discussion

Formal Organizations

A common complaint is that society is dominated by large and impersonal secondary

organizations. From schools to businesses to government, these formal organizations are

highly bureaucratized. Indeed, all formal organizations are, or likely will become,

bureaucracies. Let's look at the purpose of formal organizations and the structure of their

bureaucracies.

Sociologist Amitai Etzioni posited that formal organizations fall into three categories

(Etzioni, 1975). Normative organizations, also called voluntary organizations, are based on

shared interests and joining them is voluntary. People find membership rewarding in an

intangible way; they receive non-material benefits. The Audubon Society and a ski club

are examples of normative organizations.

Coercive organizations are groups that people must be pressured to join. These may

include prison or a rehabilitation center. Symbolic interactionist Erving Goffman states

that most coercive organizations are total institutions, which we discussed in terms of

socialization (Goffman, 1961).

The third type is utilitarian organizations, which are joined because of the need for a

specific material reward. High school and workplaces fall into this category—one is joined

in pursuit of a diploma, the other in order to make money.

This table summarizes the three types of formal organizations:

Types of Formal Organizations

Normative Coercive Utilitarian

Benefit of membership

Intangible benefit Corrective benefit

Tangible benefit

Learning Resource

Normative Coercive Utilitarian

Type of membership

Volunteer basis Required Contractual basis

Feeling of connectedness

Shared affinity No affinity Some affinity

Source: Etzioni, 1975

The Structure of Bureaucracies

Bureaucracies are an ideal type of formal organization. By ideal, sociologists don't mean

best, but rather that they have a collection of characteristics that most of them exhibit.

Max Weber characterized a bureaucracy as having a hierarchy of authority, a clear division

of labor, explicit rules, and impersonality (Weber, 1968). People often complain about

bureaucracies being slow, rule-bound, difficult to navigate, and unfriendly. Let's look at

terms that define a bureaucracy to understand what they mean.

Hierarchy of authority refers to the chain of command that places one individual or office

in charge of another, who in turn must answer to superiors. For example, as an employee

at Walmart, your shift manager might assign you tasks. Your shift manager answers to the

store manager, who must answer to the regional manager, and so on, up to the CEO who

must answer to the board members, who in turn answer to the stockholders. Everyone in

this bureaucracy follows the chain of command.

Bureaucracies also have a clear division of labor: Each individual has a specialized task to

perform. For example, at a university, psychology professors teach psychology, but they

do not attempt to provide students with financial aid forms. The Office of Admissions

often takes on this task. In this case, it is a clear and commonsense division. But what

about in a restaurant where food is backed up in the kitchen and a host is standing nearby

texting? The host's job is to seat customers, not to deliver food. Is this the best division of

labor?

Bureaucracies have explicit rules—rules that are outlined, written down, and standardized.

For example, at a university, the student guidelines are generally documented in a student

handbook. As technology changes and organizations encounter new types of concerns

like cyberbullying and identity theft, the explicit rules need to be expanded to cover these

emerging issues.

Finally, bureaucracies are also characterized by impersonality, which takes personal

feelings out of professional situations. This characteristic grew, to some extent, out of a

desire to avoid nepotism, backroom deals, and other types of favoritism, while

simultaneously protecting customers and others served by the organization.

Bureaucracies often strive to be meritocracies, meaning that hiring and promotion is

based on proven and documented skills, rather than on personal relationships or random

choice. In order to get into a prestigious college, for example, you may need to perform

well on the SAT and have an impressive transcript. In order to become a lawyer and

represent clients, you must graduate law school and pass the state bar exam. Of course,

there are many well-documented examples of success by those who did not proceed

through traditional meritocracies. Think about technology companies with founders who

dropped out of college, or performers who became famous after a YouTube video went

viral.

Organizations that aspire to become meritocracies encounter challenges. How well do you

think established meritocracies identify talent? Wealthy families hire tutors, interview

coaches, test-prep services, and consultants to help their kids get into the most

prestigious colleges. This can start as early as kindergarten in places like New York City,

where competition for the most highly regarded schools is especially fierce. Are these

colleges, many of which have scholarship funds that are intended to make the school

more democratic, really offering all applicants a fair shake?

Bureaucracies are intended to improve efficiency, ensure equal opportunities, and serve a

large population. These aspects of a bureaucracy's rigid structures can be beneficial and,

at times, needed. But many of our bureaucracies grew large during the Industrial

Revolution. Young workers were trained—and organizations were built—for mass

production, focused on assembly line work in factories. In these situations, a clear chain of

command was critical.

Now, this kind of rigid training and adherence to protocol can actually decrease both

productivity and efficiency in many situations. Many jobs have a faster pace and require

more problem solving and flexibility than the factory work of the Industrial Revolution.

Too much adherence to explicit rules and a division of labor can leave an organization

behind. Unfortunately, once established, bureaucracies can take on a life of their own. It is

almost impossible to make quick changes in these bureaucracies; state governments

highlight this problem when they fail, year after year, to address unbalanced budgets.

It's also important to consider that bureaucracies grew as institutions at a time when

wealthy White men held all the power in the societies where bureaucracies emerged.

While ostensibly based on meritocracy, bureaucracies can perpetuate the existing balance

of power by only recognizing the merit in traditional paths that are associated with male

and privileged socialization.

Michels (1949) suggested that all large organizations are characterized by the iron rule of

oligarchy, that an entire organization is ruled by a few elites.

To learn more about formal organizations and how they work, watch the

short video Formal organizations: Crash Course Sociology #17

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDuBh7VbGgU) .

References

Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power,

involvement, and their correlates. Free Press.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other

inmates. Aldine.

Michels, R. (1949). Political parties. Free Press.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology.

Bedminster.

Licenses and Attributions

Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-

3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is

available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,

OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original

Resources

license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-

3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-

introduction)

© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus

All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity

of information located at external sites.