionals? 
Link
  A PROFESSIONAL IS A PERSON IN AN OCCUPATION WHO IS HIGHLY EDUCATED OR TRAINED IN THAT FIELD   
  A professional is an organizational actor who, because of their occupation, based on advanced education, is generally afforded high status & authority 
 blank
  Traditionally, the professions included only doctors, lawyers, accountants, & professors   
  Today, the types of professionals has grown to include dentists, computer programmers, & other white collar occupations   
  In relation to professionals, a new category of workers has emerged who are called semi-professionals   
  Semi-professionals include nurses, police, firefighters, legal aids, and so on   
  PROFS HAVE UNIQUE ORGL RELATIONSHIPS CONCERNING: 
1.  THEIR  EVALUATION
2.   CONTROL OF THE ORG & THE ORG'S CONTROL OF THEM 
3.  THEIR REWARD SYSTEM
4.  THE DIFFERENT VIEWS THAT PROFLS & ORGS HAVE OF EACH OTHER
5.  THE NETWORKS OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS THEY POPULATE
 
  1.  THE EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONALS BY NON PROFLS IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE 
 
  Evaluation of professionals is done the best by professionals in the same area of expertise 
 
  Often, there is no similarly trained professional available to do the evaluation 
 
  Professionals are not generally trained to do evaluations   
  The evaluation of professionals by non-professionals is NOT widely practiced   
  Problems arise in the evaluation of professionals when it is done by a manager w/o expertise 
 
  The evaluation of professionals by those w/o expertise creates conflict 
 
  2.  THE CONTROL OF PROFLS IS PROBLEMATIC FOR MANY ORGS BECAUSE THEY TEND TO GO OFF ON TANGENTS 
 
  Our society has even developed a cultural icon of the the "nutty professor" 
 
  Orgs attempt to exert legitimate control over professionals through the organizational hierarchy 
 
  The professional is apt to resist control 
 
  If the org gives control over professionals to the professionals themselves, then the org loses control & cannot be sure they are contributing to org goals 
 
  The control dilemma is resolved by allowing professionals to control themselves w/ fellow professionals held accountable for the unit's success 
 
  3.  THE REWARD SYSTEM FOR PROFLS IS UNIQUE TO THEM 
 
  The reward system is more complicated for professionals in that while professionals desire $$, etc., they are just as likely to want recognition from other professionals   
  Professionals are usually not promoted by moving them to administration positions 
 
  Professionals have a dual career ladder 
    Professionals can advance by 		  
      a.  The traditional method; i.e., into an administrative position   
      b.  Staying at professional work w/ an increase in pay   
      c.  Publications & fame   
      d.  Participation in professional associations   
  Argyris, 1969 critiques this reward system   
  4.  PROFLS & THE ORGS THEY WORK IN OFTEN HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF EACH OTHER   
  Professionals feel as if org is intrusive, rules & regulation bound, & unresponsive to their contributions to their field   
  The org sees professionals as hopelessly impractical, & out of touch w/ what is important for the org   
  The professionals themselves have very widely divergent points of view   
  There is no one universal orgl or sociological truth system   
  Experts can take differing views of what is good, rational, legal, or effective   
 
 Perspectives of accountants, lawyers, research scientists, mgt. consultants & execs often differ radically   
 
 Perspectives differ so much that they are often speaking different languages, using different vocabularies & meaning systems   
 
 5.  PROFESSIONALS ARE OFTEN LINKED BY A NETWORK PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH ALSO EVALUATE & REWARD THEM 
 
 
 In the past, the four classic professions of doctors, lawyers, accountants, & professors were primarily self employed 
 
 
 Self employed professionals had near total autonomy 
 
 
 Today, professionals increasingly find themselves in large bureaucracies subject to the control under managers 
 
 
 Because of the loss of autonomy, professionals are more frequently turning to unions & professional associations to retain & even regain some of their lost power 
 
 
 Professionals have begun to unionize to improve their bargain position relative to the large bureaucratic orgs in which they are increasingly employed 
 
 
 In the past, prof orgs focused on training, defense of members' legal rights, conferences, intellectual sharing, & legislative lobbying 
 
 
 Recently many prof orgs are turning to collective bargaining 
 
 
 The National Education Assoc. (NEA) & the Am. Federation of Teachers (AFT) have a combined membership of over 2.7 mm making teachers the largest group of organized workers in the US 
 
 
 See Also:  The AFT   
 
 The largest white collar strike in the US was conducted by 23,000 engineers & technicians at Boeing over class trade union issues as pay, benefits, & health insurance.  A favorable settlement was reached after 37 days off the job 
 
 
 Professors & medical doctors have begun to organize or join unions 
 
 
 In CA, many faculty are organized by the AFT 
 
  Nationwide, 170,000 of 400,000 full time & 300,000 part time faculty are organized into unions   
  The American Association of University Professionals (AAUP) is feeling competition form the AFT & has therefore increased its collective bargaining in addition to traditional lobbying & professional development activities   
  See Also:  The AAUP   
  The Union of American Physicians & Dentists has grown to over 50,000 in response to the pressure doctors experience from such large health care orgs such as HMO & corporate hospitals   
  The increasing centralization of the health care industry in large, for profit orgs is expected to shift the allegiance of doctors from the AMA to orgs practicing traditional union strategies   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Lower Level Employees
External
Links
  LOWER LEVEL EMPLOYEES ( LLE ) ARE PRODUCTION WORKERS, STAFF PERSONNEL, SUPPORT PERSONNEL, CRAFT WORKERS, INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, ETC.   
  Craft workers have a skill & are considered the elite of the workforce   
  Craft workers typically have a community of interest centered on materials, techniques, tools, knowledge   
  In some ways, the concept of the craft worker is archaic in that it included shoemakers, blacksmiths, & other occupations which today are industrialized   
  On the other hand, craft workers today would include any skilled blue collar profession that has not been industrialized, i.e. moved to factory production   
  Examples of contemporary craft workers include electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.   
  Industrial workers are considered unskilled & historically, as compared to craft workers, were considered second class workers   
  Industrial workers are considered to be a threat to skilled workers   
  The community of interest of the industrial worker is centered on employer, the industry, & not the craft or job   
  Historically, until the CIO in 1955, it was believed that industrial workers could not be organized   
  LLE are typically afforded low status & little or no authority in spite of the fact that they may command considerable education, expertise, & experience   
  LLEs may also be defined in the negative, in that LLE are not management & are usually not professionals   
  However, in some orgs, those w/ no production workers, professionals may be the LLEs  
  WHILE LLE'S GENERALLY HAVE MINIMAL AMTS OF POWER BECAUSE OF THEIR PLACE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ORG STRUCTURE, THEY DO STILL HAVE POWER, & IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, GREATER AMTS OF POWER   
  Mechanic, 1962, discusses the sources of power of LLEs including, 
 
  1.  Expertise 
 
  2.  Irreplaceability
 
  3.  Effort & interest 
 
  4.  Physical location & position 
 
  5.  Removal of power takes time & effort 
 
  6.  Coalitions of LLEs
 
  7.  Work to rule 
 
  8.  Attractiveness 
     Example:  Erin Brokovich, movie: 2000 
     Why is attractiveness not considered for high level workers? 
 
  Perhaps the most important source of lower level employee's power is the rules; i.e. working to rule 
 
  Crozier, 1964, observed a constant power struggle wherever LLEs held power 
 
  Crozier observed a constant power struggle where maintenance men held power over production workers & supervisors   
  Crozier found that maintenance men held power & production workers & supervisors were under their control   
  Crozier found that production workers try to please maintenance men to keep their work flowing   
  Mouzelis notes in the situation above that the stratification of LLE power is the manipulation of rules to enhance group prerogative & independence from every direct & arbitrary interference from higher ups 
 
  But rules can never regulate everything & eliminate all arbitrariness 
 
  Areas of uncertainty always emerge which are the focal points around which collective conflicts emerge & instances of direct dominance & subordination re-emerge
 
  In the workplace, any group that can control the unregulated area of the workplace has great power 
 
  Hall sees only the negative side of LLE power, as do most managers, when he notes that the power of LLEs is rare & frustrating 
 
  Secretaries can cause frustration & embarrassment by accident, or due to factors beyond their control, or at their choosing 
 
  Hospital attendants can make Drs. dependent upon them (Scheff, 1961) & some Drs. choose & welcome this assistance while others see it as a problem   
  Wonder notes that LLE are able to amass considerable resources   
  The misunderstanding of many analysts is that they fail to see that traditional methods of LLE control / supervision are alienating & that LLEs combat this through amassing power where they can   
  LLE may often be managed in a similar manner to professionals   
 
 LLE'S ARE FOUND IN BOTH BLUE & WHITE COLLAR OCCUPATIONS 
 
  See Also:  The Great Compromise   
  The simplest & most common classification of occupations is the white collar & blue collar divisions, which while elegant in its simplicity, is increasingly outdated & misleading   
  Blue collar workers, are mostly factory & craft workers, & once did only manual labor, but today they may work in conditions & w/ the pay once attributed only to white collar workers   
  White collar workers, office workers & most professionals, had clean working conditions, that made it possible for them to wear white shirts   
  Once white collar workers earned more than blue collar workers, but today a factory or craft worker my earn more than a clerical or sales worker   
  The white- blue- collar classifications is less useful today because there are now many service workers, some of whose work resembles blue collar jobs, & some whose work is more white collar   
  A cook & a police chief are both service workers, but the cook's occupation resembles a blue collar occupation while the police chief's occupation resembles a white collar occupation   
  The white- blue collar classifications is less useful today because some jobs may appear misclassified when the actual work conditions are considered   
  Technicians are considers white collar workers & many of them are highly educated, but may spend most of their day working w/ machinery, just as blue collar workers do   
  Some factory operatives who are considered blue collar, work in sterile, super clean industrial labs   
  The white- blue- collar classifications is less useful today because it ignores the so called pink collar workers in occupations such as nurses, secretaries, child-care workers that are traditionally filled by women   
  Pink collar jobs often have low pay while having relatively high requirements for education & responsibility, as seen in nursing   
  Nurses are often classified as professionals or semi-professionals, but their pay is not as high as upper level white collar workers 
 
  TEMPORARY WORK IS NEARLY BECOMING THE NORM FOR LLE'S  
  Many jobs created today, including hi tech jobs are lower level jobs & temporary jobs   
  Lower level jobs & temp jobs may be filled by wkrs not directly employed by the firms themselves   
  Hi tech firms employ large numbers ot temp wkrs to help them adjust to the cyclical nature of production   
  Many wkrs are also employed on a sub contracting basis, & conditions for these wkrs are inferior to those of full time wkrs of the parent firm   
  Many higher end jobs have also become more temporary in that many firms are hiring short term wkrs in positions labeled internships, associates, etc.  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Weber on Organizations
External
Links
  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  Charismatic Authority & Organizations by Max Weber
External
Links
  CHARISMA IS AUTHORITY THAT IS BASED ON THE PERSONAL QUALITIES OF AN INDIVIDUAL, SUCH AS THE ABILITY TO EXCITE, INSPIRE & LEAD   
  Charisma is power that is legitimated through extraordinary personal abilities that inspire devotion & obedience   
  Charism ( 1927, 1953) is a special gift or power divinely conferred, as the gift of prophecy   
  Charisma is not an individual quality, rather it is a social quality that a group bestows on an individual or group   
  Charisma is not merely possession of 1 or more outstanding quality   
  People who have charisma do not necessarily possess any outstanding traits & those w/ outstanding traits do not necessarily possess charisma   
  For Weber, the devotion to a particular power holder on the part of the followers is based on his or her personal characteristics   
  WHILE CHARISMA IS BASED ON THE QUALS OF THE LEADER, IT IS ALSO BASED IN THE TENDENCY OF DEVOTION / LOVE / LOYALTY OF THE FOLLOWERS   
  For Weber, charismatic authority  is based on the devotion to a particular power holder on the part of the followers   
  Charisma is more a function of the followers than the characteristics of the charismatic leader   
  A charismatic leader can be ordinary   
  W/ relation to charisma, what is crucial is the extent to which, & process by which a leader is set apart form ordinary people   
  Charisma often has FOUR qualities including that the leader is: 
a.  believed to be endowed w/ supernatural qualities 
b.  at the least, believed to be endowed w/ exceptional powers or qualities 
c.  not accessible to ordinary people 
d.  for all practical purposes, fallible, or has special knowledge, insights, etc. 		  
  Charisma is a social relationship where based on the qualities of the leader &  the qualities of the followers, the followers freely choose to accept inspiration & give devotion   
  For Weber, a cult is a charismatic organization   
  CHARISMA IS STILL IMPORTANT TODAY, BUT IN THE PAST IT WAS PERHAPS THE PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUAL IN THAT TRADL ORGS WERE USUALLY DOMINATED BY A CHARISMATIC LEADER   
  Charismatic authority was very prevalent in ancient orgs   
Link
 While charismatic authority is not as common today, many orgs & leaders still rely on it 
 
  Charisma is considered to be more beneficial to society if it is contained w/in an orgl structure 
 
  Charisma is considered to be more harmful to society if it is not contained w/in the org structure 
 
  Charisma is a revolutionary force 
 
  In the minds of organizational actors, charisma creates a subjective or internal reorientation that may lead to a radical alteration of the central attitudes & direction towards problems in the world 
 
  When new structures of authority arise, it dramatically changes people's thought & actions 
 
  CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY / LEADERSHIP OFTEN COME INTO CONFLICT W/ OR RUNS CONTRARY TO OTHER TYPES OF AUTHORITY   
  Recall the distinction btwn power, authority, & influence in that: 
 
  - power involves force or coercion, the threat of aggression   
  - authority involves a suspension of judgment on part of recipients where one accepts authority upon entering a system   
  - influence is authority that is accepted as a decision is made, consciously or unconsciously   
  For Weber, authority is either 
  - charismatic 
  - traditional 
  - rational 
These types of authority are non coercive, but do involve a suspension of judgment 
 
  Charismatic leaders arise most often during times of social conflict or social change 
 
  Charismatic leadership is often a major challenge to traditional or legal rational authority 
 
  Revolutions usually have charismatic leaders 
 
  Such revolutions always have underlying causes & grievances 
 
  Because charisma lies in the relationship btwn the leader & the followers, it cannot be institutionalized 
 
  Because the charisma brings change, & because it is usually outside of tradition or rational authority, the change it brings is unpredictable 
 
  And while some charismatic leaders are judged to be evil (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), many are also good 
 
  Weber believes that only charismatic leaders hold out a solution or bulwark against the rationalization that is enveloping the world 
 

 
Top
  
Examples of Charisma 
Jesus 
Charlemagne 
Hitler 
Ayatollah Khomeini 
Corazon Aquino  Philippines in the 1980s 
Mao Zedong in China in the 1950s to the 1970s 
Martin Luther King 
John Fitzgerald Kennedy 
Ronald Reagan, US President 1980 - 1988 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Traditional Authority & Organizations  by Max Weber
External
Links
  TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY IS BASED ON A CLAIM BY LEADERS & THE BELIEFS BY FOLLOWERS IN THE VIRTUE OF THE SANCTITY OF AGE OLD RULES & POWERS   
  The trad leader is not a superior, but a personal master   
  The beliefs of the followers are based on belief that the established traditional order is best   
Link
 Traditional authority is the basis for the traditional org   
  Like the trad leader, a trad org can be sanctified   
  Most people believe that the sanctity of the Catholic Church is above the sanctity of the Pope   
  Secular orgs can be examined for their trad components as seen in the Presidency of Clinton, of whom most believed his unsanctimonious acts were separate from the office of the President, which should be honored   
  Based on trad, the sanctity of the family is important in nearly all societies   
  For Weber, the family is a trad form of org   
  THERE ARE FOUR TYPES OF TRADL AUTHORITY OR ORGS, INCLUDING THE GERONTOCRACY, PRIMARY PATRIARCHY, PATRIMONIALISM, & FEUDALISM   
  a. the gerontocracy, which is characterized by rule by elders 
 
  b. primary patriarchy, characterized by male leaders who inherit positions & maintain a monopoly on most power 
 
  c. patrimonialism, which is the modern form of traditional authority which is characterized by administrative forces that are purely personal instruments of the master 
 
  d. feudalism which is a still more modern form of trad authority which usually combines patrimonialism & religious authority 
 
  Trad aut limits the discretion of the master through the development of more routinized, even contractual, relations btwn leader & subordinates   
  The routinization of relations via trad aut leads to more stabilized power positions   
  Feudalism was usually patriarchal, though there were exceptions   
  All of the forms of aut are still in existence in all cultures & orgs today, even in rationalized western societies   
  Note that feminists use the term patriarchy in a different manner than does Weber in that for feminists, patriarchy encompasses any structures or relations of male dominance   
  WEBER SEES TRADL & CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY AS A BARRIER TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF RATIONALITY
 
  Traditional authority is a barrier to the rise of the rational economy, especially capitalism,  as well as other components of a rational society:  govt, judicial systems, media, etc. 
 
  Traditional authority permits the development of certain forms of primitive capitalism 
 

 
Top
  
Examples of Traditional Authority as a Basis for Traditional Orgs 

Monarchies still exist based on traditional authority 
Vestiges in orgs where founder of dominant figure is still present 
"The old man wants it that way" 
Religious leader usually base authority on tradition 


 
Internal
Links

Top
  Outline on    Bureaucratic Orgs & Rational Authority   by Max Weber
External
Links
  -  Project:  Weber on Rational / Bureaucratic Orgs
Link
  -  Project:  Your Bureaucracy
Link
 
 There are THREE types authority
a. Rational or bureaucratic authority 
b. Traditional
c. Charismatic
 
 
 Weber's definition of bureaucracy is an "ideal type"
i.e., an abstract definition based on a set of characteristics
i.e., a pure type		  
  Bureaucracy is an orgl model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently  
 
 Weber developed, what may be called, a functionalist analysis of bureaucracy
 
 
 Bureaucracy, for Weber, is the development of legal / rational authority in social life
 
 
 For Weber, bureaucracies exhibit formal rationality, which means decisions are made purely on the basis of following the rules & procedures in order to accomplish organizational goals
 
Link
 For Weber, conceived as a pure type, the modern bureaucratic org has nine distinctive characteristics
1.  Division of Labor  2.  Hierarchy 3.  Rules  4.  Merit System  5.  Mgt 6.  Tenure 
7.  Wages & Salaries  8.  Technical Competence  9.  Formal Communications
 
 
 1.  DIVISION OF LABOR IS THE ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION BASED ON SPECIALIZED POSITIONS
 
 
 In a bureaucracy, positions may require technical qualifications that require training (OJT or higher ed)
 
 
 Bureaucracy consists of positions bound by rules
 
 
 Positions have specialized spheres of competence w/ set of obligations & authority to carry it out
 
 
 2.  HIERARCHY IS AUTHORITY SPECIFIED VIA A TOP DOWN CHAIN OF COMMAND 
 
  In a bureaucracy there is a hierarchy of offices & positions  
 
 Each official in a hierarchy has specific scope of authority
 
 
 In a hierarchical bureaucracy, each position commands those below it & takes commands from those above it
 
  The bureaucratic characteristics of the division of labor & hierarchy results in the pyramidal shaped org w/ which we are all familiar  
 
 Note:  militaristic chain of command
 
  3.  RULES ARE PRINCIPLES MADE TO GUIDE & CONTROL ACTION; STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS   
 
 Rules include administrative acts & decisions that are formulated & recorded in writing
 
  Rules are usually written today, but this is a recent innovation  
  In most forms of organization, including bureaucracy, there are many informal, i.e. unwritten rules  
 
 4.  A MERIT SYSTEM IS EVALUATION ON THE BASIS OF ACHIEVEMENT 
 
 
 Impersonality & universality in the merit system holds that people should be evaluated on the basis of achievement
 
 
 5.  THE JOB OF MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION IS COORDINATION 
 
  In early orgs, mgt was often done by the owner who many times was also a worker, who usually had the 'master' status   
  As orgs became larger, mgt was separated from the workers, but usually the owner still participated in mgt   
  Today there are some large orgs where the owner has little or no mgt duties; the owner hires a mgr just as they would a worker   
 
 6.  TENURE MEANS HAVING A LIFELONG CAREER / JOB SECURITY 
 
  Job security / tenure has not been widely practiced in US since the Reagan era ( 1980s ) of downsizing began   
 
 7.  PAYING WAGES / SALARIES WAS A COMPENSATION INNOVATION WHEN COMPARED TO PIECE WORK, DAILY PAY, BARTER, OR 'UNCOMPENSATED' WORK BASED ON TRADITION, E.G. SERFS, SLAVES, ETC. 
 
  Paying wages / salaries developed in the late middle ages since before that most people were either owners or unpaid serfs, peasants, etc.  
  Before bureaucratization, salaried positions were often bought but Weber believed that bureaucratization should eliminate this practice, & it did   
  8.  TECHNICAL COMPETENCE IS THE POSSESSION OF SKILL BASED ON EDUCATION & / OR EXTENSIVE TRAINING   
Technical competence is the ability to do the job whether that is an actual technology related job or an admin job  
  As the division of labor advances, the degree of technical competence also increases in that expertise rises & versatility falls & experts have less ability to talk & work together   
  Traditional methods of education, training, & certification are being rationalized to ensure people are technically competent   
  9.  FORMAL, WRITTEN COMMUNICATION IS THE PRACTICE OF RECORDING COMMUNICATIONS IN A FORMALIZED, STANDARDIZED MANNER   
  Formal, written communication is seen in the practice policy of writing everything down in order to allow all relevant parties to have access to the info   
  The present era is an info era in that more info is available to more people than ever before both because people generate more info & because that info is available to more people   
  The practice of formal, written communications by bureaucracies is the cause of the privacy crisis; for example, many orgs know more about a person than that person knows about themselves   
  WEBER BELIEVES BUREAUCRACY IS THE MOST POWERFUL SOCIAL INVENTION SINCE THE FAMILY & RELIGION   
  Though modern people equate bureaucracy w/ red tape & inefficiency, bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization ever devised   
  Weber saw rationalization as one of the most significant trends in modern society, & bureaucracy was the means by which it occurs   
  Rational authority is based on a claim by leaders, acknowledged by the followers, that decisions made in the organizations are the most efficient in achieving the goals of the organization   
 
 For Weber, Boeing is a rational, bureaucratic organization 
 
 
 The dominant type of organization in modern society is the bureaucracy, i.e. the bureaucracy has great power, it is the most common, & is becoming more common 
 
 
 Bureaucracy is one example of the rationalization of society 
 
 
 Bureaucracy / rationalization is replacing tradition, religion, common sense & all other methods of knowledge & organization 
 
 
 For Weber, bureaucracy was modeled after the Prussian military 
 
 
 Historically speaking, bureaucracy is the most efficient system of organization 
 
 
 Compare it to your family, church or unorganized group of people trying to accomplish a task 
 
 
 Bureaucracy has displaced force, patrimony, loyalty, graft, corruption, etc. as methods of organization 
 
 
 BUREAUCRACIES ARE EFFECTIVE FOR THREE REASONS, INCLUDING THE ELIMINATION OF IRRATIONAL AUTHORITY, A FOCUS ON TASKS, & COORDINATION 
 
 
 a.  Bureaucracy eliminates charismatic & traditional forms of authority which are usually seen as personal favoritism, nepotism, ethnocentrism, etc. 
 
 
 b.  Bureaucracy identifies tasks that need to be done & assigns someone to do them, & monitors how well they get done 
 
 
 c.  Bureaucracy provides a way to coordinate activities of a large number of people so that each effort contributes to the common task, goal or product rather than to individual tasks, or rather than working at cross purposes 
 
 
 But there are also many inefficiencies of bureaucracy which overlap w/ many of the inefficiencies of the division of labor 
 
 
 Bureaucracy destroys meaning & reason for work, people become interchangeable components 
 
 
 For Weber, the bureaucratic organization is ‘the worst form of organization except for every other kind.’ 
 

 
 Internal
Links

Top
  Outline on    Bureaucratic Orgs & Rational Authority -- Advanced   by Max Weber
 External
Links
  BUREAUCRACY SOCIALIZES US   
  Weber agrees w/ Marx that the separation of the worker from the means of production is an important facet of socialization under capitalism   
  A bureaucracy, no less than a factory, molds a person's psycho physical being in an effort to adapt it to demands of the organization   
  BUREAUCRACY IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT OF DOMINATION BY RATIONAL SYSTEMS OR OTHERWISE   
  Weber said:  “It is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but those little cogs, little men clinging to little jobs and striving towards bigger ones....”   
  Weber recognized that organized domination called for continuous administration, humans must be conditioned to obey, & power must be seen as legitimate   
  Weber recognized that organized domination called for continuous administration   
  BUREAUCRACY REPLACES TRADITIONAL ORGANIZATION   
  In the evolution of human social organization, bureaucracy & rationalization replaces the traditional organization ( discussed below ) & the charismatic organization  ( discussed below )   
  In this replacement of tradition by rationalism, bureaucracy & rationalization strive to eliminate favoritism, cronyism, authoritarian organizations, unfairness, etc.   
  Bureaucratic orgs replaced feudal style orgs & military orgs & religious orgs which were the major types of orgs previous to the development of bureaucracy   
  BUREAUCRACY COMBINED W/ CAPITALISM IS THE BASIS OF THE DOMINATION OF GLOBALIZATION, MORPHING INTO STATE / MILITARY / OLIGOPOLISTIC CAP   
  Bureaucracy developed as capitalism developed   
  The concentration of power has also increased bureaucratization via: 
    - power politics 
    - large armies 
    - immense budgets 		  
  All the facets of modern power & bureaucratization require complex administration   
  Marx was 1st to recognize that capitalism was becoming increasingly concentrated & centralized & workers were being separated from means of production 
 
  For Weber, the concentration of power w/in bureaucracy is other side of domination   
  Weber recognized that bureaucracy itself increases the separation of the worker from the means of production   
  - the soldier was separated from means of warfare 
- the civil servant was separated from means of admin 
- the scientist is separated from research facilities 
And all of these spheres showed continual concentration 		  
  Marx recognized bureaucracy as a necessary evil   
  BUREAUCRACY DEVELOPING/ GROWING / DOMINATING BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE FORM OF ORG  
  Rationalization in Weberian sociology, the process by which decisions are made on basis of what is expected to work best   
  Bureaucratization is one more example of formal & technical rationality in the West   
  The qualities of bureaucracy include:   speed, precision, other forms of cost reduction   
  But it is not just blue collar who has become proletarianized.  Almost everyone has become 
- paid labor 
- separated from the means of production 
- works under a bureaucracy 
- in an industry/sphere of society that is undergoing concentration of power 		  
  BUREAUCRACIES ARE PRACTICALLY INDESTRUCTIBLE   
  Bureaucracies are rarely, if ever, dismantled 
Bureaucracies are merely taken over transformed 
 
  The state bureaucracy will wk for whomever takes it over   
  Therefore, Weber concluded, revolution, in sense of creating a new society that transcended bureaucracy, was becoming more & more unlikely   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on a  Comparison of Charismatic, Traditional, & Rational Authority
External
Links
  ORGS HAVE EVOLVED FROM CHARISMATIC TO TRADITIONAL TO RATIONAL   
  Orgs have, in general, evolved from charismatic to traditional, to rational orgs, & a continuing trend toward greater rationalization continues today   
  There are no absolute boundaries btwn charismatic, traditional, & rational  types of authority in that even traditional churches have rationalized bureaucracies to address admin issues & even rat business orgs have charismatic leaders or depts who wield inordinate amounts of power   
  A bureaucracy, like our govt or the presidency, may or may not have a charismatic leader   
  A charismatic org, like a cult, may develop formal goals, written rules, etc.   
  See Also:  Power   
        There is a clear, though not absolute, distinction btwn power, authority, & influence   
        Power involves force or coercion:  threat of aggression 
 
        Power is often seen as political power where the coercion is politicized, & this is easily confused w/ political authority or influence 
 
        Authority involves a suspension of judgment on part of recipients 
 
        Directives are followed because it is believed that they ought to be followed 
 
        Compliance is "voluntary" 
 
        For authority to be effective, participants require a common value system 
 
  Charisma is fragile, e.g., when the leader dies, the charismatic org often ends 
 
  In relation to charismatic orgs, important followers may try to develop procedures for choosing new leaders, such as tests, visions, etc. that prove the worthiness of the new leader 
 
  When a charismatic leader is gone, there is no guarantee that the next leader will be charismatic because charisma cannot be routinized 
 
  Because charismatic leadership cannot be routinized or institutionalized, there is often a cycle where charismatic leadership transforms to either a traditional or rational org, & then the returns to a charisma org some time in the future 
 
  In the modern world, charisma is more likely to return to rationality, & stay rational 
 
  FDR is an example 
 
  All types of systems compete, charisma w/ tradition, w/ rationality, w/ charisma, etc.   
  Charisma is a constant threat to other forms of authority 
 
  Tradition may trump rationality or charisma in a given situation 
 
  WEBER BELIEVED THAT RATIONAL AUTHORITY WAS DOMINATING SOCIETY & ELIMINATING RATIONAL & TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY, BUT CHARISMA HAD THE POSSIBILITY OF SAVING RATIONALITY FROM ITSELF   
  The power of rationality threatens to create an iron cage of a totally rational society.  Weber said, “Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph externally now.” 
                  Weber, in Gerth and Mills, 128
 
  For Weber, the only hope in moderating the iron cage of rationality lies w/ isolated charismatic individuals who manage somehow to avoid the coercive power of society   
  Rationality has been a revolutionary force   
  The Enlightenment heralded the advent of rationality in the West & other regions have had their Enlightenments  
  While charisma is an internal revolutionary force, formal rationality is external revolutionary force   
  Weber believed that charismatic or rational revolutionary forces change the structures of society 1st & then, ultimately the thoughts & actions of individuals   
  But for charisma to endure, its basic character must be transformed & routinized   
  The routinization of charisma ultimately transforms it into traditional or formal rationality   
Link
 Table on Weber's Types of Organizations as Compared to the Social Structures, Past & Present  
  The Table on Weber's Types of Orgs Compared to Social Structures, Past & Present demonstrates that orgs w/in soc structures have evolved over time, w/ more of them becoming more rational   
Link
 Table on Comparative Characteristics of Weber's Types of Orgs   
  The Table on the Comparative Characteristics of Weber's Types of Orgs demonstrates that each of the types of orgs, e.g. charismatic, traditional, & bureaucratic, demonstrate a unique attribute of organization in relation to the characteristics of orgs, e.g. div of lab, hierarchy, rules, merit, admin, tenure, & pay   

 
Top
  
Table on Weber's Types of Organizations 
as Compared to the Social Structures, Past & Present
Charismatic Org
Traditional Org
Bureaucratic / Rational Org
Today Peer groups  (friends)
Cults
Govt
Bands (Recreation / Entertainment)		 Family
Church
Govt
Church
Business
Govt
School
Military		 Media
Charity
Recreation / 
Entertainment
Past All Social Structures have at one time or another been charismatic
(few peer groups)
Church
Family
Business
Govt		 School
Military
Media
Charity
Recreation
The 1st bureaucracies were developed by the Egyptians as they developed centralized irrigation projects
The Table on Weber's Types of Orgs Compared to Social Structures, Past & Present demonstrates that orgs w/in soc structures have evolved over time, w/ more of them becoming more rational

 
Top
  
Table on Comparative Characteristics of Weber's Types of Orgs
Characteristics of Orgs \/
Charismatic Orgs
Traditional Orgs
Bureaucratic / Rational Orgs
1.  Division of Labor Lacks Position's w/ clearly defined spheres of competence
Staff not tech trained, but chosen for charisma or devotion		 Lacks Position's w/ clearly defined spheres of competence
Positions consist not of specialists but "personal retainers"		 Specialized positions
2.  Hierarchy Lacks a clear hierarchy.
Charismatic leader is free to intervene whenever leader feels staff cannot handle it		 Lacks a clear hierarchy. 
Personal loyalty, not impersonal duty determines  relationship of staff to master		 Authority is specified via a top down chain of command. 
Each position has specific scope of authority
3.  Written Rules & Regulations No formal rules, no admin organs, no precedents Retainers obey because leader has weight of traditional
Precedent		 Formal, written.
Bureaucrats obey rules, &  rational authority of  office
4.  Merit System:
     Impersonality & Universalism		 No regular system of appointment & promotion No regular system of appointment & promotion Evaluation on  basis of achievement
--merit
5. Management & Administration No rational ordering of relations of superiority & inferiority No rational ordering of relations of superiority & inferiority Their job is coordination
6. Lifelong Careers / Tenure No career.
Based on whim of master		 No Career.
Based on whim of master		 Not practiced in US since Reagan era of downsizing began
7.  Wages / Salaries May gain by pillaging;
or by whim		 May gain by pillaging;
or by whim		 Paid; 
not an owner
8.  Technical Competence  Low  Low  High 
9.  Formal Communications  Low  Low  High 
The Table on the Comparative Characteristics of Weber's Types of Orgs demonstrates that each of the types of orgs, e.g. charismatic, traditional, & bureaucratic, demonstrate a unique attribute of organization in relation to the characteristics of orgs, e.g. div of lab, hierarchy, rules, merit, admin, tenure, & pay 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Organizational Conflict
External
Links
  CONFLICT IS AN OUTCOME OF POWER IN AN ORG   
  Conflict may be seen as the opposite of compliance   
  Morgan, 1986, holds that power in orgs arises whenever interests collide 
 
  Orgl conflict is often viewed as a dysfunctional force & as a symptom of: 
  - personality problems         - bad mgt 
  - personal rivalry                 - lazy workers 
  - dept conflict 
 
  ORGL COMPLACENCY, I.E. A LACK OF CONFLICT, IS ALSO RECOGNIZED AS A PROBLEM, AS SEEN IN A SLEEPY BUREAUCRACY
 
  But some level of org conflict is always present 
 
  Conflict can be personal, interpersonal, btwn groups, btwn coalitions etc. 
 
  Conflict can be internal, i.e., w/ parties within the org   
  Conflict can be external, i.e., w/ parties outside of the org   
  Conflict can be built into org structures, roles, attitudes, & stereotypes, or arise over scarcity of resources 
 
  Conflict can be explicit or implicit 
 
  LABOR - MGT CONFLICT IS HISTORICALLY & CONTEMPORARILY HIGHER THAN IN ANY OTHER NATION, BUT TODAY CONFLICT HAS MOVED BEYOND THIS REALM TO ALL CORNERS OF THE ORG   
  Organizationally, Labor management conflict is well known in our society, spanning America's entire history 
 
  Sabel, 1982, & other economic sociologists view orgs in terms of the inherent conflict btwn workers & management i.e. they see orgs as structured so that conflict btwn workers & management is inevitable 
 
  Conflict also exists along skill lines, ethnic lines, political lines, etc. 
 
  In the early human relations mgt. era of org analysis, "trouble was blamed on the trouble-makers" 
 
  Today, org analysts recognize that conflict may be personal, but there are also other dimensions
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
  Outline on  Etzioni's   Organizational Typologies
External
Links
   Etzioni believes there are THREE fundamental types of orgs including normative, utilitarian, & coercive orgs   
  A.  NORMATIVE ORGS PURSUE MORAL INTERESTS W/ HUMANITARIAN METHODS   
  Normative orgs have members who are primarily interested in the organization's purpose or activity   
         Voluntary orgs, etc.         Red Cross, church, bicycle club, etc.   
  In normative orgs people pursue goals they consider morally worthwhile   
  B.  UTILITARIAN ORGS PURSUE RATIONAL GOALS W/ RATIONAL METHODS   
  Utilitarian orgs are primarily designed to accomplish some task   
         Business orgs, etc.          Microsoft   
  People join utilitarian orgs in pursuit of material reward   
  While the typical business firm has a calculative, self interest incentive, the voluntary organization has a moral incentive 
 
  C.  COERCIVE ORGS SEEK CONTROL ORIENTED GOALS W/ FORCE ORIENTED METHODS   
  Coercive org's members are compelled to participate
 
          Prisons, etc.                     Red Onion  
  Coercive orgs are distinguished by involuntary membership  
  IN PRACTICE, MOST ORGS ARE PREDOMINATELY NORMATIVE, UTILITARIAN, OR COERCIVE BUT HAVE SECONDARY QUALS OF ALL   
  Etzioni identified moral involvement, calculative involvement, & alienative involvement on the part of lower participants as they comply w/ the various forms of power used  
  People in normative orgs comply w/ org demands based on moral imperatives  
  Compared to the hierarchical leadership structure of a business firm, the voluntary organization is more collegial  
  People in utilitarian orgs comply w/ org demands based on calculative self interest  
  Whereas a voluntary organization almost always has a turbulent environment, a business organization's environment is frequently more stable  
  Compared to the goals of a business, the goals of a voluntary organization are difficult to quantify  
  People in coercive orgs comply w/ org demands based on alienative coercion or force  
Link
 Etzioni recognizes that lower level participants comply in orgs for a variety of reasons  
  Etzioni's analysis demonstrates that when orgs can develop moral involvement, members will have a higher commitment to the org  

 
Top
Examples of a variety of reasons for complying in an org
Children generally admire teachers, normative compliance
But teachers use punishment:  alienative coercion / force
& teachers use rewards, & reward of career, success:  calculative self interest

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Compliance as an Outcome of Power
External
Links
  COMPLIANCE, I.E. YIELDING OR CONSENTING, IS THE MOST FREQUENT OUTCOME OF A POWER ACT 
 
  The opposite of compliance is conflict, the resistance to power 
 
  Compliance is the core of an org 
 
  Etzioni identified THREE types of involvement on the part of lower level employees (LLEs) as they comply w/ the various forms of power used, including alienative involvement, calculative involvement, & moral involvement   
  Etizoni's typification of complying involvement of lower level employees can be applied to almost any actor in an org since everyone, at one time or another submits to the will of the org, some rules, a dept, etc.   
  CEOs often comply w/ the wishes of the Board of Directors (BOD)   
  The BOD often compiles w/ the wishes of the CEO or other top  level mgrs   
  LLEs must comply to the direction of their supervisors; supervisors comply to the direction of their mgrs, etc.   
  A.  ALIENATIVE COMPLIANCE IS COMPLYING, BUT NOT WANTING TO COMPLY & POSSIBLY RESISTING WHEN POSSIBLE   
  Alienative compliance by LLEs exists when they give the appearance of complying when under direct observation, but when not directly observed they may not comply, may oppose a directive, or even sabotage a directive 
 
  Alienative compliance exists for mid & upper level mgrs as other actors in the org as when a top mgr issues directives that will improve his or her stock options to the known detriment of the long term benefit of the org  
  B.  CALCULATIVE COMPLIANCE OCCURS WHEN PEOPLE CALCULATE THAT BY COMPLYING THEY WILL BENEFIT  
 
 Calculative compliance by LLEs exists when they comply based on a calculation of self interest which they believe indicates that it is to their benefit to comply 
 
  The calculation of self interest may be interest based on money, power, personal favoritism, advancement, etc.   
  compliance exists for mid & upper level mgrs as other actors in the org as when a top mgr issues directives that will improve his or her stock options to the known detriment of the long term benefit of the org   
  C.  MORAL COMPLIANCE OCCURS WHEN PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT COMPLYING IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, & THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THE GOAL   
 
 Wood, 1975, found that commitment or moral involvement of members & submission to hierarchical authority contributed to members' compliance w/ leaders' goals 
 
 
 Hougland, Shepard, & Wood, 1979, Hougland & Wood, 1980, found that the amount of control was related to members' commitment to the org 
 
  Hougland, et al found that org members who were committed & satisfied believed that they had more control   
  COMMITMENT & PARTICIPATION TEND TO INCREASE MORAL COMPLIANCE & VICE VERSA, THUS REDUCING ALIENATIVE & CALCULATIVE COMPLIANCE   
  Commitment in an org thus increases moral involvement, but also raises the level of control or power which lower participants experience 
 
  Commitment increases the amount of power in an org 
 
  Compliance & involvement are mutually interrelated in that moral involvement increases when members participate, & participation contributes to compliance 
 
  Participation generally decreases centralization 
 
  Participation has little effect on org power, although it sometimes increase the power of lower level members 
 
  Participation often decreases the power of supervisors &, sometimes, middle managers   
  Rosner, 1973, found that worker participation does not reduce managers' power 
 
  For Rosner, workers had more personal influence, trust, responsibility 
 
  Mulder & Wilke, 1970, found that participation increases the power of the power holder 
 
  When neither the power holder nor the new participants have expertise, when the new participants gain expertise, they will gain power 
 
  Blau, 1964, observes that power recipients can withdraw from the situation or attempt to circumvent the power holder, i.e. going over the bosses head 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Causes of Organizational Conflict
External
Links
  Katz has identified THREE orgl bases of conflict including conflict induced by subsystems, rivalry, & conflict over resources 
 
  A.  CONFLICT IS INDUCED BY SUBSYSTEM ( AGIM ) ( OR DEPTS ) W/IN THE ORG 
 
Link
 Each subsystem or dept has its own culture (KBVN) & its own dynamics 
 
  The subsystems of adaptive development (production), integration, integration, & maintenance each develop their own distinctive norms & frames of reference which contain elements of potential conflict, which may cause conflict 
 
  Orgs perform tasks that come into conflict because their subsystems are incompatible 
 
  B.  UNITS W/IN THE ORG HAVE SIMILAR FUNCTIONS ENGENDERING HEALTHY COMPETITION OR HOSTILE, SELF DESTRUCTIVE RIVALRY 
 
  Competition can also occur among mutually dependent units such as two phases in the assembly process (Aldrich, 1979) 
 
  Competition / conflict is especially likely when there is asymmetric or unbalanced, dependence among units 
 
  C.  INTEREST GRPS CONFLICT W/IN THE HIERARCHY OVER ORGL RESOURCES SUCH AS ORG REWARDS OF STATUS, PRESTIGE, MONETARY REWARDS, & ANY ORG RESOURCE 
 
  Because members typically experience dissatisfaction w/ the reward structure, subgroups have their own communication systems & norms 
 
  Lower level employees will try to improve their lot by joining forces as an interest group against the privileged members of the org   
  This process occurs not only w/ blue collar workers & unions, but also w/ white collar workers & subgroups w/in the mgt. hierarchy 
 
  ORG CONFLICT MAY BE CAUSED BY COMMUNICATIONS, STRUCTURE, PERSONAL VARIABLES , & OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS 
 
  Robbins, 1974, notes that conflict can result from FOUR causes, including:   
  a. Imperfect communications   
  b. Structural conditions cause conflict: large size, heterogeneity of staff, styles of supervision, extent of participation, the reward system, form of power used 
 
  c. Personal behavior variables such as personality dimensions, role satisfaction, individual goals 
 
  d. Conflict can emerge emerges from differences between occupational groups, or btwn groups w/ different power 
 

 
Top
  
Examples of conflict among orgl subsystems (AGIM) 
Maintenance:  struggle to maintain the role system & preserve the character of the org 
Procurement & disposal subsystems face the outward world & develop a different psychological orientation 
Goal setters have a very different job & outlook than workers (adaptive) or accountants (maintenance) 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Organizational Conflict Situation
External
Links
  THE COMPONENTS OF THE CONFLICT SITUATION INCLUDE THE PARTICIPANTS, THE FIELD, THE DYNAMICS & THE RESOLUTION   
  Boulding found FOUR components of the conflict situation, including participants, the field of conflict, the dynamics of the conflict, the resolution 
 
  A.  THERE ARE GENERALLY THREE TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS IN ORGL CONFLICT:  INDIVIDUAL, GROUPS, & ORGS 
 
  There are generally SEVEN pairs of conflict, including: 
person v person                 person v group 
person v org                     group. v group 
group v org                      org v org 
person v group v org 
 
  There is a tendency toward symmetry in org conflict in that a person v group conflict will shift to a group v group conflict 
 
  Allies & enemies may be made or lost   
  B. THE FIELD OF CONFLICT IS THE SET OF RELEVANT POSSIBLE STATES OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS, I.E. THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE OUTCOMES 
 
  The field of conflict may expand or contract as the dynamics change   
  Org conflict may occur in the office btwn individuals, if one of them chooses to 'go public,' the wider org may be brought in, & the public may even be involved   
  Participants in the conflict may desire to keep it low key / informal, but various factors may force it into a formal resolution procedure wherein it may be addressed in the org's quasi judicial system, or even end up in the courts   
  C.  THE DYNAMICS OF THE CONFLICT SITUATION MAY EMBRACE DIFFERING POSITIONS OF DIFFERING PARTICIPANTS, DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE ORG, EXTREME OR MODERATE TACTICS, ETC. 
  The dynamics of the conflict situation: parties may adjust their position toward or away from one another, the conflict may move from level to level in the org 
 
  Conflicts may escalate to "all out war" as in the case of a labor mgt struggle that results in the dissolution of the company 
 
  Conflicts may end peaceably w/ a positive solution 
 
  D.  MGT WILL ATTEMPT TO CONTROL OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT, BUT THIS ATTEMPT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUCCESSFUL 
 
  Conflicts do not have a clear beginning or end   
  There are always preexisting conditions before & there may be animosities afterward 
 
  Conflict becomes a pathological condition when it feeds on itself & when parties conflict not to gain real goals, but merely to destroy the opposition 
 
  Peaceableness is when one party concedes some points & the other party responds in kind; i.e. both sides compromise 
 
  Peaceableness is dangerous if the other party is operating pathologically; i.e. does not respond in kind 
 
Link
 Side payments are those concessions offered by a 3rd party, to both sides of the conflict, as an inducement to stop the conflict 
 
Link
 Conflict can be resolved through a 3rd Party such as another part of the org, or a mediator 
 
  The 3rd party might order the conflict to cease under threat of penalties 
 
  The 3rd party might simply prohibit the conflict   
x
 The 3rd party might act as a referee, give side payments, or as a mediator   

 
Top
  
Example of Side Payment 
In Professional Orgl conflict, the professionals may be given concessions of relaxing some org rules that they feel are burdensome 

 
Top
  
3rd party tactics 
Govt or other party prohibits a strike 
Govt orders a cooling off period 
Govt provides mediators 
Govt changes law, or jaw bones the parties 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Orgl Conflict Outcomes
External
Links
 
 THE OUTCOMES OF CONFLICT CAN RANGE FROM REASONABLE RESOLUTION, TO A CLEAR VICTORY TO ONE SIDE & LOSS TO ANOTHER, TO A 'PYRIC VICTORY' WHERE BOTH SIDES LOOSE MORE THAN THEY GAIN 
 
  Pondy, 1967, 1969, calls the period following the resolution of conflict the aftermath 
 
  In the period of time after the conflict, the resolution does not usually lead to total settlement 
 
  If the basic issues are not resolved, the potential for future, serious conflict still exists 
 
  Conflict may also lead to more open communications & cooperation 
 
  During the aftermath, allies in the conflict may grow apart or together 
 
  The aftermath of conflict may change the environment for other actors 
 
  Conflict is not inherently good or bad for the participants, the org, or wider society 
 
  Power & conflict in orgs are major shapers of orgs & society 
 
  A given org state sets the stage for the continuing power & conflict processes, thus continually reshaping the org 
 
  Conflict is a means by which orgl mgt., & other actors, manipulate situations (Rahim, 1986, 1989) 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Social Outcomes of Organizational Power
External
Links
 Link
 ORGS HAVE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON SOCIETY   
  Orgs are the means by which people are distributed in the social order, i.e. stratified (Baron, 1984; Hall, 1986) 
 
  Since work is carried out in orgs, thus orgs determine many of the intrinsic & extrinsic rewards that people receive 
 
  Orgs have influence at THREE major stages of life, including 
a.  the place of education for younger people 
b.  the workplace for employees 
c.  the method & place of retirement for older people 
 
  Org power in society is now viewed as interorganizational power   
  Major corps, banks, other financial institutions, etc. have systematic interlocks w/ each other   
  Marxists argue that orgl interlocks serve class interests   
  Weberians argue that orgl interlocks are rational & expedient 
 
  Pfeffer, 1982, concluded that the evidence of class based power & interlocks is strong, but organizationally there is not strong evidence on how power is wielded 
 
  Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967, found interdepartmental conflict can enhance orgl performance 
 
  Rahim sees conflict as a sound mgt tool 
 
  BECAUSE ORGS ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOC STRUCTURE & CULTURE, THEIR POWER IMPACTS OUR EVERY SPHERE OF LIFE, SUCH AS EDUCATION, ECON / CORP POWER, OUR SOCIAL HIERARCHY / STRAT, HOW WE LOVE / MARRY, ETC.   
  Clark, 1988, in Understanding Org Conflict, wrote that the culture of deregulation, esp as popularized by Reagan, created major transformations in the orgl env 
 
  The culture of deregulation was so transformative that:   
  - deregulation was so powerful in the orgl env that it created a general transformation of society's structure & culture   
  - the transformation is from rule guided competition to a more adventuresome conflict posture   
  - in a conflict posture there is the frequent occurrence of negotiations, out of court settlements, flexibility, limited liability, etc.   
  - when the conflict posture occurred w/in an information society, this created increased org efficiency which fed the fires of conflict at the expense of the rules of competition   
  - like conflict, conflict mgt. can get out of hand 
 

The End
 
Top