Sociology

Groups and Organizations5 IS

B N

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

1-256-36957-8

• How do groups affect how we behave?

• Why can “who you know” be as important as “what you know”?

• In what ways have large business organizations changed in recent decades?

Watch the Core Concepts in Sociology video “Organizational Culture: Norms and Values” on mysoclab.com

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

The success of McDonald’s points to more than just the popularity of hamburgers and French fries. The organizational principles that guide this company are coming to dominate social life in the United States and elsewhere. As Jorge correctly observed, this one small business not only transformed the restaurant industry but also changed our way of life.

We begin this chapter by looking at social groups, the clusters of people with whom we interact in our daily lives. As you will learn, the scope of group life expanded greatly during the twentieth century. From a world of families, local neighborhoods, and small businesses, our society now relies on the operation of huge corporations and other bureaucracies that sociologists describe as formal organizations. Understanding this expansion of social life and appreciating what it means for us as individuals are the main objectives of this chapter.

Social Groups Almost everyone wants a sense of belonging, which is the essence of group life. A social group is two or more people who identify with and interact with one another. Human beings come together as couples,

families, circles of friends, churches, clubs, businesses, neighborhoods, and large organizations. Whatever the form, groups contain people with shared experiences, loyalties, and interests. While keeping their individuality, members of social groups also think of themselves as a special “we.”

Not every collection of individuals forms a group. People with a status in common, such as women, African Americans, homeown- ers, soldiers, millionaires, college graduates, and Roman Catholics, are not a group but a category. Though they know that others hold the same status, most are strangers to one another. Similarly, students sitting in a large stadium interact to a very limited extent. Such a loosely formed collection of people in one place is a crowd rather than a group.

However, the right circumstances can quickly turn a crowd into a group. Events from power failures to terrorist attacks can make people bond quickly with strangers.

Primary and Secondary Groups People often greet one another with a smile and a simple “Hi! How are you?” The response is usually “Fine, thanks. How about you?” This

118 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

Chapter Overview This chapter analyzes social groups, both small and large, highlighting the differences between them. Then the focus shifts to formal organizations that carry out various tasks in our modern society and provide most of us with jobs.

With the workday over, Juan and Jorge pushed through the doors

of the local McDonald’s restaurant. “Man, am I hungry,” announced Juan,

heading right into line. “Look at all the meat I’m gonna eat.” But Jorge, a recent immi-

grant from a small village in Guatemala, is surveying the room with a sociological eye.

“There is much more than food to see here. This place is all about America!”

And so it is, as we shall see. But back in 1948, when the story of McDonald’s

began, people in Pasadena, California, paid little attention to the opening of a new

restaurant by brothers Maurice and Richard McDonald. The McDonald brothers’ basic

concept, which was soon called “fast food,” was to serve meals quickly and cheaply to

large numbers of people. The brothers trained employees to do highly specialized jobs:

One person grilled hamburgers while others “dressed” them, made French fries,

whipped up milkshakes, and handed the food to the customers in assembly-line fashion.

As the years went by, the McDonald brothers prospered, and they opened several more restaurants, including

one in San Bernardino. It was there, in 1954, that Ray Kroc, a traveling blender and mixer salesman, paid them a visit.

Kroc was fascinated by the efficiency of the McDonald brothers’ system and saw the potential for expanding

into a nationwide chain of fast-food restaurants. The three launched the plan as partners. Soon Kroc bought out

the McDonalds (who returned to running their original restaurant) and went on to become one of the greatest suc-

cess stories of all time. Today, McDonald’s is one of the mostly widely known brand names in the world, with

32,000 restaurants serving 58 million people daily throughout the United States and in 117 other countries.

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

answer is often more scripted than sincere. Explaining how you are really doing might make people feel so awkward that they would beat a hasty retreat.

Social groups are of two types, based on their members’ degree of genuine personal concern for one another. Accord- ing to Charles Horton Cooley, a primary group is a small social group whose members share personal and lasting relationships. Joined by primary relationships, people spend a great deal of time together, engage in a wide range of activities, and feel that they know one another pretty well. In short, they show real concern for one another. The family is every society’s most important primary group.

Cooley called personal and tightly integrated groups “pri- mary” because they are among the first groups we experience in life. In addition, family and friends have primary impor- tance in the socialization process, shaping our attitudes, behav- ior, and social identity.

Members of primary groups help one another in many ways, but they generally think of their group as an end in itself rather than as a means to other ends. In other words, we tend to think that family and friendship link people who “belong together.” Members of a primary group also tend to view each other as unique and irreplaceable. Especially in the family, we are bound to others by emotion and loyalty. Brothers and sisters may not always get along, but they always remain “family.”

In contrast to the primary group, the secondary group is a large and impersonal social group whose members pursue a specific goal or activity. In most respects, secondary groups have characteristics opposite those of primary groups. Secondary relationships involve weak emotional ties and little personal knowledge of one another. Many secondary groups exist for only a short time, beginning and ending without particular significance. Students enrolled in the same course at a large university—people who may or may not see one another after the semester ends—are one example of a secondary group.

Secondary groups include many more people than primary groups. For example, dozens or even hundreds of people may work in the same company, yet most of them pay only passing attention to one another. Sometimes the passage of time transforms a group from secondary to primary, as with co-workers who share an office for many years and develop closer relationships. But generally, mem- bers of a secondary group do not think of themselves as “we.” Sec- ondary ties need not be hostile or cold, of course. Interactions among students, co-workers, and business associates are often quite pleas- ant even if they are impersonal.

Unlike members of primary groups, who display a personal ori- entation, people in secondary groups have a goal orientation. Pri- mary group members define each other according to who they are in

terms of family ties or personal qualities, but people in secondary groups look to one another for what they are, that is, what they can do for each other. In secondary groups, we tend to “keep score,” aware of what we give others and what we receive in return. This goal ori- entation means that secondary group members usually remain for- mal and polite. It is in a secondary relationship, therefore, that we ask the question “How are you?” without expecting a truthful answer.

The Summing Up table on page 120 reviews the characteristics of primary and secondary groups. Keep in mind that these traits define two types of groups in ideal terms; most real groups contain elements of both. For example, a women’s group on a university cam- pus may be quite large (and therefore secondary), but its members may identify strongly with one another and provide lots of mutual support (making it seem primary).

Many people think that small towns and rural areas emphasize primary relationships and that large cities are characterized by sec- ondary ties. This generalization is partly true, but some urban neigh- borhoods—especially those populated by people of a single ethnic or religious category—can be very tightly knit.

Group Leadership How do groups operate? One important element of group dynamics is leadership. Although a small circle of friends may have no leader at all, most large secondary groups place leaders in a formal chain of command.

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 119

As human beings, we live our lives as members of groups. Such groups may be large or small, temporary or long-lasting, and can be based on kinship, cultural heritage, or some shared interest.

secondary group a large and impersonal social group whose members pursue a specific goal or activity

List all the groups in your life that you think of as “we.” Is each a primary or secondary group?

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life

social group two or more people who identify with and interact with one another

primary group a small social group whose members share personal and lasting relationships

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

Two Leadership Roles

Groups typically benefit from two kinds of leadership. Instrumental leadership refers to group leadership that focuses on the completion of tasks. Members look to instrumental leaders to make plans, give orders, and get things done. Expressive leadership, by contrast, is group lead- ership that focuses on the group’s well-being. Expressive leaders take less of an interest in achieving goals and focus on promoting the well-being of members and minimizing tension and conflict among members.

Because they concentrate on performance, instrumental lead- ers usually have formal, secondary relationships with other mem- bers. These leaders give orders and reward or punish people according to how much they contribute to the group’s efforts. Expres- sive leaders build more personal, primary ties. They offer sympathy to members going through tough times, keep the group united, and lighten serious moments with humor. Typically, successful instru- mental leaders enjoy more respect from members and expressive lead- ers generally receive more personal affection.

Three Leadership Styles

Sociologists also describe leadership in terms of its decision-making style. Authoritarian leadership focuses on instrumental concerns, takes personal charge of decision making, and demands that group mem- bers obey orders. Although this leadership style may win little affec- tion from the group, a fast-acting authoritarian leader is appreciated in a crisis.

Democratic leadership is more expressive, making a point of including everyone in the decision-making process. Although less successful in a crisis situation, when there is little time for discus- sion, democratic leaders generally draw on the ideas of all members to develop creative solutions to problems.

Laissez-faire leadership allows the group to function more or less on its own (laissez-faire in French means “leave it alone”). This style is typically the least effective in promoting group goals (White & Lippitt, 1953; Ridgeway, 1983).

Group Conformity Groups influence the behavior of their members, often promoting conformity.“Fitting in” provides a secure feeling of belonging, but at the extreme, group pressure can be unpleasant and even dangerous. Interestingly, as experiments by Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram showed, even strangers can encourage group conformity.

Asch’s Research

Solomon Asch (1952) recruited students for what he told them was a study of visual perception. Before the experiment began, he explained to all but one member of a small group that their real pur- pose was to put pressure on the remaining person. Placing six to eight students around a table, Asch showed them a “standard” line, as drawn on Card 1 in Figure 5–1, and asked them to match it to one of the three lines on Card 2.

Anyone with normal vision can see that the line marked “A” on Card 2 is the correct choice. Initially, as planned, everyone made the matches correctly. But then Asch’s secret accomplices began answer- ing incorrectly, leaving the uninformed student (seated at the table so as to answer next to last) bewildered and uncomfortable.

What happened? Asch found that one-third of all subjects chose to conform by answering incorrectly. Apparently, many of us are will- ing to compromise our own judgment to avoid the discomfort of being different, even from people we do not know.

120 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

SUMMING UP

Primary Group Secondary Group

Quality of relationships Personal orientation Goal orientation

Duration of relationships Usually long-term Variable; often short-term

Breadth of relationships Broad; usually involving many activities Narrow; usually involving few activities

Perception of relationships Ends in themselves Means to an end

Examples Families, circles of friends Co-workers, political organizations

Primary Groups and Secondary Groups

Look closely at the Summing Up table below to be sure you understand how primary and secondary groups differ. The arrows at the top indicate that these two concepts form a continuum—that is, any particular group is primary and secondary to some degree.

Making the Grade

instrumental leadership group leadership that focuses on the completion of tasks

expressive leadership group leadership that focuses on the group’s well-being

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

Milgram’s Research

Stanley Milgram, a former student of Solomon Asch’s, conducted conformity experiments of his own. In Milgram’s controversial study (1963, 1965; A. G. Miller, 1986), a researcher explained to male recruits that they would be taking part in a study of how punishment affects learning. One by one, he assigned them to the role of teacher and placed another person—actually an accomplice of Milgram’s—in a connecting room to pose as a learner.

The teacher watched as the learner sat down in what looked like an electric chair. The researcher applied electrode paste to one of the learner’s wrists, explaining that this would “prevent blisters and burns.” The researcher then attached an electrode to the wrist and secured the leather straps, explaining that they would “prevent exces- sive movement while the learner was being shocked.” Although the shocks would be painful, the researcher reassured the teacher, they would cause “no permanent tissue damage.”

The researcher then led the teacher back into the adjoining room, pointing out that the “electric chair” was connected to a “shock generator,” actually a phony but realistic-looking piece of equipment with a label that read “Shock Generator, Type ZLB, Dyson Instru- ment Company, Waltham, Mass.” On the front was a dial that sup- posedly regulated electric current from 15 volts (labeled “Slight Shock”) to 300 volts (“Intense Shock”) to 450 volts (“Danger: Severe Shock”). Go to mysoclab.com

Seated in front of the “shock generator,” the teacher was told to read aloud pairs of words. Then the teacher was to repeat the first word of each pair and wait for the learner to recall the second word. Whenever the learner failed to answer correctly, the teacher was told to apply an electric shock.

The researcher directed the teacher to begin at the lowest level (15 volts) and to increase the shock by 15 volts every time the learner made a mistake. And so the teacher did. At 75, 90, and 105 volts, the teacher heard moans from the learner; at 120 volts, shouts of pain; by 270 volts, screams; at 315 volts, pounding on the wall; after that, dead silence. Only a few of the forty subjects assigned to the role of teacher during the initial research even questioned the procedure before reaching the dangerous level of 300 volts, and twenty-six of the subjects—almost two-thirds—went all the way to the potentially lethal 450 volts. Even Milgram was surprised at how readily people obeyed authority figures.

Milgram (1964) then modified his research to see whether ordi- nary people—not authority figures—could pressure strangers to administer electrical shocks, in the same way that Asch’s groups had pressured individuals to match lines incorrectly.

This time, Milgram formed a group of three teachers, two of whom were his accomplices. Each of the teachers was to suggest a shock level when the learner made an error; the rule was that the group would then administer the lowest of the three suggested

levels. This arrangement gave the person who was not in on the experiment the power to deliver a lesser shock regardless of what the others said.

The accomplices suggested increasing the shock level with each error the learner made, putting pressure on the third person to do the same. The subjects in these groups applied voltages three to four times higher than those applied by subjects acting alone. Thus Milgram’s research suggests that people are likely to follow the directions not only of legitimate authority figures but also of groups of ordinary individuals, even if doing so means harming another person.

Janis’s “Groupthink”

Experts also cave in to group pressure, says Irving Janis (1972, 1989). Janis argues that a number of U.S. foreign policy blunders, including the failure to foresee the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II and our ill-fated involvement in the Vietnam War, resulted from group conformity among our highest-ranking political leaders.

Common sense tells us that group discussion improves decision making. Janis counters that group members often seek agreement that closes off other points of view. Janis called this process groupthink, the tendency of group members to conform, resulting in a narrow view of some issue.

A classic example of groupthink resulted in the disastrous U.S. invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in 1961. Looking back, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., an adviser to President Kennedy at the time, confessed

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 121

A B C

Card 2Card 1

FIGURE 5–1 Cards Used in Asch’s Experiment in Group Conformity

In Asch’s experiment, subjects were asked to match the line on Card 1 to one of the lines on Card 2. Many subjects agreed with the wrong answers given by others in their group. Source: Asch (1952).

Go to the Multimedia Library at mysoclab.com to view the video “Milgram Obedience Study Today”

groupthink the tendency of group members to conform, resulting in a narrow view of some issue

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

feeling guilty “for having kept so quiet during those crucial discus- sions in the Cabinet Room,” adding that the group discouraged any- one from challenging what, in hindsight, Schlesinger considered “nonsense” (quoted in Janis, 1972:30, 40). Groupthink may also have been a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, when U.S. leaders were led to believe—erroneously—that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Reference Groups How do we assess our own attitudes and behavior? Frequently, we use a reference group, a social group that serves as a point of reference in making evaluations and decisions.

A young man who imagines his family’s response to a woman he is dating is using his family as a reference group. A supervisor who tries to predict her employees’ reaction to a new vacation policy is using them in the same way. As these examples suggest, reference groups can be primary or secondary. In either case, our need to con- form shows how others’ attitudes affect us.

We also use groups we do not belong to for reference. Being well prepared for a job interview means showing up dressed the way peo- ple in that company dress for work. Conforming to groups we do not belong to is a strategy to win acceptance and illustrates the process of anticipatory socialization, described in Chapter 3 (“Social- ization: From Infancy to Old Age”).

Stouffer’s Research

Samuel Stouffer and his colleagues (1949) conducted a classic study of reference groups during World War II. Researchers asked soldiers to rate their own, or any competent soldier’s, chances of promotion in their army unit. You might guess that soldiers serving in outfits with high promotion rates would be optimistic about advancement. Yet Stouffer’s research pointed to the opposite conclusion: Soldiers in army units with low promotion rates were actually more positive about their chances to move ahead.

The key to understanding Stouffer’s results lies in the groups against which soldiers measured themselves. Those assigned to units with lower promotion rates looked around them and saw people making no more headway than they were. Although they had not been promoted, neither had many others, so they did not feel deprived. However, soldiers in units with higher promotion rates could think of many people who had been promoted sooner or more often than they had. With such people in mind, even soldiers who had been promoted themselves were likely to feel shortchanged.

The point is that we do not make judgments about ourselves in isolation, nor do we compare ourselves with just anyone. Regardless of our situation in absolute terms, we form a subjective sense of our well-being by looking at ourselves relative to specific reference groups (Merton, 1968; Mirowsky, 1987).

In-Groups and Out-Groups Each of us favors some groups over others, whether because of polit- ical outlook, social prestige, or just manner of dress. On some col- lege campuses, for example, left-leaning student activists may look down on fraternity members, whom they view as conservative; frater- nity members, in turn, may snub the “nerds” who work too hard. Peo- ple in just about every social setting make similar positive and negative evaluations of members of other groups.

Such judgments illustrate another key element of group dynam- ics: the opposition of in-groups and out-groups. An in-group is a social group toward which a member feels respect and loyalty. An out- group, by contrast, is a social group toward which a person feels a sense of competition or opposition. In-groups and out-groups are based on the idea that “we” have valued traits that “they” lack.

Tensions between groups sharpen the groups’ boundaries and give people a clearer social identity. However, members of in-groups generally hold overly positive views of themselves and unfairly neg- ative views of various out-groups.

Power also plays a part in intergroup relations. A powerful in- group can define others as a lower-status out-group. Historically, in countless U.S. cities and towns, many white people viewed people of color as an out-group and subordinated them socially, politically, and economically. Internalizing these negative attitudes, minorities often struggled to overcome negative self-images. In this way, in- groups and out-groups foster loyalty but also generate conflict (Tajfel, 1982; Bobo & Hutchings, 1996).

Group Size The next time you go to a party, try to arrive first. If you do, you will be able to observe some fascinating group dynamics. Until about six peo- ple enter the room, every person who arrives usually joins in a single conversation.As more people arrive, the group divides into two or more clusters, and it divides again and again as the party grows. This process shows that group size plays a crucial role in how group members interact.

To understand why, note the mathematical number of relation- ships possible among two to seven people. As shown in Figure 5–2, two people form a single relationship; adding a third person results in three relationships; a fourth person yields six. Increasing the num- ber of people further boosts the number of relationships much more rapidly because every new individual can interact with everyone already there. Thus by the time seven people join one conversation, twenty-one “channels” connect them. With so many open channels, at this point the group usually divides into smaller conversation groups.

The Dyad

The German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918) explored the dynamics in the smallest social groups. Simmel (1950, orig. 1902)

122 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

In terms of in-groups and out-groups, explain what happens when people who may not like each other discover that they have a common enemy.

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Lifereference group a social group that serves as a point ofreference in making evaluations and decisions

in-group a social group toward which a member feels respect and loyalty

out-group a social group toward which a person feels a sense of competition or opposition

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

used the term dyad (Greek for “pair”) to designate a social group with two members. Simmel explained that social interaction in a dyad is typically more intense than in larger groups because neither member must share the other’s attention with anyone else. In the United States, love affairs, marriages, and the closest friendships are dyadic.

But like a stool with only two legs, dyads are unstable. Both members of a dyad must work to keep the relationship going; if either withdraws, the group collapses. To make marriage more stable, soci- ety supports the marital dyad with legal, economic, and often reli- gious ties.

The Triad

Simmel also studied the triad, a social group with three members. A triad contains three relationships, each of which unites two of the three people. A triad is more stable than a dyad because one member can act as a mediator if relations between the other two become strained. This analysis of group dynamics helps explain why members of a dyad (say, spouses having conflict) often seek out a third person (such as a marriage counselor) to discuss tensions between them.

On the other hand, two of the three can pair up to press their views on the third, or two may intensify their relationship, leaving the other feeling left out. For example, when two of the three members of a triad develop a romantic interest in each other, they will come to understand the meaning of the old saying,“Two’s company, three’s a crowd.”

As groups grow beyond three people, they become more stable and capable of withstanding the loss of one or more members. At the same time, increases in group size reduce the intense interaction possible in only the smallest groups. This is why larger groups are based less on personal attachments and more on formal rules and regulations.

Social Diversity: Race, Class, and Gender Race, ethnicity, class, and gender each play a part in group dynamics. Peter Blau (1977; Blau, Blum, & Schwartz, 1982; South & Messner, 1986) points out three ways in which social diversity influences inter- group contact:

1. Large groups turn inward. Blau explains that the larger a group is, the more likely its members are to concentrate rela- tionships among themselves. Say a college is trying to enhance social diversity by increasing the number of international stu- dents. These students may add a dimension of difference, but as their numbers rise, they become more likely to form their own social group. Thus efforts to promote social diversity may have the unintended effect of promoting separatism.

2. Heterogeneous groups turn outward. The more socially diverse a group is, the more likely its members are to interact with outsiders. Campus groups that recruit people of both sexes and various social backgrounds typically have more inter- group contact than those with members of one social category.

3. Physical boundaries create social boundaries. To the extent that a social group is physically segregated from others (by hav- ing its own dorm or dining area, for example), its members are less likely to interact with other people.

Networks A network is a web of weak social ties. Think of a network as a “fuzzy” group containing people who come into occasional contact but lack a sense of boundaries and belonging. If you think of a group as a “cir- cle of friends,” think of a network as a “social web” expanding outward, often reaching great distances and including large numbers of people.

The largest network of all is the World Wide Web of the Internet. But the Internet has expanded much more in some global regions than in others. Global Map 5–1 on page 125 shows that Internet use is high in rich countries and far less common in poor nations.

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 123

B C

Five people (ten relationships)

B C

Four people (six relationships)

B C

Three people (three relationships)

A B

Two people (one relationship)

B C

Six people (fifteen relationships)

B C

F G

Seven people (twenty-one relationships)

FIGURE 5–2 Group Size and Relationships As the number of people in a group increases, the number of relation- ships that link them increases much faster. By the time six or seven people share a conversation, the group usually divides into two. Why are relationships in smaller groups typically more intense?

Is a network a group? No, because there is no common identification or frequent interaction among members. But fuzzy or not, networks are a valuable resource, which is probably the best reason to understand a little about how they work.

Making the Grade dyad a social group with two members

triad a social group with three members

network a web of weak social ties

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

Some networks come close to being groups, as in the case of col- lege friends who stay in touch years after graduation by e-mail and telephone. More commonly, however, a network includes people we know of or who know of us but with whom we interact rarely, if at all. As one woman known as a community organizer puts it, “I get calls at home, [and] someone says, ‘Are you Roseann Navarro? Somebody told me to call you. I have this problem . . .’” (Kaminer, 1984:94).

Network ties often give us the sense that we live in a “small world.” In a classic experiment, Stanley Milgram (1967; Watts, 1999) gave letters to subjects in Kansas and Nebraska intended for specific people in Boston who were unknown to the original subjects. No addresses were given, and the subjects in the study were told to send the letters to others they knew personally who might know the tar- get people. Milgram found that the target people received the letters

with, on average, six people passing them on. This result led Milgram to claim that everyone is connected to everyone else by “six degrees of separation.” Later research, however, has cast doubt on Milgram’s claim. Examining Milgram’s original data, Judith Kleinfeld noted that most of Milgram’s letters (240 out of 300) never arrived at all (Wildavsky, 2002). Most of those that did reach their destination had been given to people who were wealthy, a fact that led Kleinfeld to conclude that rich people are better connected across the country than ordinary men and women. Go to mysoclab.com

Network ties may be weak, but they can be a powerful resource. For immigrants trying to become established in a new community, businesspeople seeking to expand their operations, or new college graduates looking for a job, whom you know often is just as important as what you know (Hagan, 1998; Petersen, Saporta, & Seidel, 2000).

Networks are based on people’s colleges, clubs, neighborhoods, political parties, religious organizations, and personal interests. Obvi- ously, some networks are made up of people with more wealth, power, and prestige than others; that explains the importance of being “well connected.” The networks of more privileged categories of people—such as the members of a country club—are a valuable form of “social capital,” which is more likely to lead people in these categories to higher-paying jobs (Green, Tigges, & Diaz, 1999; Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001).

Some people also have denser networks than others; that is, they are connected to more people. Typically, the largest social networks include people who are young, well educated, and living in large cities (Fernandez & Weinberg, 1997; Podolny & Baron, 1997).

Gender also shapes networks. Although the networks of men and women are typically of the same size, women include more rel- atives (and more women) in their networks, and men include more co-workers (and more men). Women’s ties, therefore, may not be quite as powerful as typical “old boy” networks. But research sug- gests that as gender equality increases in the United States, the net- works of men and women are becoming more alike (Reskin & McBrier, 2000; Torres & Huffman, 2002).

Formal Organizations As noted earlier, a century ago, most people lived in small groups of family, friends, and neighbors. Today, our lives revolve more and more around formal organizations, large secondary groups organized to achieve their goals efficiently. Formal organizations such as corpora- tions and government agencies differ from small primary groups in their impersonality and their formally planned atmosphere.

When you think about it, organizing more than 300 million mem- bers of U.S. society is truly remarkable, whether it involves paving roads, collecting taxes, schooling children, or delivering the mail. To carry out most of these tasks, we rely on large formal organizations.

124 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

The triad, illustrated by Jonathan Green’s painting Friends, includes three people. A triad is more stable than a dyad because conflict between any two persons can be mediated by the third member. Even so, should the relationship between any two become more intense in a positive sense, those two are likely to exclude the third. Jonathan Green, Friends, 1992. Oil on masonite, 14 in. × 11 in. © Jonathan Green. http://www.jonathangreenstudios.com

Go to the Multimedia Library at mysoclab.com to listen to the NPR report “Scientists Debate Six Degrees of Separation”

formal organizations large secondary groups organized to achieve their goals efficiently

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

Types of Formal Organizations Amitai Etzioni (1975) identified three types of formal organizations, distinguished by the reasons people participate in them: utilitarian organizations, normative organizations, and coercive organizations.

Utilitarian Organizations

Just about everyone who works for income belongs to a utilitarian organization, one that pays people for their efforts. Becoming part of

a utilitarian organization—a business, government agency, or school system, for example—is usually a matter of individual choice, although most people must join one or another such organization to make a living.

Normative Organizations

People join normative organizations not for income but to pursue some goal they think is morally worthwhile. Sometimes called voluntary associations, these include community service groups (such

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 125

ERITREA

1801601401201008060402002060 4080100120140160

A N T A R C T I C A

TUVALU

WESTERN SAMOA

FIJI

TONGA NEW CALEDONIA

NEW ZEALAND

AUSTRALIA

SOLOMON ISLANDSPAPUA

NEW GUINEA

VANUATU

KIRIBATI

MARSHALL ISLANDSFEDERATED STATES

OF MICRONESIA

NAURU

JAPAN

N. KOREA S. KOREA

KAZAKHSTAN

MONGOLIA UZBEKISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

OMAN

PA KI

ST A

GH AN

IS TA

N PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC

OF CHINA

NEPAL BHUTAN

TAJIKISTAN

IRAN

MALAYSIA

BRUNEI

EAST TIMOR

I N D O N E S I A

SINGAPORE

CAMBODIA SRI LANKA

VIETNAM

PHILIPPINES

TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA

INDIA

BANGLADESH LAOS

THAILAND

M YA

N M

A R

MAURITIUS

MADAGASCAR

SOUTH

AFRICA LESOTHO

SWAZILAND

NAMIBIA

BOTSWANA

MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE

ZAMBIA MALAWI

MALDIVES

SEYCHELLES

COMOROS

TANZANIA

SÃO TOMÉ & PRINCIPE

RWANDA

BURUNDI

KENYA

ANGOLA

GABON

CONGO

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

UGANDA CAMEROON

SOMALIA

CENT. AFR. REP.

ETHIOPIA

DJIBOUTI

SUDAN CHAD YEM

KUWAIT

N IG

ER IA

NIGER

BENIN

IVORY COAST

TOGO

MAURITANIA

SENEGAL

GAMBIA

GUINEA-BISSAU GUINEA

SIERRA LEONE

LIBERIA G H

A N

M A

L I

BURKINA FASO

CAPE VERDE

SAUDI ARABIA

EGYPT

LIBYA

U.A.E.

ALGERIA WESTERN

SAHARA M

O RO

CC O

RUSSIAN FEDERATION ESTONIA LATVIA LITHUANIA

FINLAND SWEDEN

ST. VINCENT

M E X

I C O

BAHAMAS

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

ANTIGUA & BARBUDA ST. KITTS & NEVIS

DOMINICA

ST. LUCIA BARBADOS

GRENADA

GUYANA

FRENCH GUIANA SURINAME

B O

LIV IA

R A

G U

A R

G E

N T

I N A

C O

L O

M B

I A

B R A Z I L

P E R

URUGUAY

CHILE

ECUADOR

HAITIJAMAICA

NICARAGUA

CUBA

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

GUATEMALA

EL SALVADOR

BELIZE HONDURAS

COSTA RICA

PANAMA VENEZUELA

PUERTO RICO

U.S.

UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA

C A N A D A

ICELAND

GREENLAND NORWAY

DENMARK

GREAT BRITAIN

IRELAND

MALTA

JORDAN

IRAQ

BAHRAIN QATAR

ISRAEL LEBANON

SYRIA

TURKEY TURKMENISTAN

AZERBAIJAN

ARMENIA

GEORGIA

UKRAINE MOLDOVA

BELARUS

GREECE

POLAND

HUNG.

CZECH REP.

CYPRUS TUNISIA

PORTUGAL

GERM.NETH. BEL.

LUX. SWITZ.

ITALYFRANCE

AUS. SLOV.

JORDAN

IRAQ

BAHRAIN QATAR

ISRAEL LEBANON

SYRIA

TURKEY TURKMENISTAN

AZERBAIJAN

ARMENIA

GEORGIA

UKRAINE MOLDOVA

BELARUS

GREECE

POLAND

ROM. HUNG.

MAC.

CZECH REP.

CYPRUS TUNISIA

PORTUGAL

GERM.NETH. BEL.

LUX. SWITZ.

ITALYFRANCE

AUS. SLOV.

SP AI

SLOVENIA CROATIA

BOSNIA-HERZ. ALB.

HONG KONG MACAO

DEM. REP.

OF THE CONGO

Internet Users per 1,000 People

High: 100 or more

Moderate: 10.0 to 99.9

Low: Fewer than 10

No data

BUL.

SERBIA MONT.

Whitney Linnea and all her high school friends in suburban Chicago use the Internet every day.

Ibsaa Leenco lives in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, and has never used the Internet.

KOSOVO

Window on the World GLOBAL MAP 5–1 Internet Users in Global Perspective This map shows how the Information Revolution has affected countries around the world. In most high-income nations, at least one-third of the population uses the Internet. By contrast, only a small share of people in low-income nations does so. What effect does this pattern have on people’s access to information? What does this mean for the future in terms of global inequality? Source: International Telecommunication Union (2009).

Explore on mysoclab.com

membership in one of our country’s largest formal organizations—the military—in your local community and in counties across the United States on mysoclab.com

Explore

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

as Amnesty International, the PTA, the League of Women Voters, and the Red Cross), political parties, and religious organizations. In global perspective, people in the United States and in other high-income countries are the most likely to join voluntary associations. A recent study found that 72 percent of first-year college students in the United States said they had participated in some organized volunteer activ- ity within the past year (Pryor et al., 2009; see also Curtis, Baer, & Grabb, 2001; Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001).

Coercive Organizations

Coercive organizations have involuntary memberships. People are forced to join these organizations as a form of punishment (prisons) or treatment (some psychiatric hospitals). Coercive organizations have special physical features, such as locked doors and barred win- dows, and are supervised by security personnel. They isolate people (whom they label “inmates” or “patients”) for a period of time in order to radically change their attitudes and behavior. Recall from Chapter 3 (“Socialization: From Infancy to Old Age”) the power of a total institution to change a person’s sense of self.

It is possible for a single formal organization to fall into all of these categories from the point of view of different individuals. For example, a mental hospital serves as a coercive organization for a patient, a utilitarian organization for a psychiatrist, and a normative organization for a hospital volunteer.

Origins of Formal Organizations Formal organizations date back thousands of years. Elites who con- trolled early empires relied on government officials to collect taxes, undertake military campaigns, and build monumental structures, from the Great Wall of China to the pyramids of Egypt.

However, early organizations had two limitations. First, they lacked the technology to travel over large distances, to communicate quickly, and to gather and store information. Second, the preindus- trial societies they were trying to rule had traditional cultures. Tradition, according to the German sociologist Max Weber, consists of values and beliefs passed from generation to generation. Tradition makes a society conservative, Weber explained, because it limits an organization’s efficiency and ability to change.

By contrast, Weber described the modern worldview as rationality, a way of thinking that emphasizes deliberate, matter-of-fact calculation of the most efficient way to accomplish a particular task. A rational worldview pays little attention to the past and is open to any changes that might get the job done better or more quickly.

The rise of the “organizational society” rests on what Weber called the rationalization of society, the historical change from tradition to rationality as the main type of human thought. Modern society, he claimed, becomes “disenchanted” as sentimental ties give way to a rational focus on science, complex technology, and the orga- nizational structure called bureaucracy.

Characteristics of Bureaucracy Bureaucracy is an organizational model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently. Bureaucratic offi- cials regularly create and revise policy to increase effi- ciency. To appreciate the power and scope of bureaucratic organization, consider that any one of almost 400 million phones in the United States can connect you within seconds to any other phone in a home, a business, an automobile, or even a hiker’s backpack on a remote trail in the Rocky Mountains. Such instant communication is beyond the imagina- tion of people who lived in the ancient world.

Our telephone system depends on technology such as electricity, fiber optics, and computers. But the system could not exist without the organizational capacity to keep track of every telephone call— recording which phone called which other phone, when, and for how long—and presenting all this information to more than 200 million telephone users in the form of a monthly bill (Federal Commu- nications Commission, 2008; CTIA, 2009).

126 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

Weber described the operation of the ideal bureaucracy as rational and highly efficient. In real life, actual large organizations often operate very differently from Weber’s model, as can be seen on the television show The Office.

tradition values and beliefs passed from generation to generation

rationality a way of thinking that emphasizes deliberate, matter-of-fact calculation of the most efficient way to accomplish a particular task rationalization of society the historical change from tradition to rationality as the main type of human thought

bureaucracy an organizational model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently

organizational environment factors outside an organization that affect its operation

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

What specific traits promote organizational efficiency? Max Weber (1978, orig. 1921) identified six key elements of the ideal bureaucratic organization:

1. Specialization. Our ancestors spent most of their time look- ing for food and finding shelter. Bureaucracy, by contrast, assigns individuals highly specialized jobs.

2. Hierarchy of offices. Bureaucracies arrange workers in a verti- cal ranking. Each person is thus supervised by someone “higher up” in the organization while in turn supervising others in lower positions. Usually, with few people at the top and many at the bottom, bureaucratic organizations take the form of a pyramid.

3. Rules and regulations. Rationally enacted rules and regula- tions guide a bureaucracy’s operation. Ideally, a bureaucracy seeks to operate in a completely predictable way.

4. Technical competence. Bureaucratic officials have the techni- cal competence to carry out their duties. Bureaucracies typi- cally hire new members according to set standards and then monitor their performance. Such impersonal evaluation con- trasts with the ancient custom of favoring relatives, whatever their talents, over strangers.

5. Impersonality. Bureaucracy puts rules ahead of personal whim so that both clients and workers are all treated in the same way. From this impersonal approach comes the commonplace image of the “faceless bureaucrat.”

6. Formal, written communications. It is often said that the heart of bureaucracy is not people but paperwork. Rather than casual, face-to-face talk, bureaucracy depends on formal, writ- ten memos and reports, which accumulate in vast files.

Bureaucratic organization promotes efficiency by carefully hir- ing workers and limiting the unpredictable effects of personal taste and opinion. The Summing Up table reviews the differences between small social groups and large formal organizations.

Organizational Environment All organizations exist in the larger world. How well any organiza- tion performs depends not only on its own goals and policies but also on the organizational environment, factors outside an organization that affect its operation. These factors include technology, economic and political trends, current events, the available workforce, and other organizations.

Modern organizations are shaped by technology, including copiers, telephones, and computer equipment. Computers give employees access to more information and people than ever before. At the same time, computer technology allows managers to closely monitor the activities of workers (Markoff, 1991).

Economic and political trends affect organizations. All organiza- tions are helped or hurt by periodic economic growth or recession. Most industries also face competition from abroad as well as changes in laws—such as new environmental standards—at home.

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 127

SUMMING UP

Small Groups and Formal Organizations

Small Groups Formal Organizations

Activities Much the same for all members Distinct and highly specialized

Hierarchy Often informal or nonexistent Clearly defined according to position

Norms General norms, informally applied Clearly defined rules and regulations

Membership criteria Variable; often based on personal affection or kinship Technical competence to carry out assigned tasks

Relationships Variable and typically primary Typically secondary, with selective primary ties

Communications Typically casual and face to face Typically formal and in writing

Focus Person-oriented Task-oriented

Give an example of each of the factors listed here in the operation of your college or university bureaucracy.

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life The six traits listed here defined, for Weber, the ideal

bureaucracy. This means that in its pure form, bureaucracy has all these traits. Actual organizations, of course, may differ in some way from the ideal.

Making the Grade

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

Current events can have significant effects even on organizations that are far away. Events such as the rise in energy prices that fol- lowed the 2005 hurricanes that devastated the Gulf states, the 2006 elections that transferred leadership in Congress from Republicans to Democrats, and the 2008 elections that handed control of both the White House and Congress to the Democrats affected the oper- ation of both government and business organizations.

Population patterns also affect organizations. The average age, typical level of education, social diversity, and size of a local commu- nity determine the available workforce and sometimes the market for an organization’s products or services.

Other organizations also contribute to the organizational envi- ronment. To be competitive, a hospital must be responsive to the insurance industry and to organizations representing doctors, nurses, and other health care workers. It must also be aware of the medical equipment, health care procedures, and prices available at nearby facilities.

The Informal Side of Bureaucracy Weber’s ideal bureaucracy deliberately regulates every activity. In real- life organizations, however, human beings are creative (and stubborn) enough to resist bureaucratic regulation. Informality may amount to cutting corners on the job at times, but it can also provide the flexi- bility needed for an organization to adapt and be successful.

In part, informality comes from the personalities of organiza- tional leaders. Studies of U.S. corporations document that the qual- ities and quirks of individuals—including personal charisma, interpersonal skills, and the ability to recognize problems—can have a great effect on organizational performance (Halberstam, 1986; Baron, Hannan, & Burton, 1999).

Authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire types of leadership (described earlier in this chapter) reflect individual personality as much as any organizational plan. Then, too, in the “real world” of organizations, leaders sometimes seek to benefit personally through abuse of organizational power. Many of the corporate leaders of banks and insurance companies that collapsed during the financial meltdown of 2008 walked off with multimillion-dollar “golden para- chutes.” More commonly, leaders take credit for the efforts of the people who work for them. For example, the responsibilities—and authority—of many secretaries are far greater than their official job titles and salaries suggest.

Communication offers another example of organizational infor- mality. Memos and other written documents are the formal way to spread information through the organization. Typically, however, peo- ple create informal networks, or “grapevines,” that spread informa- tion quickly, if not always accurately. Grapevines, using word of mouth and e-mail, are particularly important to rank-and-file workers because higher-ups often try to keep important information from them.

The spread of e-mail has “flattened” organizations somewhat, allowing even the lowest-ranking employee to bypass immediate superiors to communicate directly with the organization’s leader or all fellow employees at once. Some organizations consider such “open channel” communication unwelcome and limit the use of e- mail. Leaders may also seek to protect themselves from a flood of messages each day. Microsoft Corporation (whose founder, Bill Gates, has an “unlisted” address that helps him limit his e-mail to hundreds of messages each day) has developed screens that filter out all messages except those from approved people (Gwynne & Dickerson, 1997).

Using new information technology together with age-old human ingenuity, members of formal organizations often find ways to per- sonalize their work and surroundings. Such efforts suggest that we should take a closer look at some of the problems of bureaucracy.

Problems of Bureaucracy We rely on bureaucracy to manage everyday life efficiently, but many people are uneasy about large organizations gaining too much influ- ence. Bureaucracy can dehumanize and manipulate us, and some say it poses a threat to political democracy. These dangers are discussed in the following sections.

Bureaucratic Alienation

Max Weber held up bureaucracy as a model of productivity. Yet Weber was keenly aware of bureaucracy’s potential to dehumanize the peo- ple it is supposed to serve. The impersonality that fosters efficiency also keeps officials and clients from responding to each other’s unique personal needs. Typically, officials treat each client impersonally as a standard “case.” Sometimes the tendency toward dehumanization goes too far, as in 2008 when the U.S. Army accidentally sent letters to family members of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, address- ing the recipients as “John Doe” (“Army Apologizes,” 2009).

Formal organizations create alienation, according to Weber, by reducing the human being to “a small cog in a ceaselessly moving mechanism” (1978:988, orig. 1921). Although formal organizations are designed to benefit humanity, Weber feared that people might well end up serving formal organizations.

Bureaucratic Inefficiency and Ritualism

On Labor Day 2005, as people in New Orleans and other coastal areas were battling to survive in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 600 fire- fighters from around the country assembled in a hotel meeting room in Atlanta awaiting deployment. Officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) explained to the crowd that they were first going to be given a lecture on “equal opportunity, sexual harass- ment, and customer service.” Then, the official continued, they would

128 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

Just because an organization is efficient doesn’t mean that people enjoy being part of it or that it is actually good for people. Weber feared the opposite: The more rational and bureaucratic society became, the less it would advance human well-being.

Making the Grade

Do you think FEMA or other large government organizations are inherently inefficient, or do you think their leaders sometimes make bad decisions? Explain your answer.

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

each be given a stack of FEMA pamphlets with the agency’s phone number to distribute to people in the devastated areas. A firefighter stood up and shouted,“This is ridiculous. Our fire departments and mayors sent us down here to save lives, and you’ve got us doing this?” The FEMA official thundered back, “You are now employees of FEMA, and you will follow orders and do what you are told” (“Places,” 2005:39).

Finally, new technology has greatly expanded networking in today’s world, especially among younger people who typi- cally make use of Facebook and other social networking Web sites. Once in cyberspace, however, information we post may end up being read by almost anyone, which can cause some serious problems. The Seeing Sociology in the News article on pages 130–31 takes a closer look.

People sometimes describe inefficiency by saying that an organization has too much “red tape,” meaning that important work does not get done. The term “red tape” is derived from the ribbon used by slow-working eighteenth-century English admin- istrators to wrap official parcels and records (Shipley, 1985).

To Robert Merton (1968), red tape amounts to a new twist on the familiar concept of group conformity. He coined the term bureaucratic ritualism to describe focusing on rules and regulations to the point of undermining an organization’s goals. In short, rules and regulations should be a means to an end, not an end in themselves that takes the focus away from the organization’s stated goals. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Postal Service continued to help deliver mail addressed to Osama bin Laden to a post office in Afghanistan, despite the objections of the FBI. It took an act of Congress to change the policy (Bedard, 2002).

Bureaucratic Inertia

If bureaucrats sometimes have little reason to work very hard, they have every reason to protect their jobs. Thus officials typically work to keep their organization going even when its goal has been realized. As Max Weber put it, “Once fully established, bureaucracy is among the social structures which are hardest to destroy” (1978:987, orig. 1921).

Bureaucratic inertia refers to the tendency of bureaucratic organizations to perpetuate themselves. Formal organizations tend to take on a life of their own beyond their formal objectives. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture still has offices in nearly every county in all fifty states, even though only about one county in seven has any working farms. Usually, an organization manages to stay in business by redefining its goals; for example, the Agriculture Department now performs a broad range of work not directly related to farming, including nutritional and environmen- tal research.

Oligarchy

Early in the twentieth century, Robert Michels (1876–1936) pointed out the link between bureaucracy and political oligarchy, the rule of the many by the few (1949, orig. 1911). According to what Michels called the “iron law of oligarchy,” the pyramid shape of bureaucracy places a few leaders in charge of the resources of the entire organization.

Weber believed that a strict hierarchy of responsibility resulted in high organizational efficiency. But Michels countered that hierar- chy also weakens democracy because officials can and often do use their access to information, resources, and the media to promote their own personal interests.

Furthermore, bureaucracy helps distance officials from the pub- lic, as in the case of the corporate president or public official who is “unavailable for comment” to the local press or the national pres- ident who withholds documents from Congress claiming “execu- tive privilege.” Oligarchy, then, thrives in the hierarchical structure of bureaucracy and reduces the accountability of leaders to the peo- ple (Tolson, 1995).

Political competition, term limits, a system of checks and balances, and the law prevent the U.S. government from becoming an out-and- out oligarchy. Even so, in U.S. political races, candidates who have the

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 129

George Tooker’s painting Government Bureau is a powerful statement about the human costs of bureaucracy. The artist paints members of the public in a drab sameness—reduced from human beings to mere “cases” to be disposed of as quickly as possible. Set apart from others by their positions, officials are “faceless bureaucrats” concerned more with numbers than with providing genuine assistance (notice that the artist places the fingers of the officials on calculators). George Tooker, Government Bureau, 1956. Egg tempera on gesso panel, 195-8 × 29

bureaucratic ritualism a focus on rules and regulations to the point of undermining an organization’s goals

bureaucratic inertia the tendency of bureaucratic organizations to perpetuate themselves

oligarchy the rule of the many by the few scientific management (p. 130) the application of scientific principles to the operation of a business or other large organization

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

visibility, power, and money that come with already being in office enjoy a significant advantage. In recent congressional elections, as few as 6 percent of congressional officeholders running for reelection were defeated by their challengers (Center for Responsive Politics, 2009).

The Evolution of Formal Organizations The problems of bureaucracy—especially the alienation it produces and its tendency toward oligarchy—stem from two organizational traits: hierarchy and rigidity. To Weber, bureaucracy is a top-down system: Rules and regulations made at the top guide every part of people’s work down the chain of command. A century ago in the United States, Weber’s ideas took hold in an organizational model called scientific management. We take a look at this model and then examine three challenges over the course of the twentieth century that gradually have led to a new model: the flexible organization.

Scientific Management Frederick Winslow Taylor (1911) had a simple message: Most busi- nesses in the United States were sadly inefficient. Managers had little idea of how to increase their business’s output, and workers relied on the same tired skills of earlier generations. To increase efficiency, Taylor explained, business should apply the principles of modern

science. Scientific management, then, is the application of scientific principles to the operation of a business or other large organization.

Scientific management involves three steps. First, managers care- fully observe the job performed by each worker, identifying all the operations involved and measuring the time needed for each. Second, managers analyze their data, trying to discover ways for workers to perform each job more efficiently. For example, managers might decide to give workers different tools or to reposition various work opera- tions within the factory. Third, management provides guidance and incentives for workers to do their jobs more efficiently. If a factory worker moves 20 tons of pig iron in one day, for example, manage- ment would show the worker how to do the job more efficiently and then provide higher wages as the worker’s productivity rises. Taylor concluded that if scientific principles were applied to all the steps of the production process, companies would become more profitable, work- ers would earn higher wages, and consumers would pay lower prices.

A century ago, the auto pioneer Henry Ford put it this way: “Save ten steps a day for each of 12,000 employees, and you will have saved fifty miles of wasted motion and misspent energy” (Allen & Hyman, 1999:209). In the early 1900s, the Ford Motor Company and many other businesses followed Taylor’s lead and experienced dramatic improvements in efficiency.

The successful application of scientific management suggested that decision-making power in the workplace should rest with the owners and executives, who paid little attention to the ideas of their workers. As the decades passed, however, formal organizations faced

130 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

Professor Suspended After Joke About Killing Students on Facebook BY DALIA FAHMY March 3, 2010

The list of Facebook faux-pas just grew longer. Gloria Gadsden, a sociology professor at East

Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania, says she was suspended last week after updating her Face- book status with complaints about work that alluded to violence.

In January, she wrote: “Does anyone know where I can find a very discreet hitman? Yes, it’s been that kind of day.” Then in February: “had a good day today. DIDN’T want to kill even one student.:-). Now Friday was a different story.”

Gadsden says she posted the comments in jest, on a profile she thought could only be seen by friends and family. She says officials were notified of the posts by a student—even though she says she had no students in her “friend” list.

“I was just having a bad day, and I was venting to family and friends,” says Gadsden, who says she didn’t realize her comments could be read by the

public after Facebook relaxed its privacy stan- dards in December. “My friends and family knew I was being facetious. They knew I wasn’t target- ing anyone.”

Nevertheless, university officials were unhappy about the allusions to violence in the posts, she says, and in a meeting with her even mentioned the recent shooting spree by a disgruntled biolo- gist at the University Alabama-Huntsville.

“Given the climate of security concerns in aca- demia, the university has an obligation to take all threats seriously and act accordingly,” Marilyn Wells, ESU’s interim provost and vice president for academic affairs, told The Chronicle of Higher Education last week. Wells and other university officials did not return calls from ABC News seek- ing comment.

Workers have been getting in trouble often over their online vents. Not only do employers want to control their online image as closely as they can, but they are also vulnerable, like anybody else, to hurt pride.

“When you badmouth your boss and the boss is hearing, whether you’re doing it online or at the coffee maker, the boss isn’t going to be happy,” says Jonathan Ezor, assistant professor of law and tech- nology at Touro Law Center in Huntington, New York. “The fact that it’s online makes it more eas- ily findable and have a broader potential impact.”

The comments that provoke employers into action usually contain obscenities or exaggera- tions that could hurt relations with customers.

Last year, for example, Dan Leone, a stadium worker for the Philadelphia Eagles, was fired after he reacted with an online obscenity to news that one of the Eagles’ star players was leaving to join the Denver Broncos.

“Dan is [deleted] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver. Dam Eagles R Retarted,” was the comment that cost Leone his job.

Although he later apologized and tried to get his job back, his employer wouldn’t budge. . . .

In the U.K., Virgin Atlantic Airlines fired thir- teen cabin crew members after they made fun of

Seeing SOCIOLOGY in the

ABC News

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

important challenges involving race and gender, rising competition from abroad, and the changing nature of work itself. We now take a brief look at each of these challenges and how they prompted organ- izations to change.

The First Challenge: Race and Gender In the 1960s, critics claimed that big businesses and other organizations engaged in unfair hiring practices. Rather than hiring on the basis of competence as Weber had proposed, they routinely excluded women and other minorities, especially from positions of power. Hiring on the basis of competence is partly a matter of fairness; it is also a mat- ter of enlarging an organization’s talent pool to promote efficiency.

Patterns of Privilege and Exclusion

In the early twenty-first century, as shown in Figure 5–3 on page 132, non-Hispanic white men in the United States—33 percent of the working-age population—still held 63 percent of senior-level manage- ment jobs. Non-Hispanic white women also made up 33 percent of the population, but they held just 24 percent of executive positions (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009). The members of other minorities lagged further behind.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977; Kanter & Stein, 1979) points out that excluding women and minorities from the workplace ignores the talents of more than half the population. Furthermore, underrep- resented people in an organization often feel like socially isolated

out-groups: uncomfortably visible, taken less seriously, and with fewer chances for promotion. Sometimes what passes for “merit” or good work in an organization is simply being of the right social cat- egory (Castilla, 2008).

Opening up an organization so that change and advancement happen more often, Kanter claims, improves everyone’s on-the-job performance by motivating employees to become “fast-trackers” who work harder and are more committed to the company. By contrast, an organization with many dead-end jobs turns workers into less productive “zombies” who are never asked for their opinion on any- thing. An open organization also encourages leaders to seek out the ideas of all employees, which usually improves decision making.

The “Female Advantage”

Some organizational researchers argue that women bring special man- agement skills that strengthen an organization. According to Deborah Tannen (1994), women have a greater “information focus” and more readily ask questions in order to understand an issue. Men, by con- trast, have an “image focus” that makes them wonder how asking questions in a particular situation will affect their reputation.

In another study of women executives, Sally Helgesen (1990) found three other gender-linked patterns. First, women place greater value on communication skills and share information more than men do. Second, women are more flexible leaders who typically give their employees greater freedom. Third, compared to men, women tend to emphasize the interconnectedness of all organizational

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 131

passengers in their postings and quipped about defective engines.

The discount airline, owned by Sir Richard Branson, told The Guardian at the time that the postings were “totally inappropriate” and “brought the company into disrepute.”

Social media mavens can even get in trouble before they’ve been hired. Remember the case of the Cisco fatty that went viral last year?

One Twitter user posted an update last year saying “Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.”

A Cisco employee responded, “Who is the hir- ing manager? I’m sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the Web.”

Needless to say, the applicant did not end up working at Cisco.

Several Web sites, such as JobVent.com, have sprung up in recent years to make it easier for employees to vent their job frustrations online.

There’s even a website called IhateDell.net that allows employees (and customers) to air their complaints about the computer maker.

In some cases, online postings by disgruntled employees can seriously damage a company’s bot- tom line. Just ask Domino’s Pizza.

Domino’s sales dropped last year after an employee posed for five YouTube videos. In one, he stuffed cheese up his nose and put it into a sandwich. In another, he sneezed into a cheese steak sandwich.

Once the poser and the photographer—also a Domino’s employee—were identified, they were fired and sued by Dominos.

In this case, the transgression seemed very clear. But employees often complain that their online posts are only used as excuses to fire them.

Gadsden, the professor from East Strouds- burg, says that university officials have been dis- criminating against her ever since she wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education saying universities don’t do enough to retain minority faculty. . . .

“Their reaction (to the posts) was exaggerated,” says Gadsden, noting that she was not given a warning or a chance to correct her actions before she was suspended.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

1. Do you have a Facebook page? If so, whom do you allow to view it? Could something like what happened to Professor Gadsden or oth- ers mentioned in this article happen to you?

2. Is “badmouthing” your boss online more seri- ous than verbal gossip among coworkers? Why or why not?

3. Do you think the university was justified in suspending Professor Gadsden? What would you have done to resolve this case?

“Professor Suspended After Joke About Killing Students on Facebook” by Dalia Fahmy. Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/ PersonalFinance/facebook-firings-employees-online-vents-twitter- postings-cost/story?id=9986796

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

Percentage of senior management jobs held

Percentage of population aged 20 to 64

P er

ce n

WomenMen

Non-Hispanic Whites

33 33

Men

Women

Hispanics

WomenMen

Non-Hispanic African Americans

6 2 2

8 77

Compared to their percentage of the total population, white men are overrepresented in senior management positions.

FIGURE 5–3 U.S. Managers in Private Industry by Race, Sex, and Ethnicity, 2007

White men are more likely than their population size suggests to be senior managers in private industry. The opposite is true for white women and other minorities. What factors do you think may account for this pattern? Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2009) and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2009).

operations. These patterns, which Helgesen dubbed the female advantage, help make companies more flexible and democratic.

In sum, one challenge to conventional bureaucracy is to become more open and flexible in order to take advantage of the experience, ideas, and creativity of everybody, regardless of race or gender. The result goes right to the bottom line: greater profits.

The Second Challenge: The Japanese Work Organization In 1980, the corporate world in the United States was shaken to dis- cover that the most popular automobile model sold in this country was not a Chevrolet, Ford, or Plymouth but the Honda Accord, made in Japan. And the trend continued: In 2008, the Japanese corporation Toyota passed General Motors to become the largest carmaker in the world (Fowler, 2008). Ironically, as late as the 1950s, the label “Made in Japan” generally indicated that a product was cheap and poorly made. But times have changed. The success of the Japanese auto

industry, as well as companies making electronics, cameras, and many other products, has drawn attention to the “Japanese work organiza- tion.” How has so small a country been able to challenge the world’s economic powerhouse?

Japanese organizations reflect that nation’s strong collective spirit. In contrast to the U.S. emphasis on rugged individualism, the Japanese value cooperation. In effect, formal organizations in Japan are more like large primary groups. A generation ago, William Ouchi (1981) highlighted differences between formal organizations in Japan and in the United States. First, Japanese companies hired new work- ers in groups, giving everyone the same salary and responsibilities. Second, many Japanese companies hired workers for life, fostering a strong sense of loyalty. Third, with the idea that employees would spend their entire careers there, many Japanese organizations trained workers in all phases of their operations. Fourth, although Japanese corporate leaders took ultimate responsibility for their organiza- tions’ performance, they involved workers in “quality circles” to dis- cuss decisions that affected them. Fifth, Japanese companies played a large role in the lives of workers, providing home mortgages, spon- soring recreational activities, and scheduling social events. Together, such policies encouraged much more loyalty among members of Japanese organizations than was the case in their U.S. counterparts.

Not everything has worked out well for Japanese corporations. Around 1990, the Japanese economy entered a downward trend that has persisted for two decades. During this downturn, many Japanese companies changed their policies, no longer offering workers jobs for life or many of the other benefits noted by Ouchi. Japanese soci- ety is also aging—with a large share of the population over age sixty- five and not working—and this pattern is likely to slow economic growth in the future.

For the widely admired Toyota corporation, 2010 turned out to be a year of trouble. Having expanded its operations to become the world’s largest auto company, Toyota was forced to announce recalls of millions of its vehicles due to mechanical problems, suggesting that one consequence of its rapid growth was the loss of some of the company’s focus on what had been the key to its success all along— quality (Saporito, 2010).

The Third Challenge: The Changing Nature of Work Beyond rising global competition and the need to provide equal opportunity for all, pressure to modify conventional work organiza- tions is also coming from changes in the nature of work itself. Over the past few decades, the economy of the United States has moved from industrial to postindustrial production. Rather than working in factories using heavy machinery to make things, more people today are using computers and other electronic technology to create or

132 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

Diversity Snapshot

Think of the jobs people in your family do—are they industrial jobs (making things) or postindustrial jobs (processing information)?

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

process information. A postindustrial society, then, is characterized by information-based organizations.

Frederick Taylor developed his concept of scientific manage- ment at a time when most jobs involved tasks that, though often backbreaking, were routine. Workers shoveled coal, poured liquid iron into molds, welded body panels to automobiles on an assembly line, or shot hot rivets into steel girders to build skyscrapers. In addi- tion, a large part of the U.S. labor force in Taylor’s day was made up of immigrants, most of whom had little schooling and many of whom knew little English. The routine nature of industrial jobs, cou- pled with the limited skills of the labor force, led Taylor to treat work as a series of fixed tasks set down by management and followed by employees.

Many of today’s information age jobs are very different: The work of designers, artists, consultants, writers, editors, composers, programmers, business owners, and others now demands creativity and imagination. What does this mean for formal organizations? Here are several ways in which today’s organizations differ from those of a century ago:

1. Creative freedom. As one Hewlett-Packard executive put it, “From their first day of work here, people are given important responsibilities and are encouraged to grow” (Brooks, 2000:128). Today’s organizations treat employees with information age skills as a vital resource. Executives can set production goals but can- not dictate how to accomplish tasks that require imagination and discovery. This gives highly skilled workers creative freedom, which means they are subject to less day-to-day supervision as long as they generate good results in the long run.

2. Competitive work teams. Many organizations allow several groups of employees to work on a problem and offer the great- est rewards to the group that comes up with the best solution. Competitive work teams—a strategy first used by Japanese organizations—draw out the creative contributions of every- one and at the same time reduce the alienation often found in conventional organizations (Maddox, 1994; Yeatts, 1994).

3. A flatter organization. By spreading responsibility for creative problem solving throughout the workforce, organizations take on a flatter shape. That is, the pyramid shape of conventional bureaucracy is replaced by an organizational form with fewer lev- els in the chain of command, as shown in Figure 5–4 on page 134.

4. Greater flexibility. The typical industrial age organization was a rigid structure guided from the top. Such organizations may accomplish a good deal of work, but they are not especially creative or able to respond quickly to changes in their larger environment. The ideal model in the information age is a more open and flexible organization that both generates new ideas and adapts quickly to the rapidly changing global marketplace.

What does this all mean for organizations? As David Brooks puts it, “The machine is no longer held up as the standard that healthy organizations should emulate. Now, it’s the ecosystem” (2000:128). Today’s “smart” companies seek out intelligent, creative people (AOL calls its main buildings “Creative Centers”) and nurture the growth of their talents.

Keep in mind, however, that many of today’s jobs do not involve creative work at all. More correctly, the postindustrial economy has created two very different types of work: high-skill creative work and low-skill service work. Work in the fast-food industry, for example, is routine and highly supervised and thus has much more in common with factory work of a century ago than with the creative teamwork typical of today’s information organizations. Therefore, at the same time that some organizations have taken on a flatter, more flexible form, others continue to use a rigid chain of command.

The “McDonaldization” of Society As noted in the opening to this chapter, McDonald’s has enjoyed enor- mous success, now operating more than 32,000 restaurants in the United States and around the world. Japan has more than 3,700

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 133

During the last fifty years in the United States, women have moved into management positions throughout the corporate world. While some men initially opposed women’s presence in the executive office, it is now clear that women bring particular strengths to the job, including leadership flexibility and communication skills. Thus, some analysts speak of women offering a “female advantage.”

Have you ever had a “dead-end” job? A job that demanded creativity? Which would you prefer and why?

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life

As you read the discussion that follows, be sure you understand and remember the four principles of McDonaldization.

Making the Grade

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

Golden Arches, and the world’s largest McDonald’s is found in China’s capital, Beijing.

McDonald’s is far more than a restaurant chain; it is a symbol of U.S. culture. Not only do people around the world associate McDon- ald’s with the United States, but here at home, one poll found that 98 percent of schoolchildren could identify Ronald McDonald, making him as well known as Santa Claus.

Even more important, the organizational principles that under- lie McDonald’s are coming to dominate our entire society. Our cul- ture is becoming “McDonaldized,”1 a clever way of saying that we model many aspects of life on the approach taken by the restaurant chain: Parents buy toys at worldwide chain stores all carrying iden- tical merchandise; we drop in at a convenient shop for a ten-minute drive-through oil change; face-to-face communication is being replaced more and more with electronic methods such as voice mail,

e-mail, and instant messaging; more vacations take the form of resorts and tour packages; television packages the news in the form of ten-second sound bites; college admissions officers size up applicants they have never met by glancing at their GPAs and SAT scores; and professors assign ghostwritten textbooks2 and evaluate students using tests mass-produced for them by pub- lishing companies.

Can you tell what all these developments have in common?

Four Principles

According to George Ritzer (1993), the McDonaldiza- tion of society involves four basic organizational prin- ciples:

1. Efficiency. Ray Kroc, the marketing genius behind the expansion of McDonald’s, set out to serve a hamburger, French fries, and a milkshake to a customer in fifty seconds. Today, one of the company’s most popular items is the Egg McMuf- fin, an entire breakfast packaged into a single sandwich. In the restaurant, customers pick up their meals at a counter, dispose of their own trash, and stack their own trays as they walk out the door or, better still, drive away from the pickup window taking whatever mess they make with them. Such efficiency is now central to our way of life. We tend to think that anything done quickly is, for that reason alone, good.

2. Predictability. An efficient organization wants to make every- thing it does as predictable as possible. McDonald’s prepares all food using set formulas. Company policies guide the perform- ance of every job.

3. Uniformity. The first McDonald’s operating manual declared the weight of a regular raw hamburger to be 1.6 ounces, its size to be 3.875 inches across, and its fat content to be 19 percent. A slice of cheese weighs exactly half an ounce, and French fries are cut precisely 9/32 inch thick.

Think about how many of the objects we see every day around the home, the workplace, and the campus are designed and mass-produced uniformly according to a standard plan. Not just our environment but our everyday life experiences—

134 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

CONVENTIONAL BUREAUCRACY

OPEN, FLEXIBLE ORGANIZATION

Numerous, competing work teams

CEO

Senior managers

CEO

Top executives

Division leaders

Middle managers

Rank-and-file workers

FIGURE 5–4 Two Organizational Models The conventional model of bureaucratic organizations has a pyramid shape, with a clear chain of command. Orders flow from the top down, and reports of performance flow from the bottom up. Such organizations have extensive rules and regulations, and their workers have highly specialized jobs. More open and flexible organizations have a flatter shape, more like a football. With fewer levels in the hierarchy, responsibility for generat- ing ideas and making decisions is shared throughout the organization. Many workers do their jobs in teams and have a broad knowledge of the entire organization’s operation.

1The term “McDonaldization” was coined by Jim Hightower (1975); much of this discussion is based on the work of George Ritzer (1993, 1998, 2000) and Eric Schlosser (2002).

2A number of popular sociology textbooks were not written by the person whose name appears on the cover. This book is not one of them. Even the test bank that accompa- nies this text was written by the author.

Read on mysoclab.com

Is your college or university a top-down bureaucracy or a flatter, more flexible organization? How might you find out?

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life

“The McDonaldization of Society” by George

Ritzer on mysoclab.com Read

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

from traveling the nation’s interstate highways to sitting at home viewing national TV shows—are more standardized than ever before.

Almost anywhere in the world, a person can walk into a McDonald’s restaurant and buy the same sandwiches, drinks, and desserts prepared in the same way.3 Uniformity results from a highly rational system that specifies every action and leaves nothing to chance.

4. Control. The most unreliable element in the McDonald’s sys- tem is human beings. After all, people have their good and bad days, and they sometimes let their minds wander or decide to do something a different way. To minimize the unpredictable human element, McDonald’s has automated its equipment to cook food at a fixed temperature for a set length of time. Even the cash registers at McDonald’s are keyed to pictures of the

menu items so that ringing up a customer’s order is as simple as possible.

Similarly, automatic teller machines are replacing banks, highly automated bakeries produce bread while people stand back and watch, and chickens and eggs (or is it eggs and chick- ens?) emerge from automated hatcheries. In supermarkets, laser scanners at self-checkouts are phasing out human checkers. Much of our shopping now occurs in malls, where everything from temperature and humidity to the kinds of stores and products sold are subject to continuous control and supervision (Ide & Cordell, 1994). Go to mysoclab.com

Can Rationality Be Irrational?

There is no doubt about the popularity or efficiency of McDonald’s. But there is another side to the story.

Max Weber was alarmed at the increasing rationalization of the world, fearing that formal organizations would cage our imagina- tions and crush the human spirit. As he saw it, rational systems are efficient but dehumanizing. McDonaldization bears him out. Each of the principles we have just discussed limits human creativity, choice, and freedom. Echoing Weber, Ritzer reaches the conclusion that “the ultimate irrationality of McDonaldization is that people could lose control over the system and it would come to control us” (1993:145). Perhaps even McDonald’s understands the limits of

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 135

The best of today’s information age jobs—including working at Google, the popular search engine Web site—allow people lots of personal freedom as long as they produce good ideas. At the same time, many other jobs, such as working the counter at McDonald’s, involve the same routines and strict supervision found in factories a century ago.

3As McDonald’s has “gone global,” a few products have been added or changed accord- ing to local tastes. For example, in Uruguay, customers enjoy the McHuevo (a ham- burger with a poached egg on top); Norwegians can buy McLaks (grilled salmon sandwiches); the Dutch favor the Groenteburger (vegetable burger); in Thailand, McDonald’s serves Samurai pork burgers; the Japanese can purchase a Chicken Tatsuta Sandwich (chicken seasoned with soy and ginger); Filipinos eat McSpaghetti (spaghetti with tomato sauce and bits of hot dog); and in India, where Hindus eat no beef, McDonald’s sells a vegetarian Maharaja Mac (B. Sullivan, 1995).

Can you point to examples of McDonaldization beyond those noted below? What are they?

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life Go to the Multimedia Library at mysoclab.com

to hear George Ritzer explain “The McDonaldization of Society”

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

136 CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

Computer Technology, Large Organizations, and the Assault on Privacy

JAKE: I’m doing MySpace. It’s really cool.

DUNCAN: Why do you want to put your whole life out there for everyone to see?

JAKE: I’m famous, man!

DUNCAN: Famous? Ha! You’re throwing away whatever privacy you have left.

Jake completes a page on MySpace.com, which includes his name and college, e-mail, photo, biography, and current personal inter- ests. It can be accessed by billions of people around the world.

Late for a meeting with a new client, Sarah drives her car through a yel- low light as it turns red at a main intersection. A computer linked to a pair of cameras notes the violation and takes one picture of her license plate and another of her sitting in the driver’s seat. Seven days later, she receives a summons to appear in traffic court.

Julio looks through his mail and finds a letter from a Washington, D.C., data services company telling him that he is one of about 145,000

people whose name, address, Social Security number, and credit file have recently been sold to criminals in California posing as businesspeople. With this infor- mation, these crooks can obtain credit cards or take out loans in his name.

These are all cases showing that today’s organ- izations—which know more about us than ever before and more than most of us even realize— pose a growing threat to personal privacy. Large organizations are necessary for today’s society

to operate. In some cases, organizations using information about us may actually be helpful. But cases of identity theft are on the rise, and personal privacy is on the decline.

In the past, small-town life gave people lit- tle privacy. But at least if people knew some- thing about you, you were just as likely to know something about them. Today, unknown peo- ple “out there” can access information about each of us all the time without our learning about it.

In part, the loss of privacy is a result of more and more complex computer tech- nology. Are you aware that every e-mail you send and every Web site you visit leaves a record in one or more computers? Most of these records can be retrieved by people you don’t know, as well as by employers and other public officials.

Another part of today’s loss of privacy reflects the number and size of formal organizations. As explained in this chap- ter, large organizations tend to treat peo- ple impersonally, and they have a huge appetite for information. Mix large organ- izations with ever more complex com- puter technology, and it is no wonder that

CONTROVERSY & DEBATE

rationalization—the company has now expanded its offerings of more upscale foods, such as premium roasted coffee and salad selections that are more sophisticated, fresh, and healthful (Philadelphia, 2002).

The Future of Organizations: Opposing Trends Early in the twentieth century, ever-larger organizations arose in the United States, most taking on the bureaucratic form described by Max Weber. In many respects, these organizations were like armies led by powerful generals who issued orders to their captains and lieu-

tenants. Ordinary soldiers, working in the factories, did what they were told.

With the emergence of the postindustrial economy after 1950, as well as rising competition from abroad, many organizations evolved toward the flatter, more flexible model that encourages com- munication and creativity. Such “intelligent organizations” (Pinchot & Pinchot, 1993; Brooks, 2000) have become more productive than ever. Just as important, for highly skilled people who enjoy creative freedom, these organizations create less of the alienation that so wor- ried Weber.

But this is only half the story. Although the postindustrial econ- omy created many highly skilled jobs, it created even more routine

The McDonaldization thesis is that rational organization is coming to define our way of life and this trend is in important ways harmful to our well-being.

Making the Grade The opposing trends are (1) expansion of flatter, more flexible organizations that value creativity and (2) the large number of routine service jobs that reflect the “McDonaldization of society.”

Making the Grade

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

Groups and Organizations CHAPTER 5 137

most people in the United States are concerned about who knows what about them and what people are doing with this information.

For decades, the level of personal privacy in the United States has been declining. Early in the twentieth century, when state agencies began issuing driver’s licenses, for example, they generated files for every licensed driver. Today, officials can send this information at the touch of a button not only to the police but also to all sorts of other organizations. The Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, as well as government agencies that benefit veterans, students, the unem- ployed, and the poor, all collect mountains of personal information.

Business organizations now do much the same thing, and many of the choices we make end up in a company’s database. Most of us use credit—the U.S. population now has more than 1 billion credit cards, an average of five per adult—but the companies that do “credit checks” collect and distribute information about us to almost anyone who asks, including crimi- nals planning to steal our identity.

Then there are the small cameras found not only at traffic intersections but also in stores,

public buildings, and parking garages and across college campuses. The number of sur- veillance cameras that monitor our movements is rapidly increasing with each passing year. So- called security cameras may increase public safety in some ways—say, by discouraging a mugger or even a terrorist—at the cost of the lit- tle privacy we have left.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government took steps (including the USA PATRIOT Act) to strengthen national security. Today, government officials more closely monitor not just who enters the country but the activities of all of us. Increased national security and privacy do not mix.

Some legal protections remain. Each of the fifty states has laws that give citizens the right to examine some records about themselves kept by employers, banks, and credit bureaus. The federal Privacy Act of 1974 also limits the exchange of personal information among gov- ernment agencies and permits citizens to examine and correct most government files. In response to rising levels of identity theft, Con- gress is likely to pass more laws to regulate the sale of credit information. But so many organi- zations, private as well as public, now have

information about us—experts estimate that 90 percent of U.S. households are profiled in databases somewhere—that current laws sim- ply cannot effectively address the privacy problem.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

1. Do you believe that our concern about national security is destroying privacy? How can the loss of privacy threaten our security?

2. Do you use Internet sites such as http:// www.myspace.com? Why do you think so many young people are eager to spread personal information in this way?

3. Have you checked your credit history recently? Do you know how to reduce the chances of having your identity stolen? (If not, one place to start is http://www .stopidentitytheft.org).

Sources: Robert Wright (1998), “Online Privacy” (2000), J. Rosen (2000), A. Hamilton (2001), Heymann (2002), O’Harrow (2005), and Bruxelles (2009).

service jobs, such as those offered by McDonald’s. Fast-food com- panies now represent the largest pool of low-wage labor, aside from migrant workers, in the United States (Schlosser, 2002). Work of this kind, which Ritzer terms “McJobs,” offers few of the benefits that today’s highly skilled workers enjoy. On the contrary, the automated routines that define work in the fast-food industry, telemarketing, and similar fields are not very different from those that Frederick Taylor described a century ago.

Today, the organizational flexibility that gives better-off workers more freedom carries, for rank-and-file employees, the ever-present threat of “downsizing” (Sennett, 1998). Organizations facing global competition are eager to attract creative employees, but they are just

as eager to cut costs by eliminating as many routine jobs as possible. The net result is that some people are better off than ever while others worry about holding their jobs and struggle to make ends meet—a trend that we will explore in detail in Chapter 8 (“Social Stratification”).

U.S. organizations remain the envy of the world for their pro- ductive efficiency. Indeed, there are few places on Earth where the mail arrives as quickly and dependably as it does in this country. But we should remember that the future is far brighter for some people than for others. In addition, as the Controversy & Debate box explains, formal organizations pose a mounting threat to our privacy, some- thing to keep in mind as we envision our organizational future.

Have large organizations reduced your privacy in ways you don’t like? Explain.

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life

Are we giving away our own privacy by posting so much information about ourselves on social networking sites such as Facebook? Explain.

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

Seeing Sociology in Everyday Life Chapter 5 Groups and Organizations

To what extent is the concept of McDonaldization a part of our everyday lives?

This chapter explains that since the opening of the first McDonald’s restaurant in 1948, the principles that underlie the fast-food industry—efficiency, predictability, uniformity, and control— have spread to many aspects of our everyday lives. Here is a chance to identify aspects of McDonaldization in several familiar routines. In each of the two photos on the facing page, can you identify specific elements of McDonaldization? That is, in what ways does the organizational pattern or the technology involved increase efficiency, predictability, uniformity, and control? In the photo below, what elements do you see that are clearly not McDonaldization? Why?

HINT This process, which is described as the “McDonaldization of society,” has made our lives easier in some ways, but it has also made our society ever more impersonal, gradually diminishing our range of human contact. Also, although this organizational pat- tern is intended to serve human needs, it may end up doing the opposite by forcing peo- ple to live according to the demands of machines. Max Weber feared that our future would be an overly rational world in which we all might lose much of our humanity.

138

Small, privately owned stores like this one were once the rule in the United States. But the number of “mom and pop” businesses is declining as “big box” discount stores expand. Why are small stores disappearing? What social qualities of these stores are we losing in the process?

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

1. Have colleges and universities been affected by the process called McDonaldization? Do large, anonymous lecture courses qualify as an example? Why? What other examples of McDonaldization can you identify on the college campus?

2. Visit any large public building with an elevator. Observe groups of people as they approach the elevator, and enter the elevator with them. Watch their behavior: What happens to conversations as the elevator doors close? Where do people fix their eyes? Can you explain these patterns?

3. Using campus publications or your school’s Web page (and some assistance from an instructor), try to draw an organi- zational pyramid for your college or university. Show the key offices and how they supervise and report to one another.

Applying SOCIOLOGY in Everyday Life

139

Automated teller machines (ATMs) became common in the United States in the early 1970s. A customer with an electronic identification card can complete certain bank- ing operations (such as withdrawing cash) without hav- ing to deal with a human bank teller. What makes the ATM one example of McDonaldization? Do you enjoy using ATMs? Why or why not?

At checkout counters in many supermarkets and large dis- count stores, the customer lifts each product through a laser scanner linked to a computer in order to identify what the

product is and what it costs. The customer then inserts a credit or debit card to pay for the purchase and proceeds to bag the items.

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

V IS

U A

L S

U M

M A

R Y CHAPTER 5 Groups and Organizations

Making the Grade

What Are Social Groups?

SOCIAL GROUPS are two or more people who identify with and interact with one another.

p. 118

What Formal Organizations?

See the Summing Up table on page 120.

NETWORKS are relational webs that link people with little common identity and limited interaction. Being “well connected” in networks is a valuable type of social capital.

Elements of Group Dynamics

GROUP LEADERSHIP

• Instrumental leadership focuses on completing tasks.

• Expressive leadership focuses on a group’s well-being.

• Authoritarian leadership is a “take charge” style that demands obedience; democratic leadership includes everyone in decision making; laissez-faire leadership lets the group function mostly on its own.

GROUP CONFORMITY

• The Asch, Milgram, and Janis research shows that group members often seek agreement and may pressure one another toward conformity.

• Individuals use reference groups—including both in- groups and out-groups—to form attitudes and make evaluations.

GROUP SIZE and DIVERSITY

• Georg Simmel described the dyad as intense but unstable; the triad, he said, is more stable but can dissolve into a dyad by excluding one member.

• Peter Blau claimed that larger groups turn inward, socially diverse groups turn outward, and physically segregated groups turn inward.

pp. 119–20

pp. 120–22 pp. 122–23

pp. 123–24

A PRIMARY GROUP is small, personal, and lasting (examples include family and close friends).

A SECONDARY GROUP is large, impersonal, goal- oriented, and often of shorter duration (examples include a college class or a corporation).

p. 119 pp. 118–19

FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS are large secondary groups organized to achieve their goals efficiently.

p. 124

UTILITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS pay people for their efforts (examples include businesses and government agencies).

NORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONS have goals people consider worthwhile (examples include voluntary associations such as the PTA).

COERCIVE ORGANIZATIONS are organizations people are forced to join (examples include prisons and mental hospitals).

p. 125 pp. 125–26

p. 126

social group (p.118) two or more people who identify with and interact with one another

primary group (p. 119) a small social group whose members share personal and lasting relationships

secondary group (p. 119) a large and impersonal social group whose members pursue a specific goal or activity

instrumental leadership (p. 120) group leadership that focuses on the completion of tasks

expressive leadership (p. 120) group leadership that focuses on the group’s well-being

groupthink (p. 121) the tendency of group members to conform, resulting in a narrow view of some issue

reference group (p. 122) a social group that serves as a point of reference in making evaluations and decisions

in-group (p. 122) a social group toward which a member feels respect and loyalty

out-group (p. 122) a social group toward which a person feels a sense of competition or opposition

dyad (p. 123) a social group with two members

triad (p. 123) a social group with three members

network (p. 123) a web of weak social ties

formal organization (p. 124) a large secondary group organized to achieve its goals efficiently

tradition (p. 126) values and beliefs passed from generation to generation

rationality (p. 126) a way of thinking that emphasizes deliberate, matter-of-fact calculation of the most efficient way to accomplish a particular task

rationalization of society (p. 126) Weber’s term for the historical change from tradition to rationality as the main type of human thought

Explore on mysoclab.com

Watch on mysoclab.com

140

IS B

N 1-256-36957-8

V IS

U A

L S

U M

M A

R Y

141

BUREAUCRACY, which Max Weber saw as the dominant type of organization in modern societies, is based on

• specialization

• hierarchy of offices

• rules and regulations

• technical competence

• impersonality

• formal, written communication

PROBLEMS OF BUREAUCRACY include

• bureaucratic alienation

• bureaucratic inefficiency and ritualism

• bureaucratic inertia

• oligarchy

All formal organizations operate in an ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT that is influenced by

• technology

• political and economic trends

• current events

• population patterns

• other organizations

pp. 126–27

pp. 127–28

pp. 128–30

See the Summing Up table on page 127.

Modern Formal Organizations: Bureaucracy

The Evolution of Formal Organizations

CONVENTIONAL BUREAUCRACY

The Changing Nature of Work

MORE OPEN, FLEXIBLE ORGANIZATIONS

In the 1960s, Rosabeth Moss Kanter proposed that opening up organizations for all employees, especially women and other minorities, increased organizational efficiency.

In the 1980s, global competition drew attention to the Japanese work organization’s collective orientation.

p. 131

p. 132

In the early 1900s, Frederick Taylor’s SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT applied scientific principles to increase productivity.

pp. 130–31

Recently, the rise of a postindustrial economy has created two very different types of work:

• highly skilled and creative work (examples include designers, consultants, programmers, and executives)

• low-skilled service work associated with the “McDonaldization” of society, based on efficiency, uniformity, and control (examples include jobs in fast-food restaurants and telemarketing)

pp. 132–36

bureaucracy (p. 126) an organizational model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently

organizational environment (p. 127) factors outside an organization that affect its operation

bureaucratic ritualism (p. 129) a focus on rules and regulations to the point of undermining an organization’s goals

bureaucratic inertia (p. 129) the tendency of bureaucratic organizations to perpetuate themselves

oligarchy (p. 129) the rule of the many by the few

scientific management (p. 130) Frederick Taylor’s term for the application of scientific principles to the operation of a business or other large organization

What Are Formal Organizations? (continued)

Read on mysoclab.com

IS B

N 1-

25 6-

36 95

7- 8

The post Sociology appeared first on homeworkhandlers.com.

Save your time - order a paper!

Experience

Our mission

Latest Posts

Talk to us...