Sociologists are also interested in social organizations, those identifi-
able groups that have a specific purpose (Aldrich and Marsden 1988). Many of
the social collectivities discussed earlier in this chapter take the form of infor-
mal organizations, because they do not involve formalized or rigorous rules,
roles, and responsibilities. They may occur spontaneously and involve personal
relationships. They are not especially designed for efficiency, but they work well in informal settings.
This informal organizational structure, however, does not work well in many areas of our lives. Governmental or corporate organizations require a dif- ferent form. These entities are formal organizations, large, secondary social
collectivities that are organized and regulated for purposes of efficiency by structured procedures. Formal organizations take a variety of forms, with peo-
ple joining or participating for a variety of reasons. There are normative orga-
nizations, such as civic causes (political campaigns, religious organizations,
Rotary Clubs, etc.), that people join voluntarily and without financial compen-
sation because they believe the cause is worthy. Prisons constitute a form of co-
ercive formal organization that people join involuntarily. Another form of
formal organization, utilitarian organizations, are those people join to gain
some material benefit. Taking a job at a bank or hospital constitutes joining a
Bureaucracy
A specific kind of formal organization is a bureaucracy, defined by Randall Collins as “organizational control achieved by explicit rules and regu-
lations and by specifying responsibilities for action in written records” (1999,
33; italics mine). Bureaucracies are a large part of our modern lives. School, work, and services such as banks, medical clinics, and day-care centers are all examples of the types of bureaucratic structures most of us deal with on a daily basis.
Max Weber, profiled in chapter 2, was the first sociologist to examine bureaucracies (1946). His interests included the structure and operation of large- scale enterprises such as governments, religions, and economies. As part of his analysis of capitalism, he developed a concept of rationalization. To Weber, ra-
tionalization meant an ongoing search for increasing efficiency, or looking for
the most efficient means of doing things. In capitalism, increasing efficiency
could lead to increasing profits. Since increased efficiency, or rationalization, is the reason behind bureaucracies, Weber used bureaucracy as a major case in his analysis.
Weber developed an ideal type of bureaucracy composed of several el- ements that typify bureaucracies.
• Hierarchy. A hierarchical structure exists with clear lines of authority. When depicted in organizational charts, this hierarchy takes a pyramid shape, with a smaller number of people at the top of the pyramid having authority over an increasingly larger num- ber of people lower in the structure.
• Formal rules and regulations governing the organization. Written rules and regula- tions govern administration and conduct. These rules and regulations ensure consis- tency, standardization, and that people within the bureaucracy do not make up rules as they go along.
• Written documentation. This documentation (the “files”) encompasses the policies that are to be followed in the organization.
• Specialization. A formal division of labor is set forth in bureaucracies, with positions organized on the basis of the duties assigned to each position. Every member of an or- ganization has certain functions to perform, meaning that members may be required to be experts in their areas.
• Technical knowledge. Members of a bureaucracy should meet all the required qualifi- cations to competently fulfill the duties of their position. By fitting skill sets to posi- tions, rather than designing positions to fit the skills of individual workers, bureaucracies create a situation in which members who leave a position can be re- placed by someone with the same qualifications and the organization can continue to operate.
• Impersonality. Organizational members are required to follow procedures and deal with all clients on the basis of policy rather than personal relationships or opinions. • Career employment. Career advancement is through achievement-based promotion.
Promotions should be determined by such prescribed factors as seniority, job perfor- mance, or increased training, not on factors such as being the supervisor’s relative.
• Salaried positions. Compensation for work performed is assigned on the basis of the position. It is not determined by personal factors (for example, how physically attrac- tive a worker is or how much the supervisor enjoys his or her jokes).
• Separation of “official” and “private” income and duties. The “office” is separate from the sphere of private life. Official monies and property of the organization are not intermingled with members’ private funds or interests.
Although he felt they were inevitable, Weber saw enormous difficulties with the establishment of bureaucracies. Bureaucracies can suffer from ineffi- ciencies and problems. The bureaucratic emphasis on following the rules can lead to inflexibility and something called bureaucratic ritualism (Merton 1968) and trained incapacity (Veblen 1967). In other words, bureaucrats get so in- volved in following the rules that they are unable to respond creatively when a unique situation arises that is not in their written guidelines. Cases that do not fit within established guidelines can be problematic because the process (i.e., the “ritual”) that bureaucrats are directed to follow is not designed to accommodate them. The workers themselves are not trained or allowed the latitude (the “ca- pacity”) to respond in other than established ways. Elderly people whose birth was not recorded on any formal government record have faced this problem when applying for social services that require a birth certificate for age or citi- zenship documentation. Problems arise when their documents (e.g., perhaps a notation in a worn family Bible) do not meet written bureaucracy requirements (e.g., a government-issued birth certificate).
This emphasis on treating everyone as a “case” based on specific rules rather than as an individual can also be dehumanizing to both the bureaucrat and the customer. However, in many instances, an informal bureaucracy arises in which individuals learn to circumvent rules (Crozier 1964). Informal guidelines also develop that may circumvent bureaucracy guidance. In production jobs where productivity is measured and management’s expectations are based on ex- isting productivity, employees may deal informally with “rate busters” to keep their production in line with established rates (Ackroyd and Thompson 1999). Taken together, these problems can lead to waste and incompetence.
An additional problem with bureaucracies is a loss of personal privacy. Think of all the people who have access to your medical record after an annual medical checkup: receptionists, nurses, doctors, lab technicians, billing clerks, transcriptionists, and insurance-company personnel. You may even be asked in a public waiting room to state why you are there.
Rationalization, or efficiency itself, can also raise new problems (Weber 1946). It can lead to goal displacement meaning that the emphasis becomes the survival of the bureaucracy rather than any service that the organization was de- signed to provide. Frank Elwell (1999) illustrates this problem with the example of the Chevrolet Corvair. The Corvair came on the American market in 1960. It was marketed as a sports car even though Chevrolet’s own premarket tests had demonstrated an engineering design problem that could result in vehicle rollover. When accidents occurred and the problem was exposed, General Mo-
tors attempted to cover up prior knowledge of the problem rather than face the facts head-on. Although none of the executives involved would have individu- ally set out to build a car that would hurt people, the bureaucratic structure that embraced sales and profits enabled this to happen (Elwell 1999, 63). Ford Motor Company made a similar decision resulting in as many as 500 burn deaths when evidence showed that the gas tanks on Ford Pintos were prone to rupture when the cars were hit from the rear (Dowie 1977). Unfortunately, news stories con- tinue to appear in the press routinely that suggest similar problems in other or- ganizations.
Oligarchy
Robert Michels (1876–1936), a contemporary of Weber profiled below, also took a pessimistic view of bureaucracies. Michels’s conclusions were drawn primarily from his study of the socialist parties of Europe and, in particular, the prewar German socialist party. Michels is perhaps most famous for the Iron
Law of Oligarchy, or rule by a few. According to Michels (1962), every bu-
reaucracy would invariably turn into an oligarchy. This is an “iron law.” Michels gave three reasons. First, he felt human nature involves an innate tendency to seek power. Second, the nature of political struggles leads to oligarchy as groups struggle for position. Third, the structure of large-scale organizations gives rise to oligarchies because they need people with special skills. Leaders tend to be educated and have expertise; thus, they tend to be oligarchs. Michels felt that the masses were apathetic and incompetent, and in need of strong leaders. He con- cluded that, since leadership is necessary for organizational survival and orga- nizations cannot check the power of leaders, organizational structure (including the search for efficiency and the division of labor) leads to a ruling elite, even in Democratic organizations.
Whether powerful bureaucracies in democracies do become oligarchies is a matter of debate. Michels’s ideas have influenced research on trade unions and political parties. Some observers point out corporate scandals and abuses as examples of Michels’s fear. Others argue that bureaucracies are held accountable in democratic societies. Another argument against the inevitability of oligarchy comes from the trend toward democratization in the eastern European countries formerly in the Soviet orbit.