Essentials of Sociology. George Ritzer
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Essentials of Sociology - George Ritzer страница 63
Название: Essentials of Sociology
Автор: George Ritzer
Издательство: Ingram
Жанр: Социология
isbn: 9781544388045
isbn:
The military is an example of an organization with bounded rationality. One source of instability in the military is the cycling of personnel in and out of it, especially in combat zones. Newcomers to the battle zone rarely know what to do. Their presence in, say, a platoon with experienced combat veterans can reduce the ability of the entire group to function. Another larger source of instability lies in the conflicts that exist between branches of the armed forces, as well as between central command and those in the field. In addition, military actions are often so complex and far-reaching that military personnel cannot fully understand them or rationally decide what actions to take. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the “fog of war” (Blight and Lang 2005).
A good deal of sociological research on bureaucracies has dealt with how the rational (that is, what is efficient) often becomes irrational (or inefficient). This is often referred to as the “irrationality of rationality”—the irrationality that often accompanies the seemingly rational actions associated with the bureaucracy (Ritzer 2019). For example, Robert Merton ([1949] 1968) and other observers (Gupta 2012) found that instead of operating efficiently, bureaucracies introduce great inefficiency due to, among other things, “red tape.” Red tape is a colloquial term for the rules a bureaucracy’s employees are needlessly required to follow, as well as the unnecessary online and offline questions to be answered and forms to be filled out by the clients of the bureaucracy. Bureaucracies generally demand much more information than they need, often to protect themselves from complaints, bad publicity, and lawsuits. Red tape also includes the telephone time wasted by keeping clients on hold and forcing them to make their way through a maze of prerecorded “customer service” options.
Parkinson’s law was conceived as a humorous attempt to point to another source of irrationality in bureaucratic organizations. It was formulated by Cyril Northcote Parkinson (1955), who worked in the British civil service and thus was intimately familiar with the ways in which large bureaucratic organizations functioned. Parkinson’s law stated that work expands to fill whatever time is available for it to be completed. Thus, if a bureaucrat is assigned three reports to complete in a month, it will require a month’s work to complete all three. If that same employee is assigned two reports during that time, it will take a month to complete two. And the task will still take a month even if the assignment calls for completing only one report.
Robert Merton is considered to be the founder of the sociology of science. His work, mostly in the structural-functional tradition, was influential in public policy. For instance, his research on successfully integrated communities was a key element in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to desegregate public schools. His conceptual contributions to sociology include the bureaucratic personality, unintended consequences, and the self-fulfilling prophecy, among others.
Pictorial Parade/Getty Images
Another source of irrationality is that described by Robert Merton ([1949] 1968) as the bureaucratic personality, someone who follows the rules of the organization to such a great extent that the organization’s ability to achieve its goals is subverted. For example, an admissions clerk in a hospital emergency department might require incoming patients to fill out so many forms that they do not get needed medical care promptly.
In these and many other ways, the actual functioning of bureaucracies is at variance with Weber’s ideal-typical characterization.
The Informal Organization
A great deal of research in the twentieth century focused on the informal organization, that is, how the organization actually works as opposed to the way it is supposed to work as depicted, for example, in Weber’s ideal-typical formal bureaucracy (Blau 1963). For instance, those who occupy offices lower in the bureaucratic hierarchy often have greater knowledge of and competence in specific issues than do those who rank above them. Thus, fellow employees may seek the advice of the lower-level bureaucrat rather than the one who ranks higher in the authority structure. The informal organization can help make up for inadequacies in the formal organization (Gulati and Puranam 2009). It might lead employees to take very useful actions that are ignored by the formal organization. For example, students constitute an informal network that offers advice about which faculty members to seek out if students are looking for undemanding courses or guaranteed high grades. Most generally, it is important not to examine informal and formal organizations in isolation from one another. Rather, the focus should be on the many linkages between them (McEvily, Soda, and Tortoriello 2014). Informal organizations often arise to deal with problems and failures in formal organizations, and formal organizations often change to take account of actions in informal organizations.
Employees sometimes do things that exceed what is expected of them by the organization. However, they more often do less, perhaps far less, than they are expected to do. For example, contrary to the dictates of the formal organization, the most important things that take place in an organization may never be put down in writing. Employees may find it simply too time-consuming to fill out every form or document they are supposed to use. Instead, and contrary to the organization’s rules, they may handle many tasks orally so that if anything goes wrong, there is no damning evidence that could jeopardize careers and even the organization as a whole.
Ask Yourself
What specific bureaucracy came to mind when you read about Weber’s definition of this type of organization? Is there an informal organization at work there? How is it different from the formal organization? In what ways is it more effective or less effective than the formal one is?
The problem for organizations (and individuals) is somewhat different in the digital age. Rather than too little information in writing, the danger is now that too much information is in written form, such as e-mail messages, posts on the internet, tweets, blogs, and the like. Of particular concern are posts that can exist forever and be widely and endlessly circulated. This danger was pointed out in 2016 when WikiLeaks released some of the Democratic Party’s e-mails. They showed that the party, which is supposed to be neutral, favored Hillary Clinton over her close rival, Bernie Sanders, for the party’s nomination for the presidency in 2016. The release of the e-mails arguably contributed to Clinton’s losing the election (Sanger and Perlroth 2016).
Snapchat attempts to deal with the problem of information remaining on the internet forever by automatically deleting posts and photos after a few seconds (except for photos added to users’ “stories,” which remain for 24 hours). While this seems comforting, those who receive the information and photos can save them by taking screenshots. The sender is notified about any screenshots, but there are ways for those taking them to conceal their identities. Nothing ever really goes away on the internet.
While in some bureaucracies, power is meant to be dispersed throughout the offices, it often turns out that an organization becomes an oligarchy. That is, a small group of people at the top illegitimately obtain and exercise far more power than they are supposed to have. This can occur in any organization. Interestingly, this undemocratic process was first described by Robert Michels ([1915] 1962) in the most unlikely of organizations—labor СКАЧАТЬ