Introduction to Sociology SOC-101

Unit 6 – Social Groups and Formal Organizations

Social Groups Most people seek a sense of belonging, which

is the experience of group membership Aggregate

Individuals who temporarily share the same physical space but who do not see themselves belonging together For example, people in an elevator, a commuter train,

or standing in a line at the store

Category Individuals who share the same characteristics

For example, students, homeowners, millionaires, blondes, etc.

Social Groups Social Group

Two or more people who identify and interact with one another

They contain people with shared experiences, loyalties, and interests

Charles Cooley (1909) came up with two types of social groups based on their members’ degree of genuine personal concern and loyalty for each other Primary Groups Secondary Groups

Primary Groups Primary Group

A group characterized by intimate, long-term, face-to-face association and cooperation among its members

People share personal and enduring relationships and show real concern towards each other

The family is a primary group

Primary Groups Members of primary groups tend to influence

our socialization process by shaping our behavior, attitudes, and values

Sense of Belonging With primary groups, we feel a sense of

attachment, belonging The group is seen as an end in itself rather than a

means to other ends Each member is considered unique and

irreplaceable

Secondary Groups Secondary Group

A larger, relatively temporary, more anonymous, formal, and impersonal group based on some interest or activity

Involve weak personal ties and little personal knowledge of one another

Many of these groups are short term, a “means to an end”

Unlike primary groups which have a personal orientation, secondary groups have a goal orientation “What can they do for us?” type of attitude We also tend to “keep score” in secondary groups of

what we give others and what we receive in return

In-Groups and Out-Groups We all favor certain groups over others

depending on our interests, values, and attitudes

In-Group A social group that commands a member’s

esteem and loyalty Members generally hold overly positive views of

themselves and unfairly negative views of various out-groups

Out-Group A social group which one feels competition,

opposition or antagonism towards

In-Groups and Out-Groups Being a member of a group can generate not

only a sense of belonging, but loyalty and a sense of superiority This can lead to rivalries with other groups

Identification with groups can lead to ethnic, racial, and gender divisions

We develop a biased perception that leads to a “double standard” We see the traits of our in-group as virtues while

we see those same traits in out-groups as vices A sex crazed man is seen as a “stud” while a sex

crazed woman is seen as a “slut”

In-Groups and Out-Groups Such divisions can lead to violence

For example, members of the Ku Klux Klan beating a black man to death for looking at a white woman the wrong way

Economic and political changes can strengthen these divisions In times of economic recession or depression, we

tend to find a “scapegoat” to blame for our troubles

Reference Groups Reference Group

This is a social group that serves as a point of reference in making evaluations and decisions, especially about ourselves

Can be either primary or secondary groups Our psychological need to conform means

that these reference groups can affect our behaviors, attitudes, and values

Reference Groups They provide a yardstick to measure

ourselves up to If we want to achieve a certain status held by a

group, we change our looks, attitudes, and behaviors to help us get that status

If we feel that we measure up to the standards of the reference group we feel no conflict

If we feel that we do not measure up to these standards this can lead to inner turmoil

Social Networks

Social Network Social Network

A web of social ties Includes family, friends, friends of friends, etc. They tend to be weak ties, most of them include

people we “know of” or people who “know of us” Networks are based on interests, status,

wealth, prestige, and even gender For example, women include more relatives and

women in their networks, while men include more co-workers and men

“Six Degrees of Separation” In 1967, Stanley Milgram did a study called

the “small world phenomenon” He suggested any two people in the U.S. were

connected on average by a chain of six acquaintances

He sent 60 letters to various people in Nebraska who were asked to forward the letter to a certain stockbroker living in Massachusetts

The participants were required to pass the letters only by hand to personal acquaintances who they thought might be able to reach the target

“Six Degrees of Separation” Milgram claimed success since some of the

letters actually were received by the intended recipient

However, when the study was looked at more closely, only 5% of the letters actually reached its destination

When the experiment was reproduced, only a very small percentage reached the destination It was not actually a “small world” as Milgram

implied

Formal Organizations

Formal Organizations Formal Organizations

These are large secondary groups that are organized to achieve their goals efficiently

They do so by being impersonal and have a planned atmosphere

We rely on formal organizations everyday from schools to mail delivery

They develop their own cultures that perpetuate even as workers come and go

Formal Organizations There are three types of formal organizations

based on the reasons why people participate in them Normative Organizations Coercive Organizations Utilitarian Organizations

Formal Organizations Normative Organization

This is an organization that is not monetarily rewarding but is personally satisfying, morally worthwhile and/or socially prestigious

Examples Volunteer Organizations – PTA, Red Cross, Doctors

Without Borders Political Parties Religious Organizations

Formal Organizations Coercive Organization

This type of organization forces members to join as a form of punishment or treatment

Includes mental hospitals and prisons The members are separated as “inmates” or

“patients” for a period of time and designed to radically alter their attitudes and behaviors

Formal Organizations Utilitarian Organization

This type of organization offers people a source of income

It grants more individual freedom than coercive organization but less than normative ones

Most people are required to spend most of their days working for this type of organization

Formal Organizations An organization can fit into one, two, or all

three types at once For example a mental hospital fits into all

three types: It is a normative organization to the people who

volunteer there It is a coercive organization to the patients It is a utilitarian organization to the people who

work there

Bureaucracies

Bureaucracy Bureaucracy

A bureaucracy is a formal organizational model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently

Max Weber was the one who noted that during the Industrial Revolution there was a shift to achieve more efficient results There was a shift from personal loyalties to the

“bottom line.” With this shift there was the development of the

bureaucracy Formal organizations have been around since

the dawn of civilization

Development of Bureaucracy The efficiency of early formal organizations

was limited by the traditional character of pre-industrial society The pre-industrial societies were more traditional,

while the industrial societies were more rational Traditional Character

This is a society (pre-industrial) where sentiments and beliefs about the world passed from generation to generation

Mechanisms of organization are based on tradition This fuels conservatism, preventing of an

organization from being highly efficient

Development of Bureaucracy Rational Character

This is when a society (industrial) has the deliberate, matter-of-fact calculation of the most efficient means to accomplish a particular task

Rationality pays little attention to the past and is open up to change in whatever way seems likely to get the job done better or more quickly

Development of Bureaucracy Rationalization

This is the change from tradition to rationality as the dominant mode of human character

Modern society becomes “disenchanted” as sentimental and traditional ties give way to a rational focus on science

This is when we see the rise of a bureaucracy as the most efficient form of organization

Characteristics of Bureaucracy According to Weber, there are certain

characteristics to a bureaucracy Clear levels, with assignments flowing downward

and accountability flowing upward A division of labor Written rules Written communication and records Impersonality and replaceability

Problems With Bureaucracies While bureaucracies are highly efficient, they

can also be dysfunctional Bureaucratic Ritualism

This is the preoccupation of the workers with rules and regulations to the point of that they become inefficient

“Red Tape” This concept comes from the red tape used in 18th

century English administration practice of wrapping official packages and records in red tape

Problems With Bureaucracies Bureaucratic Alienation

Bureaucracy has the potential to dehumanize the people who work in it and the people its suppose to serve

Workers are alienated in that they feel more like objects rather than workers Due to all the rules, regulations, and assigned

functions Weber said that in a bureaucracy a human being

is reduced to a “small cog in a ceaselessly moving mechanism.”

Problems With Bureaucracies Workers usually fight this alienation

Do so by informally gathering during work or after and by adding personal touches to their work space

Clients feel alienated Due to the impersonality the bureaucracies

encourage which keeps officials and clients from responding to each other’s unique, personal needs

Bureaucratic Inertia This refers to the tendency of bureaucratic

organizations to perpetuate themselves

Problems With Bureaucracies Bureaucracies are a powerful motivation tool

because they harness people’s energies to reach a specific goal but what happens when that goal is reached?

Usually what the officials do is change their focus to achieve a new goal Why waste a perfectly good bureaucracy? Examples of bureaucracies that changed:

March of Dimes – Originally designed to find a cure for polio and now it works on preventing birth defects

NATO – Originally designed to help the west protect itself against the Soviet Union and now Russia is a member

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Originally designed to help farmers but now works on environmental and nutritional research

Problems With Bureaucracies Oligarchy

This is the rule of the many by the few “Iron Law of Oligarchy”

The pyramid shape of the bureaucracy places a few leaders in charge of vast resources

Weber connected a strict hierarchy of responsibility with increasing organizational efficiency which is why this is seen in a bureaucracy

Problems With Bureaucracies Unfortunately, hierarchy also undermines

democracy To promote their own personal interests, officials can

and do use their access to resources, information, and the media

This it undermines people’s control over their leaders especially since oligarchy thrives in the hierarchical structure of bureaucracy

In the U.S. we have term limits, a system of checks and balances, and competition which prevents our government from becoming an out-and-out oligarchy However, incumbents do enjoy a significant advantage

in U.S. politics

Problems With Bureaucracies Parkinson’s Law - C. Northcote Parkinson

(1957) This states that “work expands to fill the time

available for its completion” This means that if a full day is available to

complete the work, a full day is how long it will take

Rather than look for extra work, bureaucrats are going to try look busy

This makes the organization to think its busy and thus takes on more employees

Problems With Bureaucracies Peter Principle – Laurence J. Peter (1969)

States that “bureaucrats are promoted to their level of incompetence”

Employees who are competent at one level of the hierarchy will be promoted to higher positions

Eventually, they reach a position where they are no longer competent and they perform poorly and become ineligible for further advancement

By reaching their “level of incompetence,” they will have a future of inefficiency

On top of this, by being in the organization for so long, they have learned how to hide their incompetency and take credit from those underneath them

Corporations

Working for the Corporation Every formal organization develops their own

culture Corporate Culture

The orientations that characterize corporate work settings

It contains hidden values which create a self-fulfilling prophecy that affects corporate careers

Working for the Corporation Bosses tend to have a stereotype of what

good workers are like and promote people based on this

“The Good Workers” The bosses feel that they are one of the good

workers and will look for people who are like them They are given more opportunities, networking,

and put into “fast-track” positions In turn, they perform better and are more

committed, thus fulfilling the prophecy

Working for the Corporation The “Bad Workers”

These are the workers whose initial expectations are held low

They are not given full access to information or opportunities Thus, they tend to work at a level below their capacity and

see themselves in poor light, leading to poor job performance

This confirms the original stereotypes placed on them Women and minorities are usually put in this negative

stereotype Thus, they are not put in positions of power Instead they are put in “showcase” positions which are

highly visible but do not have any power Even though corporations are becoming more diversified, it

will take a long time for this corporate culture to give way

U.S. and Japanese Corporations Japanese society contain a culture of strong

collective identity and solidarity, and this can be found in their corporations

While the U.S. prizes individualism, the Japanese value cooperation

U.S. and Japanese Corporations William Ouchi (1981) noted five distinct ways

in which U.S. and Japanese corporations differ from each other Teams are hired right out of college, all with the

same starting salaries and responsibilities They are rotated through the company as a team

to learn the various roles They receive raises and accolades as a team The workers are loyal to their teams and it

becomes like a primary group It is only until much later that single individuals

are marked for advancement

Hiring and Promotions U.S. – They value individualism

Individuals are hired based on what they could do for the corporation

Promotions and raises are based on individual competition and is seen as a sign of personal success

Individual’s loyalty is to himself and not to the corporation

Lifetime Security Japan – Lifetime job security is guaranteed

Employees expect to work for one corporation for their entire lives

They are expected to stick with the company through good times and bad

Workers do not go “job shopping” When positions become obsolete, the corporation

will retrain the workers for new positions within it

Lifetime Security U.S. – There is very little lifetime security

The only positions that have tenure are some teaching and judicial positions

Corporations will lay off people in hard economic times, including laying off entire divisions

Workers tend to “job shop” and will move to another company for a better position

Holistic Involvement Japan – Corporate life is tied into personal life

Both the corporation and the employee are committed for life and do things to help each other

The employee works long hours and is loyal to the corporation while the latter provides lifetime security, health services, social events, and home mortgages

Employee involvement continues outside the office where co-workers socialize

Holistic Involvement U.S. – Work stays at work

Work is considered a temporary contract: when the work is done, the employee leaves

After-work hours are the private time of the employee

The workplace and the home are very distinct and there is no mingling

Broad Training Japan – Workers are trained in all aspects of

the corporation Employees move from one job to another within

the corporation to get a better idea of how it works

They are trained in all aspects of it, keeping in mind that the employee will remain with the company for life

Broad Training U.S. – We focus on one job

Workers are highly specialized and tend to spend their entire lives doing one job

When a worker does well at a job, they are promoted to another with more responsibilities

Their view of the corporation is limited to their little niche in it

Collective Decision Making Japan

Lengthy decision process involving all those who are affected

There is much discussion and a consensus is reached regarding what is best

U.S. The decisions are made by key executives The only people consulted may be a small group

around the executives and possibly in the department being affected

Myth or Reality? Since the report was done by Ouchi, the myth

has been challenged Only 1/3 of Japanese workers get lifetime security Collective decision making is not used by the big

companies Japan has turned to the U.S. companies’

methods to make them more efficient They now lay off workers, give merit pay and cut

salaries

McDonaldization of Society

McDonaldization of Society McDonald’s is considered to be one of the

most successful corporations in the 20th century

Sociologist George Ritzer (1993) stated that even our everyday lives are becoming “McDonaldized” Many aspects of our life are modeled on this

restaurant chain We see the increasing rationalization of the basic

routine tasks of everyday life

McDonaldization of Society There are four basic organizational principles:

Efficiency Ray Kroc, the company’s marketing expert, said that

each customer must be served within 50 seconds Efficiency has become a standard in our lives We think that if something is done quickly, it must be

good Calculability –

McDonald’s has an emphasis placed on how much is sold (portion size, cost) and how quickly service is offered

Quantity has become equated to quality In our society we’ve come to believe in “bigger is

better”

McDonaldization of Society Predictability –

You can go to a McDonald’s practically anywhere in the world and a Big Mac will still be a Big Mac

This requires a highly rational system that specifies every action and leaves nothing to chance

In our society, many people actually prefer a world where there are no surprises

Control Through Automation – The most unreliable part about McDonald’s are the

workers so it has automated most of its equipment to ensure efficiency and accuracy

Every day our lives are becoming more an more automated from laser scanners at the supermarket to ATMs at the bank

Groups

Group Dynamics Group Dynamics

How groups influence us and how we affect groups Group Size

This plays an important role in how groups interact

Two people form a single relationship Add a third person and it forms three relationships Add a fourth, six relationships Add a seventh, twenty-one relationship

Group Dynamics Small Group

This is a group that is small enough where all its members can interact directly with all the other members

Can be either a primary or secondary group Example primary group – family Example secondary group – sociology class

Effects of Group Size Georg Simmel – (1858-1918)

He was a German sociologists who looked at the significance of group size

Dyad A group of two members It has the most intense or intimate relationships

because neither member shares the other’s attention with anybody else

They are very unstable; if one person leaves, the group collapses

Effects of Group Size Triad

Group of three people It contains three relationships, each uniting two of

the members It is more stable because one member can act as

a mediator between the other two It is still unstable because if two members form a

tighter relationship, the third is left out

Effects of Group Size Four or more members

When a group grows beyond three people, it becomes more stable

It is able to survive the loss of even several members. Also with an increase in group size, the personal

interaction possible in only the smallest groups is reduced

Simmel’s general principle that as a small group grows larger, it becomes more stable, but its intensity, or intimacy, decreases This is because the number of relationships between

members increases dramatically as the group numbers go up

Effects of Group Size As groups grow larger, they become more formal

They develop a formal structure, sometimes with a hierarchy

This structure provides a framework that helps the group survive over time

In 1968, John Darley and Bib Latané did an experiment to see how group size affected attitudes and behavior They asked their students to discuss their college life

with one or more other “students” over an intercom They were not able to see the other “student(s)” and

the professors left the experimentation area After a short amount of time, the “student” would

stage an epileptic attack

Effects of Group Size Darley and Latané examined how quickly the

students reacted to this Those who thought they were in dyads rushed to

help the other person Those who thought they were in triads, only 80%

went to help and did so more slowly Those who thought they were in groups of six,

only 60% went to help and were even slower

Effects of Group Size This experiment shows how group size can

affect our behavior and attitudes towards other members Diffusion of Responsibility

As the groups got bigger, the students felts that giving help was no more their responsibility than anybody else’s

The smaller the groups, the less formal they are in their conversations and mannerisms

Larger groups break down into smaller groups because we feel more comfortable when we see and can interact with people

Leadership Leaders are people who influence the behaviors,

opinions, or attitudes of others in groups All groups, even small circles of friends, have a

leader While sociologists will not say that there are “born

leaders,” most leaders do share certain traits They tend to be outgoing, talkative, and self-confident They also strongly represent the values of the group or

will be able to lead the group out of a crisis There are some common traits that have nothing to do

with the ability to lead, such as taller and “beautiful” people tend to be leaders

Types of Leaders There are two types of leaders:

Instrumental Leaders They are the task-oriented leaders who move the group

towards the accomplishment of a goal They give orders, and reward or punish group members

according to their contribution to the group effort They tend to have formal, secondary relationships with

group members Expressive Leaders

These are the socio-emotional leaders They are more interested in raising group morale and

minimizing tension and conflict among its members They cultivate primary relationships with the group’s

members They offer humor, sympathy, and keep the group united

Types of Leaders It is very difficult for one person to be both

types of leaders since the roles contradict one another

While instrumental leaders tend to gain the respect of the group members, expressive leaders generally receive more affection and tend to be more popular

Traditionally, instrumental leadership styles belonged to men with expressive belonging to women, but this is starting to change

Leadership Styles Sociologists categorize leadership in terms of

its decision making style Authoritarian Leader

This is an individual who leads by giving orders Focus on instrumental concerns, takes personal

charge of decision making, and demands strict compliance from subordinates

It is highly effective in crisis situations

Leadership Styles Democratic Leader

This is an individual who leads by trying to reach a consensus

They are more expressive and make a point of including everyone in the decision-making process

Draw on the ideas of all members to forge creative solutions to problems

Less effective in a crisis but tends to be more successful overall

Leadership Styles Laissez-Faire Leader

An individual who leads by being highly permissive

Comes from the French phrase “to leave alone” They allow the group to function more or less on

their own Tends to be less effective in reaching group goals

and completely ineffective in a crisis

The Asch Experiment

The Asch Experiment: Peer Pressure In 1952, psychologist Solomon Asch

conducted an experiment to see how much authority our peers have over us As part of the experiment, all but one of the

students were accomplices of the professor As the trials went on, they starting giving the

wrong answer as to which line matches the line on the first card

The other members were also complete strangers to the participant

The Asch Experiment: Peer Pressure The results included:

33% gave into the group half the time by giving the incorrect answer

40% gave wrong answers but not as often 25% gave the correct answer

This experiment has been repeated numerous times and had similar results

Milgram Experiment

Milgram and the Power of Authority Stanley Milgram wanted to know why ordinary

citizens in Nazi Germany stood by and allowed millions of people to be killed and did nothing about it

In 1963, he conducted an experiment to see how far people were willing to go against their own conscience when an authority figure gave them orders

Milgram and the Power of Authority The experiment consisted of a “teacher”—the

participant—and the “learner”—an accomplice of Milgram

The learner was placed in an chair and was hooked up to electrodes while the teacher was given a “shock generator”

The learner was asked to repeat two words given by the teacher

Milgram and the Power of Authority When the learner gave the wrong answer, the

teacher was supposed to shock the learner It started with 15 volts but was to increase by

another 15 volts each time the learner was incorrect The teachers complied and began the

experiment At 75 to 105 volts they heard moans from the

learner At 120 volts, shouts of pain At 270 volts, screams At 315 volts, pounding on the wall At 450 volts, silence

Milgram and the Power of Authority When some of the teachers protested and

questioned the experiment, the researcher said that the experiment must go on The teachers kept going on with this None of the teachers in the original experiment

even questioned anything until they reached 300 volts

In the end, 26 of the 40 participants went all the way to 450 volts

Groupthink

Groupthink Even high-ranking government officials are

subject to group pressure In 1972, Irving Janis studied the effects of

group pressure on a number of U.S. foreign policy blunders, including Pearl Harbor and Vietnam

Groupthink A narrowing of thought by a group of people Leads to the perception that there is only one

correct answer, in which to even suggest alternatives becomes a sign of disloyalty

Groupthink Pearl Harbor

President Roosevelt and his advisors knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor but continued with normal operations

Vietnam Military officials knew how strong the North

Vietnamese military was but did not believe that “little, uneducated, barefoot people in pajamas” could defeat the U.S. military

Groupthink Even today, groupthink affects our policies

Torture of “Enemy Combatants” – After 9/11, U.S. officials believed that torture was the right thing to do as the “lesser of two evils;” even the U.S. Department of Justice said that we were not bound by the Geneva Convention’s restrictions against torture