Chapter Overview
|
Chapter 7: Groups and Organizations Chapter Overview |
|
PART I: CHAPTER OUTLINE
PART II: LEARNING OBJECTIVES
PART III: CHAPTER REVIEW: KEY POINTSSOCIAL GROUPS A social group is defined as two or more people who identify and interact with one another. Not all collections of individuals are social groups. GROUPS, CATEGORIES, AND CROWDS Category People who have a status in common are defined as a category. Crowd People who are together but who interact very little, or not at all are termed a crowd. Primary and Secondary Groups Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929) studied the extent to which people have personal concern for each other in social interaction settings. A primary group is a small social group whose members share personal and enduring relationships. Relationships in such groups have a personal orientation. Secondary groups are large and impersonal social groups whose members pursue a specific interest or activity. The distinction between these types of groups is not always clear in real life. Group Leadership Some research reveals that there are usually two types of leaders in social groups. Two Leadership Roles Instrumental leadership refers to group direction that emphasizes the completion of tasks. If successful, such leaders gain a distant respect. Expressive leadership, focuses on collective well-being. If successful, such leaders enjoy more personal affection. This differentiation is also linked to gender. Three Leadership Styles Leaders also vary in the ways in which they include others in the decision-making process. Three decision-making styles are identified. One is authoritarian leadership, which focuses on instrumental concerns. This type of leader makes decisions independently and demands strict compliance from subordinates. Another type is the democratic leader who takes a more expressive approach and seeks to include all members in the decision-making process. A third type is labeled laissez-faire. Leaders using this approach tend to downplay their power and allow the group to function on its own. Group Conformity Three research projects illustrate the importance of group conformity to the sociological understanding of group processes. Asch's Research Solomon Asch conducted an experiment in which "naive" subjects were asked to answer questions concerning the length of lines. Five to seven secret accomplices of the experimenter comprised the rest of the group. They purposely gave incorrect answers. Often the naive subject would give a "wrong" answer in order to conform. Figure 7-1 (p. 175) illustrates an example of the lines used in this experiment. Milgram's Research Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment which naive subjects believed was about learning and memory. The experiment was actually measuring obedience to authority. Naive subjects played the part of "teachers" and thought they were giving electric shock to "learners" when wrong answers were given. Janis's Research Irving Janis studied factors which he believed affected decision-making processes and created groupthink, or the tendency of group members to conform by adopting a narrow view of some issue. The Kennedy administration's decision to invade Cuba is used as an example of this phenomenon. Reference Groups The term reference group signifies a social group that serves as a point of reference in making evaluations or decisions. These groups can be primary or secondary. They are also important in anticipatory socialization processes. Stouffer's Research Samuel Stouffer conducted research on morale and attitudes of soldiers in World War II in order to investigate the dynamics of reference groups. Stouffer found what appeared to be a paradox: Soldiers in branches with higher promotion rates were more pessimistic about their own chances of being promoted than soldiers in branches with lower rates of promotion. In relative terms, those soldiers in branches with higher rates felt deprived. This research suggests specific social groups are used as standards in developing individual attitudes. Ingroups and Outgroups An ingroup is a social group commanding a member's esteem and loyalty. This group exists in relation to outgroups, or a social group toward which one feels competition and opposition. This dichotomy allows us to sharpen boundaries between groups and to highlight their distinctive qualities. Group Size Group size significantly influences how members socially interact. As a group's membership is added to arithmetically, the number of possible relationships increases in a geometric progression. Figure 7-2 (p. 178) provides an illustration. The Dyad Georg Simmel studied social dynamics in the smallest social groups. He termed a dyad as a social group with two members. What makes this type of group special is the intensity of the relationship. The Triad The triad is a social group with three members. Dyads and triads have certain unique qualities resulting in particular patterns of stability, intensity, and other socially significant variables. Social Diversity Race, ethnicity, and gender also affect group dynamics. Peter Blau identifies four factors which influence group dynamics. These include: group size, internal heterogeneity, social equality and physical characteristics. Networks The term network refers to a web of social ties that links people who identify and interact little with one another. Little sense of membership is felt by individuals in the network and only occasionally do they come into contact. Most networks are secondary in nature. Demographic characteristics such as age, education, and residence influence the likelihood of a person's involvement in networks. The Exploring Cyber-Society box (p. 182) takes a look at the Internet. In the Window on the World box (p. 183), Global Map 7-1 shows the global reach of the Internet. FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS Today our lives seem focused around formal organizations, or large, secondary groups that are organized to achieve their goals efficiently. Types of Formal Organizations Amitai Etzioni uses the variable of how members relate to the organization as a criterion for distinguishing three types of formal organizations. The first is termed a normative organization. People join this type of organization to pursue some goal they consider morally worthwhile. These are sometimes also called voluntary associations. In the Global Snapshot box (p. 184), Figure 7-3 takes a cross-cultural look at data concerning membership in cultural or educational organizations. The second type is referred to as a coercive organization. These serve as a form of punishment (prisons) and treatment (mental hospitals). The third type identified are utilitarian organizations. These organizations provide material benefits in exchange for labor. Origins of Bureaucracy Formal organizations date back thousands of years. Max Weber suggested that tradition, referring to sentiments and beliefs about the world passed from generation to generation, dominated the world view in preindustrialized societies. Focus was on the past, and so organizational efficiency was not of great concern. Table 7-2 (p. 186) compares small groups and formal organizations through several variables. Characteristics of Bureaucracies Bureaucracy is an organizational model rationally designed to perform complex tasks efficiently. The telephone system in the United States is discussed to illustrate a bureaucratic system. Max Weber identified six basic characteristics or elements of the ideal bureaucracy. These include: specialization, hierarchy of offices, rules and regulations, technical competence, impersonality, and formal written communications. Each of these characteristics is defined. Organizational Size Research has shown "bigger is better" when it comes to employee rewards--salaries, fringe benefits, and opportunities for promotion. However, "smaller is better" when it comes to autonomy. The Informal Side of Bureaucracy While in principle bureaucracy has a highly formal structure, in reality not all behavior in bureaucracies precisely fits the organizational rules. While it is the office which is supposed to carry the power, the personalities of the occupants are important factors. PROBLEMS OF BUREAUCRACY Bureaucratic Alienation Alienation is a problem within bureaucracies as they tend to dehumanize those they serve through their impersonal operation. Bureaucratic Inefficiency and Ritualism The problem of inefficiency is captured in the concept of red tape. Bureaucratic ritualism signifies a preoccupation with rules and regulations to the point of thwarting an organization's goals. Bureaucratic Inertia Bureaucratic inertia refers to the tendency of bureaucratic organizations to perpetuate themselves. An example from the federal government is used to illustrate. Oligarchy Robert Michels observed the fact that oligarchy, or the rule of the many by the few, was a typical outgrowth of bureaucracy. He suggested that individuals in high levels within a bureaucratic hierarchy tend to accumulate power and use it to promote their own objectives. Parkinson's Law and the Peter Principle Parkinson's Law, for example, states that "work expands to fill the time available for its completion." This creates bureaucratic bloat. Also, the Peter Principle states that "bureaucrats are promoted to their level of incompetence." Gender and Race in Organizations Rosabeth Moss Kanter points out that gender and race often determine who holds power and who is given the most opportunities in bureaucratic hierarchies. She finds that such a system has important consequences for on-the-job performance. Figure 7-4 (p. 190) provides information on U.S. managers by race, sex, and ethnicity. Deborah Tannen claims that women have a greater information focus, and men have a greater image focus in organizations. In a similar vein, Sally Helgesen has found that women tend to place greater value on communication skills, are more flexible, and are more attentive to the interconnectedness of all organizational operations than are men. Beyond Bureaucracy: Humanizing Organizations Humanizing organizations fosters a more democratic organizational atmosphere that recognizes and encourages the contributions of everyone. According to research by Rosabeth Kanter, "humanizing" seems to produce happier employees and better profits. Three paths to a more open and humane organization structure include social inclusiveness, sharing responsibilities, and expanding opportunities for advancement. Self-Managed Work Teams Self-managed work teams are becoming more popular in U.S. corporations. Employees are being given more autonomy and a broader understanding of organizational operations. Such a strategy appears to boost productivity while overcoming worker alienation. Organizational Environment Besides an organization's structure, its organizational environment--or any external factors that affect its operation-- need to be considered. Technology, political and economic trends, population patterns, and other organizations are discussed as examples. The McDonaldization of Society McDonald's organizational principles are steadily coming to dominate society. The basic principles include: efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control through automation. Max Weber warned in the early part of this century of the price paid for efficiency--dehumanization. Can Rationality Be Irrational? George Ritzer, who developed the concept of the McDonaldization of society, echoes Weber's concern asserting that the rationality of McDonaldization may be the ultimate irrationality. In the Controversy and Debate box (p. 197) concern about the growing loss of privacy in formal organizations is discussed. In the Seeing Ourselves box (p. 196), National Map 7-2 indicates where in the U.S. people are most concerned about the growing loss of privacy. Formal Organizations In Japan Japan's formal organizations reflect their culture's collective identity and solidarity. In the U.S., on the other hand, we have stressed individuality. Five distinctions between Japanese and Western formal organizations are highlighted by William Ouchi. These include: hiring and advancement, lifetime security, holistic involvement, nonspecialized training, and collective decision making. In the U.S. the focus is on individual achievement, while Japan focuses on success by the group. The Global Sociology box (p. 195) discusses the Japanese model of organizations and whether such a system would work in the U.S. GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE In recent years there has been a shift in focus from the organizations themselves to the organizational environments in which they operate. The Japanese success with more humanized and personal organizational environments has illustrated that organizations need not be impersonal. Collective identity and responsibility seem to be compatible with high organizational productivity. Max Weber's analysis of bureaucracy, rooted as it was in nineteenth century Europe, and its focus on impersonal, secondary relationships, may not describe the whole range of organizational realities. |
 |
A Pearson Company Legal Notice |