Sociology

Review the following scenario: You work for a formal organization in the United States that has an open, flexible organizational structure as described in Figure 5-4 (p. 134) in Ch. 5 of Society. You have a relative, Micah, who works for a formal organization with a conventional, bureaucratic organizational structure. Micah is interested in working for your organization, but he does not have the education or skill set to work there. He says he wishes that his company would adopt a flexible organizational structure, but doubts it is possible. You explain to Micah that you have been studying the evolution of formal organizations in your sociology class and that you would like to conduct some research to determine how formal organizations, such as the one Micah works for, are likely to evolve in the future.

Write a 600 to 800-word paper summarizing your research results and cite 2 or more sources from the UOPX Library.

Address the following areas in your paper:

· Explain how formal organizations have evolved over the past century. What differences were there in organizations a century ago, compared to today’s organizations? What are the current trends in formal organizations?

· Review the characteristics in the Summing Up: Small Groups and Formal Organization table (p. 127) in Ch. 5 of the text, and describe how each of the characteristics for formal organizations must evolve or change in Micah’s organization to become more open and flexible. For example, how will activities or relationships need to change?

· Locate 2 or more articles or case studies in the UOPX Library that discuss future trends in formal organizations and predict whether these trends are likely to take place in the future. Explain your reasoning for each of the predictions.

· Make an overall prediction based on your research results: how are formal organizations, such as Micah’s, likely to evolve in the future?

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

Groups and Organizations5
IS

B
N

1-256-36957-8

• How do groups affec

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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 12

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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.

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 12

A
B C

Five people
(ten relationships)

D
A
B C

Four people
(six relationships)

A
B C

Three people
(three relationships)

A B

Two people
(one relationship)

A
B C

Six people
(fifteen relationships)

A
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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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

0
20
40

1801601401201008060402002060 4080100120140160

0
20
40
60

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.
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

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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

5-8 inches. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, George A. Hearn Fund, 1956 (56.78). Photograph © 1984 The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

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
Society: The Basics, Eleventh Edition, by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

0
10
20

Percentage of senior
management jobs held

Percentage of population
aged 20 to 64

P
er

ce
n

Women

Men

Non-Hispanic
Whites

33 33

Men
3

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)?

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.

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

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”

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.”

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
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?

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.

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

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)

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Sociology ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now