leadership types, role differentiation, and system problems

Leadership Types, Role Differentiation, and System ProblemsAuthor(s): Virgil WilliamsSource: Social Forces, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Mar., 1965), pp. 380-389Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2574768 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 16:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:54:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2574768?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


380 SOCIAL FORCES

family members for the expression of one type of behavior (e.g., toughness), but experiences unsuccessful and ineffective, albeit validating, responses from the middle class oriented teachers for the same behavior. Then, the lower class child, if raised in a family withl lower class valuies, will find it impossible to experience Validating, Successful, and Effective encounters from both his family and the officials in the schools. As a result, the findings of Sewell and Haller"9 that lower class children are more likely to reject their family, to show concern over status, and to show concern over achievement than do middle class children, is not surprising but would follow from the implications of the theory presented here. To experience Validating, Successful and Effective

encounters at all, the lower class child must inevitably deviate from one set of standards or the other. In some cases (perhaps most of the time, as implied by Sewell and Haller), this deviation may be from the family expectations. In other cases, the reaction may be against the school and its implied values. In any case, the conflict can be interpreted in the terms set forth in the theory proposed above.

The theory's applicability to and implications for these substantive areas can only be ade- quately assessed through further research. In the development of the theory we have intended to give first importance to the requirement that the theory be of the "middle range" and capable of empirical verification. Although not all of the assumptions of the theory or all of its implications have been tested here, the findings indicate that the theory has sufficient empirical utility to justify further in- vestigation.

19 William H. Sewell and A. 0. Haller, "Fac- tors in the Relationship Between Social Status and the Personality Adjustment of the Child," American Sociological Review, 24 (August 1959), pp. 511-520.

LEADERSHIP TYPES, ROLE DIFFERENTIATION, AND SYSTEM PROBLEMS*

VIRGIL WILLIAMS Furman University

ABSTRACT

Several recent studies as well as theoretical writings indicate the fruitfulness of conceptualizing leadership as associated with differentiation of roles based on functional problems. Findings of a field study of a small social system are reported as to its types of leaders and role structure. While the findings are similar to those reported by others, there are significant departures. The most important difference is in association with the system problem of goal- attainment. The data indicate that system problems are not in themselves sufficient to predict the pattern of role differentiation or the types of leadership which occur in all social systems.

T he search for traits of leadership has given way to a concern with the situation in which leaders perform.

Leadership is conceived as a response to re-

quirements of the group. Leaders are viewed as performing functions necessary to survival of the social system. Cartwright and Zander hypothesize that leaders respond to two basic functions: goal achievement or group maintenance.1 Philip M. Marcus furnishes empirical support by finding that groups, given a

*This paper is based on data collected for a Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Department of Sociology of The University of Texas, June, 1960. An earlier version was read at the annual meet- ing of the Pacific Sociological Association, Sacra- mento, California, April 7, 1962.

1 Dorwin Cartwright and Alvan Zander, Group Dynamics (2d ed.; Evanston, III.: Row, Peter- son & Co., 1960).



LEADERSHIP AND ROLE DIFFERENTINTION 381

leader performing one of these functions, will informally produce the other type.2

Differentiation of leadership types specialized in either goal achievement or group maintenance has been found to be associated with a differentiation of role systems. Robert F. Bales has shown that laboratory problem- solving groups tend to differentiate roles specialized in the task area from those specialized in the socioemotional area.3 Leaders develop in association with one or the other of these areas. Bales' groups tend to produce four types of leadership roles: idea man, talker, guidance specialist, and best liked.

Bales and Talcott Parsons have developed a theoretical framework to explain and extend these findings. They theorize that any social system will tend to differentiate four sub- systems, each oriented to a system problem.4 The system problems are adaptation, goal-attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance and tension management. The first two problems are in the task area and the last two in the socioemotional area.

While Bales' small experimental groups differentiate roles and leadership types only between the task and socioemotional areas, Amitai Etzioni found four leadership elites, each representing a differentiated subsystem.5 His four sets of differentiated roles and their respective leaders accord with predictions made from the theory of Bales and Parsons.

The studies listed as well as others form an imposing set of empirical and theoretical evidence as to the fruitfulness of conceptualizing

leadership as associated with differentiation of roles based on functional problems.6

The purpose of this paper is to report findings of a field study of role differentiation and leadership in a small ecologically and histori- cally delineated social system. It will be shown that while role differentiation and leadership types similar to findings of others were observed there were significant departures es- pecially in relation to the "polity" sub-system.

The subject of this report is a small rural community located in the southwestern part of the United States. It is composed of 74 families: 151 adults and 41 children. As such it represents a larger system than most groups usually studied. But while still small enough to be "gotten around"7 it is large enough so that differentiation is not limited by numbers alone. The system is "natural" in that the study is of a permanent residential grouping. For the most part, families of present members settled the area between 1870 and 1900. They bought farms and were the first to bring the land under cultivation. Most of them came directly from a Scandinavian country.

Despite location of the system within 20 miles of a metropolitan center of approxi- mately 200,000 the members have maintained the system's boundaries and their strong sense of identity. The system remains basically agricultural. Over 90 percent of the families are either farm owners or operators. Of the non-farmers only one is not closely linked to farming as a way of life. Eighty-one percent of the members are of the ethnic group who founded the system.

The system was observed for a period of over four years. All members were known by the investigator. In addition to participant observation, an interview schedule was administered to 74 percent of the members. Data were also collected by analysis of documents-yearbooks, financial reports, biographli- cal histories, minutes of meetings, legal records, and sundry pamphlets and publications. A 90 item profile for each family was constructed.

2 "Expressive and Instrumental Groups: Toward a Theory of Group Structure," American. Journal cf Sociology, 46 (July 1960), pp. 54-59.

3 Robert F. Bales and Philip E. Slater, "Role- Differentiation in Small Decision-Making Groups," in Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955), pp. 259-306.

4 Talcott Parsons, Robert F. Bales, and Edward A. Shils, Working Papers in the Theory of Ac- tion (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1953).

B "The Functional Differentiation of Elites in the Kibbutz," American Journal of Sociology, 44 (March 1959), pp. 488-93.

6 See George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1950), for another converging theoretical approach and addi- tional empirical evidence.

7Ibid., p. 3.



382 SOCIAL FORCES

It included: biographical information, membership and offices in organizations, occupa- tion, land owned and rented, work tasks and associates, visiting patterns, leisure activities, friendship choices, kinship, and a socioeconomic inventory dealing primarily with household furnishings and farm equipment. Twenty-two informants were reinterviewed on general and specific case materials for periods ranging from two to in excess of 20 hours. Particular attention was given to the pattern of decision- making. Case histories of major and minor decisions were constructed by participant observation as the decisions were being made and through interviews after the events had occurred. Imputations made by the investigator were confirmed by a panel drawn from the system. The role structure and position of each member within it has been clearly delineated.

ROLE DIFFERENTIATION

Activities of members are structurally differentiated between providing for their instrumental wants and satisfying their socioemotional needs. Work activities, in which farming dominates, are primarily concerned with satisfying instrumental wants. Expressive activities, centering around family and church, are primarily concerned with fulfilling socioemotional needs. These two sets of activities are differentiated. Activities of the household are separated structurally from farming.

Farming is commercialized, mechanized, and market-oriented. Farmers grow little of their own food ancl none of their own fiber. They raise crops to sell and buy most of their food. Farming is a business and is accompanied by rational business attitudes and ur- banized living patterns.

Evolution of the duties and prerogatives of the wife illustrates the differentiation of instrumental from expressive activities. Wives are no longer participants in the farm enter- prise. They do not work in the fields. Such

.behavior now is strongly condemned, although it was common among their mothers. Other farm chores-e.g., gardening, milking, feed- ing chickens-have virtually disappeared with the concentration on "cash" crops. The wife is no longer a productive member of a task

group. She is a major object of consumption expenditures in a compansionship family unit. Diminution of her productive activities has been accompanied by an emancipation from houselhold drudgery tlhrough introduction of home appliances. The wife's role has become more and more centered in the expressive sub- system.

Differentiation of farm activities is also in- dicated by attitudes toward children. A strong youth culture marked by permissiveness and companionship is evident. While sons help their fathers with field work, this work is not allowed to interfere with participation in thleir own pursuits. Sons are encouraged to remain after school and take part in sports and other extra-curricular activities. Fathers were observed leaving the fields early in the busiest summer months to transport their children to play baseball.

Daughters are encouraged to be conscious of dress and personal appearance. They date soon after entering high school. Their behavior differs little from that of their counterparts in nearby urban communities.

The child with few chores to perform and fewer actually performed centers his or her life around school and recreation. Work is secondary to the *activities of youth. And children are seen, heard, and listened to by adults.

Without a geographical separation of the workplace from the household there has occurred a structural differentiation of task activities from those of the family. Farming is commercialized and rationalized. Family life differs from that of the city only in degree and the degree is slight. The stern patriarchal task leader has given way to the father as a companion. Attitudes toward work, relations between husband and wife, parent and child exhibit most aspects associated with urban living and a differentiation of the instrumental sub-system from the expressive one.

INSTRUMENTAL ROLES

With the predominance of farming and since other occupational roles are performed outside of the system, only roles associated with agriculture will be discussed in relation to their elaboration. Of 79 adult males, 37 are



LEADERSHIP AND ROLE DIFFERENTIATION 383

farm operators, 19 farm and have outside employment, two are farm laborers, six are retired, two have non-farming occupations within the system, and 13 have outside employment.

Farms are family-size. Most productive work can be and is performed by one man with occasional outside help. The two basic crops are cotton and grain sorghum (milo). Planting of either crop is a one man operation. The only cultivation activity requiring outside help is cotton chopping which is performed by hired day laborers who are not members of the system. Milo is harvested by combining. This work is done on a custom (contractual) basis either by members or outside crews. Cot- ton harvesting which in the past required pickers, who were outsiders, is in process of becoming a one man operation through introduction of mechanical cotton strippers. Most present-day productive farm activities are performed by a single farmer and his machines.

Mechanization of the farm has not only encouraged its differentiation from the household but has also dissolved most of the work relations between individual farmers. Large crews of human labor have been superseded by machines. Relations of farm production are in the main those of man to machine, not those between men.

The marketing aspect of farming involves the farmer with owners if he rents, with the United States Department of Agriculture, the cotton gin, the grain elevator, and farm organizations. Thirty-eight of the 56 farm operators rent either in whole or in part. But there is no concentration of land ownership. The Department of Agriculture through its Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASC) is the major purchaser of farm products. It establishes yearly acreage allotments and loan price for supported crops-cotton and milo. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) subsidizes land improvements such as dams and terraces. There are two cotton gins within the system-one privately owned and a cooperative. Others outside are also patronized. A grain elevator in a nearby town serves the farmers. Nearly 60 percent of them belong to the Farm Bureau Federation. No other farm organization was represented.

INSTRUMENTAL LEADERS

Leadership within the instrumental sub- system is conditioned by the organization of task activities. Farmers are individual entrepreneurs producing and marketing products for income. They are faced with two classes of problems: those associated with production and those of the market.

Despite the growing technical complexity of farm production, only one leadership role a technical specialist-occurs in this area. It is the representative of the SCS.8

Other instrumental leadership roles are specialized in marketing problems-a representative of the ASC, Farm Bureau officials, and directors of the cooperative gin.9 The ASC representative's role is similar to that of the SCS representative in that both serve as in- termediaries between their respective agencies and the members. Two of the four members who hold offices in the Farm Bureau are the two representatives of Department of Agricul- ture agencies. The Farm Bureau chapter is not exclusively made up of members of the system. The cooperative gin is the only instrumental organization based within the system; less than half of the farmers belong.

EXPRESSIVE ROLES

Expressive activities center around family and church. There are only 12 families who are not related to other members. But, despite extensive kinship ties, the prevailing family pattern is that of the nuclear family. There is no instance of a parent living in the household of a married child. While extended kinship units are activated for ceremonial occasions such as confirmations, birth- days, and certain wedding anniversaries, the consanguine family is not a source of authority, nor does age of itself bring prestige. Many

8 The term "representative" does not refer to a formal office, only that a person. occupying an office within an organization represents that organization to the members.

9 The SCS representative, ASC representative, and Farm Bureau officers are members of the social system who also occupy offices in organizations which penetrate the system but are based in the social environment.



384 SOCIAL FORCES

older people when retired move from the system.

The most elaborate formal organization of the entire system is the church. While there are two churches located within the system, 80 percent of the members belong to one church. Not only do they worship in this church but a major proportion of their social life is carried on through its auxiliaries. There is on the average one social event per week in addition to worship services. In nearly two-thirds of the families belonging to the church, one or more persons served in one or more church or auxiliary offices during the last year of the study. The number of general and special events, along with extensive participation in official capacities, takes up a significant proportion of the leisure time of members. Wide participation is encouraged by formal and informal means. Many events are attended by all members of the social system.

The church and family life dominate the expressive subsystem. The only other organization which should be mentioned is the school. It functions in both the instrumental and expressive subsystems. In association with the school there is a community club. Since the school district includes neighborhoods outside the system, the club is an interstitial organization bringing the system's members into contact with outsiders.

EXPRESSIVE LEADERS

The church organization, unlike the family, furnishes a structural basis for development of system leaders specialized in the socioemotional area. But, with the exception of the pastor, holding a formal office does not indicate leadership. The offices of the church including the Board of Administration are rotated. Ex- pressive leaders may or may not occupy an office at any given time. There is a reluctance to occupy formal offices by most members.

The pastor is leader in sacred affairs. Cer- tain laymen through long service and con- tinued interest have made themselves experts in secular (business) affairs of the church. These leaders possess knowledge of past decisions and extensive information on sundry matters such as finances.

One member, who has served on the school

board since consolidation of the school, is an expert in its affairs. He and the school- teacher10 constitute leaders in this area. Other school board members, as with the church office holders, are not necessarily leaders.

There are 11 families who constitute an "inner circle" of the system. They are informal "social" leaders. The term "inner circle" is employed to denote that these positions are based on involvement with, participation in, and loyalty to the system. These 11 families are the most visited. The best liked and the second best liked are from these families.

Informal leaders, pastor, schoolteacher, and experts in church or school affairs are the leadership types specialized in expressive activities. These together with the Department of Agriculture representatives, Farm Bureau officers, and some of the directors of the cooperative gin constitute the leadership elite of the social system: an elite of 46 roles occupied by 33 persons. No outsiders-non- members or those who perform roles which are not a part of the system, e.g., county school superintendent, county agent, county commis- sioner-perform in a leaderslhip capacity in either instrumental or expressive affairs. Mem- bers of the system are noted for their inde- pendence from direction by authorities of higher order social systems.

DISCUSSION

The social system exhibits differentiated sub- systems specialized in instrumental or expressive problems. They are identifiable by differ- ent activities, roles, organizations, and leadership types. The occupational roles are specialized in instrumental problems. They deal with the social and physical environment to accomplish tasks necessary for survival of the system. Crops are grown and sold in ex- change for income needed to satisfy instrumental wants. The family structure and church organization are specialized in maintaining solidarity through cultural and social activities which are emotionally satisfying. Differenti- ated roles function to achieve goals and main-

tain the system.

10 The schoolteacher is an outsider who per- forms a role implanted within the social system.




In conjunction with these functionally differentiated roles are leadership types specialized in instrumental or expressive problems. Only four of the 33 leaders occupy leadership roles in both the expressive and instrumental sub- systems. All of them are directors of the cooperative gin.

The Department of Agriculture representatives and Farm Bureau officers are experts in productive or marketing problems. The two Department of Agriculture experts serve to represent the system and the agricultural agencies to each other. They are experts in relations over the boundary of the system- external affairs. Farm Bureau officers function in a similar capacity, relating the system to its social environment. Neither type of expert acts as a director or coordinator of relations within the system. The only leaders who function in internal instrumental affairs are the directors of the cooperative gin. And this organization involves less than half of the members.

Leaders of the instrumental sub-system are staff rather than line officers. They advise. They function to provide information needed by the farmers of conditions outside the system which will affect their task behavior. In turn they represent the system in dealing with the government and others. The cooperative gin has been established for less than five years and is not widely supported within the system. Directors are thought of as performing a service, not as providing leadership. Board membership is a position to be avoided rather than sought.

Instrumental leadership roles are specialized in dealing with the environment and providing needed but burdensome services. They do not involve authority or function to direct task activities within the system. The organization of work-individual entrepreneurs-does not afford a hierarchical structure for the emer- gence of executive positions.

The division between production and marketing problems accords with Parsons and Bales' distinction between the system problems of adaptation and goal-attainment. Farm production deals with the social and physical environment and adapts itself and the environment in producing wealth for the system. Its

primary functions is, in Parsons' words, "physical production in the economic sense, i.e., of commodities."" But the roles associated with farm operations cannot be distinguished from those involved in marketing on the basis of the system problems. While the cooperative gin organization and all leadership roles except one (SCS representative) function to attain goals, they do not function in a manner in accordance with Parsons and Bales' paradigm. Their primary function is not, as Parsons states, the "administrative implementation of authoritarian decision."'2

These leaders do not act as administrators -executives or guidance specialists as Bales states13 or managers as Etzioni found.'4 They do not, as Bales suggests, exercise control over others in coordinating task activities.15 They lack authority.'6 Nor are they involved in making policy decisions on how to mobilize the prerequisites for attaining goals, as Par- sons and Smelser propose.'7 In fact, they do not function as directors of any internal aspect of the system. Rather their roles are those of technical specialists or experts in that they possess knowledge and aid in manipu- lating the social and physical environment- roles assigned by Bales'8 and Etzioni'9 to the adaptive sub-system.

11 "The Role of General Theory in Sociological Analysis: Some Case Material," Alpha Kappa Deltan, 29 (Winter 1959), p. 18. This is the function Parsons assigns the adaptive sub-system on the primary (small group) level.

12 Ibid. The function assigned by Parsons to the goal-attainment subsystem on the primary level.

13 Robert F. Bales, "The Equilibrium Problem in Small Groups," in Parsons, Bales, and Shils, op. cit., pp. 144-45. The role types, actions, or functions described in relation to instrumental leaders have been assigned to the respective sub- system by the authorities cited in this and the appropriate footnote (14-19) below.

14 Op. cit., p. 477. 15 Interaction Process Analysis (Cambridge,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press, 1950), pp. 75-76. 6 Ibid., p. 76.

17 Talcott Parsons and Neil J. Smelser, Econo- my and Society (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1956), p. 48.

18"The Equilibrium Problem ...," p. 144. 19 Op. cit., p. 477.



386 SOCIAL FORCES

Members of the system adapt themselves to their environment and attain goals without the function of internal coordination or direction based on authority. Leaders serve as inter- mediaries with the environment. They explain and inform. A differentiated set of leadership roles specialized in mobilizing power does not occur.

Thirty-six of the 46 leadership roles occur within the expressive sub-system: 22 informal leaders, the pastor, 11 church experts, school expert, and schoolteacher. The pastor and teacher occupy unique roles in that while functioning to maintain the system they are considered "strangers." The school board generally hires teachers who live outside of the system. Despite the importance of this role in the socialization process, the teacher as a "stranger" functions primarily to articulate norms and values of the system with their counterpart in the social environment rather than in their inculcation within the system. The pastor's role is an equivalent in that he comes f rom the outside and represents the denomination to the system. He articulates the religious beliefs of members with those of the overall church organization. He is not a spiritual leader within the system but a representative of the denomination. Both he and the teacher are thought of as "public servants" performing needed functions but not leaders in internal affairs.

Church and school experts possess knowledge of the financial (business) aspects of their organizationls and serve as advisers on general policy matters. They are respected for their possession of information and are granted attentive hearings. But other members-the congregation or other school board members- have often rejected the experts' advice. The experts possess influence, not authority.

Informal leaders hold their positions because of commitment to the system. Through their services, financial contributions, and willing- ness to accept responsibility, they are the most involved in expressive affairs. Their power is that of example and persuasion. They serve to reinforce the commitment of others to the system through application of imagination and talent to various projects, such as church

auxiliary programs and "social" events. Their proficiency is that of interesting others in affairs of the system or one of its organizations.

Roles of the expressive sub-system function, as Parsons states, to integrate units of the system and to create and maintain its motiva- tional and cultural components.20 Family, church, and school function as agencies of socialization.21 The extended kinship system andl church through its auxiliaries function to integrate members and maintain solidarity.

Roles and leadership types of the expressive sub-system exhibit further differentiation between the system problems of pattern maintenance and tension management and integration. The sub-system specialized in pattern maintenance and tension management may be conceived of as engaging in the creation, inculcation, and maintenance of norms, values, beliefs, ideologies-cultural elements. The sub- system specialized in integration employs these cultural elements to justify, maintain, uphold, and control the ordering of social units making up the system.22 An organization such as the church functions in regard to both problems. In its sacred aspect it creates, inculcates, and maintains religious values and beliefs (cultural solidarity). In its secular aspect, espe- cially through its auxiliaries, it affirms and re-

inforces the patterns of status developed from

20 Op. cit., p. 18. The functions assigned by Parsons to the "Internal sub-systems on the primary level."

21 The school also functions to teach instrumental skills. As a collectivity it is situated in both the instrumental and expressive sub-systems.

22 There appears to be some conflict in the lit- erature on the distinction between these two sub- systems; see Parsons, op. cit., p. 18, n. 5, and Chandler Morse, "The Functional Imperatives," in Max Black (ed.), The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Pren- tice-Hall, 1961), pp. 148-150; also compare Etzioni, op. cit., with Harry M. Johnson, Sociology: A Systematic Introduction (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1960), p. 58. The distinction made here is that between cultural and social refer- ences. The "L" sub-system functions in regard to cultural solidarity while the "I" sub-system functions in regard to status integration.




differential access to property and power (status integration) .23

Leadership roles of pastor, schoolteacher, church expert, and school expert function primarily in respect to cultural solidarity. As Landsberger proposes, teacher and pastor serve to integrate the system with higher order patterns of culture24 and legitimize the system's place in its social environment. They do not function, as Parsons and Smelser assert, to create loyalties or maintain the motivation commitment of members to the system25 nor do they create identification with the group, as Bales observes.26

Church and school experts serve their organizations in an instrumental capacity. They deal with mundane problems not the value aspect. Their knowledge is of financial and business affairs. They are in no way cultural leaders-wisemen or philosophers, as Etzioni found.27

Informal leaders function in respect to status integration. As Morse28 and Devereux29 sug- gest, they uphold the status structure by maintaining appropriate emotional and social relations and morale. Through their efforts, social rituals-e.g., picnics, ice cream suppers, ban- quets, and school and church programs-are organized and carried out. They are proficient in interesting others. They do not, as Par- sons and Smelser propose, act in regard to social control30 or, as Bales suggests, evaluate contributions of persons.31 They are symbol

manipulators, as Parsons, Bales, and Shils ob- serve.32 And they perform the many menial chores-e.g., cleaning and washing-needed to carry out social events.

The system maintains its patterns, manages its tensions and remains integrated without leadership roles functioning to create or maintain cultural solilarity or exercising social control to maintain status integration. As with instrumental relations, the dimension of authority is absent.

The patterns of leadership described above were apparent in the case studies of decision- making. The decisions observed included one major crisis situation involving a fundamental reorganization of the church. Here, as in all other cases, authoritative leadership was absent. No attempts to impose a solution were made. Although opinions concerned with this issue were exceedingly strong and the membership was nearly equally divided, even mildly assertive behavior was considered inappropri- ate. Pride was taken in that no one tried to mobilize support for his point of view. De- cisions are made without authoritative leadership, and, yet, the system has maintained its boundaries despite an unfriendly environment for nearly 90 years. It has survived while other similar rural ecological systems have not.

CONCLUSION

The social system described above exhibits roles differentiated between instrumental and expressive problems. A further differentiation between problems of cultural solidarity and status integration within the expressive sub- system is present. But within the instrumental sub-system, differentiated authority roles do not occur. Instrumental activities function to adapt the system and its environment to each other without organizations for direction or coordination.

Instrumental leaders serve as staff specialists advising and informing, and thus articulate the system with its environment. Executive leadership does not occur. The farmers obtain their instrumental goals by performing their tasks as independent operators.

23 While the positive aspect is the only one mentioned, occurrence of the negative is recog- nized.

24 Henry A. Landsberger, "Parsons' Theory of Organizations," in Black (ed.), op. cit., p. 227. The role types, actions, or functions discussed in relation to expressive leaders have been assigned to the representative sub-system by the authorities cited in this and the appropriate footnotes (25-33) below.

25 Op. cit., p. 50. 26 Interaction Process Analysis, p. 73. 27 Op. cit., p. 477. 28 Op. cit., p. 114. 29 Edward C. Devereux, Jr., "The Sociological

Theory of Talcott Parsons," in Black (ed.), op. cit., p. 58.

30 Op. cit., p. 49. 31 Interaction Process Analysis, p. 77. 32 Op. cit., pp. 192-194.



388 SOCIAL FORCES

The pastor and schoolteacher, coming from the outside, are well-qualified to explain and interpret the environment to members, and thus articulate the cultural elements of society to those of the system. Being "strangers" they are not qualified to inculcate or maintain norms and values of the system. They function in modifying cultural elements of the system and aid in its survival within the social environment.

School and church experts, as advisers, maintain their organizations. Their knowledge of "business" affairs does not allow them to act as cultural leaders restoring, maintaining, or creating energies, motives, and values of members.33 There are no leaders who are specialized in disseminating the culture of the system.

Formal offices are ceremonial rather than operative. They are offered to and many times occupied by newer, younger, and less committed members. This procedure functions to increase solidarity of the system by increasing the commitments of these persons through their participation. Experts may or may not occupy a formal office at any specific time. The church experts are usually a minority on the Board of Administration.

Informal leaders serve to integrate the system. They provide, and make interesting, op- portunities for members to come together. They are well-liked but not always respected. Their influence is that of persuasion not control.

The system maintains its boundaries, attains its goals, and remains integrated without authority figures or ideologists. Power is diffused. There is no differentiated structure specialized in power mobilization. Nor is this function performed by another structure within the system or by higher order systems. Cultural leaders functioning as value disseminators are also absent. Informal leaders do not exercise control. Instrumental experts do not exercise authority. A hierarchical dimension based on power is absent.

The function of authority is not compatible with the organization of the instrumental sub- system. Independent farmers, as long as they remain independent, do not require direction.

They have not organized producer or consumer organizations. The cooperative cotton gin which is an attempt in this direction is not widely supported. In itself it does not provide a basis for the development of executive roles. The four leaders who serve on the gin's board of directors are also expressive leaders. Their status as expressive leaders was prior to their board membership.

Cultural patterns are maintained withlout overt direction. Members, who have remained in the system, are deeply committed. The ma- jority of them were born there. Few have an inclination to leave, even for a visit. They are well socialized into their culture. Leaders are not needed to remind them of their norms and values.

Without large differences in access to property and power, the status structure is essenti- ally collegial. The status distinctions to be integrated are in the main those of specialization. Informal leaders utilize a minimum of control in integrating the system. Intra-system coordination is accomplished without recourse to authority. Order is maintained by normative controls rather than social controls.

The system is a well institutionalized elab- orated primary group with a dominant expressive emphasis. A high degree of solidarity is present. Within this organizational arrange- ment, exigencies requiring a differentiated authority sub-system do not occur, nor are there authority specialists present in the other differentiated sub-systems.34

The decision-making process is marked by a high degree of consensus and tolerance. De- cisions are often made without discussion.35 Issues over which substantial disagreements occur seldom arise. Members, generally, do not by their actions create issues. If possible, decisions or divisive issues are avoided or postponed until disagreement abates. When a member does express a strong opinion there

33 Morse, op. cit., p. 114.

34 Marcus, op. cit., p. 59, also finds that expressive groups tend to have an "equalitarian" role structure.

35 Chester I. Barnard refers to this process as "observational feeling," ". . . group action not in- cited by any 'overt' or verbal communication." The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 90, n. 5.



THE SAILOR ABOARD SHIP 389

is a tendency for others to give way and accept the proposed solution, if at all possible.

This interpretation indicates that authority is not an intrinsic aspect of all internally differentiated social systems. Social systems may survive without a specialized power-mobilizing sub-system and without a hierarchical authority dimension. They may be organized so that goals may be attained and the system maintained without administrative specialists.

This report adds a degree of empirical credence to the contention that power mobilization is not an imperative for all social systems.36 For a long time this question has been

a source of debate and speculation.37 The data presented tend to support those who maintain that power mobilization is a technical requirement depending upon the administrative ar- rangement of a social organization rather than a functional requisite.

THE SAILOR ABOARD SHIP: A STUDY OF ROLE BEHAVIOR IN A TOTAL INSTITUTION*

LOUIS A. ZURCHER, JR. University of Arizona

ABSTRACT The Naval vessel at sea is described as a total institution of the type that justifies itself on

instrumental grounds. The structure and function of the formal and informal shipboard organizations, and the expectations therein of the role of the sailor, are discussed. Special attention is given to the processes by which the individual is assimilated into the shipboard society, and to his behavioral modifications of the expected role.

n Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation

of Mental Patients and Other Inmates, Erving Goffman defines his concept of

"total institution" as a place "of residence and work where a large number of like-situated

individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appropriate period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life."'l When discussing the five approximate group- ings for the total institutions in our society, he lists the ship as a possible example of a total institution which "has been established to bet- ter pursue some worklike task and justifying itself only on these instrumental grounds."2 This paper purports to examine the feasibility of the ship as such an example, and describes the role behavior of the member sailor within the confines of that ship.

According to Goffman, the general charac-

36 See Morse, op. cit., pp. 145-52, for a discussion of this point. While agreeing with his

conclusion concerning power mobilization, I do not accept his analysis of the place of power in Parsons' theory.

37 The Utopian Socialists and Anarchists have been prominent in maintaining that authority could be abolished as did Marx with his concept of the withering away of the state in a society without alienation. Also many theories of democracy indicate that a minimum of government is necessary in social systems composed of yeomen farmers and small entrepreneurs.

* This paper is based on material from the

writer's unpublished master's thesis entitled The

Sailor Aboard Ship: A Study of Role Behavior in a Total Institution, University of Arizona, 1963'. Data for the thesis were drawn from interviews, relevant documents and publications, and from field notes collected by the writer during four years of active duty as an enlisted man in the United States Navy. Appreciation is expressed to Drs. Robert Blauner, Raymond Bowers, Richard Coan,

Lewis Hertz, and Stuart Queen, who critically reviewed the thesis, and Dr. Salvatore Zagona,

who directed it.

1 E. Goffman, Asylums (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1961), p. xiii.

2 Ibid., p. 4.



leadership types, role differentiation, and system problems

Documents