Principles of Sociology SOC-201
Short Description
Download Principles of Sociology SOC-201...
Description
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
Max Weber was the one who noted that during the Industrial Revolution there was a shift to achieve more efficient results
A bureaucracy is a formal organizational model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently
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-offact 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
Clients feel alienated
Do so by informally gathering during work or after and by adding personal touches to their work space 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
“Iron Law of Oligarchy”
This is the rule of the many by the few 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 coworkers 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
View more...
Comments
