1. Chapter 5: Groups, Networks, and Organizations
Today I’ll be talking about the major ways we associate with each other outside of individual contexts. I’ll talk about social groups: what they are, why we need them, and what we gain or lose from different kinds of organizations and networks, and I’ll introduce you to significant theories of organizations.
Chapter 5: Groups, Networks, and Organizations

2. The outcome of teamwork
Your textbook introduces the importance of group behavior with the example of 33 Chilean miners who were rescued after 69 days of being trapped underground. Why this story? Because following their rescue, the men described how they survived: they worked together to stay focused, keep an eye on resources, and maintain positive morale. The men also explained that they were able to do these things by practicing a “one-man, one-vote democracy,” which was seen as necessary to protect against a breakdown of social order. In other words, teamwork was credited—along with the leadership of their foreman—with saving the day.
We are group animals. We need each other, and the compelling account of these miners offers a clear sense of the strength that comes from positive social organization.

3. Why group-life matters
Life in social groups of various shapes and sizes is a fundamentally sociological topic.
Human life is lived largely in group contexts.
Human behavior cannot be properly analyzed in purely individual terms.
One of the foundational assumptions of sociology is that we—human beings—are social creatures. We do not live in isolation or exist in a state of nature. Because of this, we must be understood within the context of the various groups of people with whom we associate, ranging from family to nation, from auto club to student groups, and more.
What we want to understand is what groups look like, how they operate, what advantages certain kinds of association confer, and other things of that nature. If we live our lives in groups, it’s important to understand them.

4. Unit cohesion Example of West Point:
Giving up of self in favor of the group
Bonds of discipline, loyalty, and conformity
Strong sense of “unit cohesion”
Another good example of the power and significance of groups in social life is to consider an institution like West Point.The journalist David Lipsky who took on an assignment to follow a cohort there from entry to graduation, started his research with a great deal of ambivalence. His socialization, like that of virtually all Americans, had led him to accept an individualist approach to life; that approach is antithetical to what is taught at West Point from Day 1 onward.
What Lipsky saw at West Point was a level of loyalty to the group that is essentially foreign to the vast majority of people living in developed Western nations today. Certainly much of that has to do with the military mission and values being taught, but Lipsky saw something more. What he saw was the power and strength that individuals derived from being part of a tight, honor-bound group with a clear set of goals and values. The group actually served to enhance the life of the individual; that was what struck him most on that assignment.
This is a key sociological point: our lives as individuals are dramatically, and often positively, influenced by our membership and participation in groups. Of course, not every group is positive, but even membership in groups we would usually define negatively, such as gangs, have certain positive social functions for individuals. 4

5. Social groups Social groups are:
People who interact with each other and share a sense of identity
People who have a shared set of social expectations and values (a set of social norms)
Typically, there is some awareness of social boundaries.
Groups are more than collections of people in the same place (a social aggregate). Classes, for example, are social aggregates consisting of rooms full of students. Groups are also more than people who share some characteristic like race or gender; that would be a social category. All people with blue eyes or dark skin, for example, make up social categories, but they may or may not be groups. Sometimes social aggregates and social categories are groups, but this is not necessarily so.
So what exactly are groups? Social groups consist of people who feel a sense of membership, interact with each other, and have some shared set of social norms. 5

6. Types of groups In-groups and out-groups: “us” and “them”
Primary and secondary groups
Primary: the closest, most basic, intimate forms of association
Secondary: large, impersonal, impermanent forms of association
Reference groups: provide social standards
Your textbook deals with three different ways of categorizing groups:
- In-groups and out-groups
- Primary and secondary groups
- Reference groups
In the simplest of terms, in-groups and out-groups represent “us” and “them.” Your in-groups are those in which you feel a sense of belonging, to which you feel loyal, and of which you are, typically, proud. Out-groups are “other;” those groups that feel different, toward which you might even feel antagonistic. This logic of “us” and “them” has serious pros and cons. It can be very fulfilling to be the member of a strong, cohesive group (the West Point example is a good one here). At the same time, if being a member of such a group leads to a set of built-in hostility to others, problems are frequently not far behind. We all need to belong to something. The question is, can we do so without strong negatives attached to those not in our group?
Primary and secondary groups are really quite straightforward. Primary groups are those, like family, in which we live our lives most fully, whose members are our intimates, and with whose members we interact very frequently. Secondary groups are those that are less close, less permanent, and often much larger. These groups are typically goal oriented. In modern societies, more and more of our lives seem to be occurring in secondary groups, which leaves some scholars concerned about the lack of depth in our intimate lives. The Chilean miners offer an illustration of a secondary group which, through the traumatic and lengthy experience of being trapped, became a primary group—at least in that situation.
And finally, reference groups are those against whom we wish to be judged; they set the standard. So, for example, for better or worse, in our contemporary culture many adolescents see movie stars, musicians, and other popular culture icons as reference groups. In many cases we do not belong to our reference groups, they simply provide the standards by which we measure ourselves. (I gave the example of pop culture icons, but of course there are also more clearly positive reference groups such as family members, successful peers, “heroes,” and so on.) 6

7. Group size
Sociologists interested in group size look at varying qualities of interaction based on size.
Georg Simmel: dyads, triads, and larger groups
As group size increases . . .
Intensity decreases
Formal organization increases
Stability and exclusivity increase
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the sociologist Georg Simmel worked to understand society by starting from the smallest social units and moving up. The smallest, and least stable, of all groups is what he called the dyad, which is a group made up of two individuals. Why is the dyad so unstable? It is unstable because if one member leaves, the group is dissolves. While dyads are intense and unstable, triads change things somewhat. With three members stability is increased and there is a decrease in the pressure that exists when only two people are involved. With three people one can serve as a moderator, or less favorably, two can gang up on the third. Simmel also looked at larger groups and found that as size increased, intensity decreased and stability went up.
Today, we also know that formal organization—which we’ll be talking more about in a few minutes—increases with the size of the group. This probably seems logical for people who have always lived in large, formally organized societies, but in earlier periods, people lived their lives in much smaller, less organized groups. Size and formal organization seem to go hand in hand with modernity.

8. Dyads, Triads, and More
Here you can see a visual representation of Simmel’s thinking about group size and relationships. What seems to be the case is that as the number of relationships increases, characteristics like stability and formal organization increase, while intensity declines.
Can anyone offer examples from the social life of college students?

9. Dyads
The larger the number of people, the greater the possible number of relationships.
Juanita
Note that this figure illustrates only dyads; if triads and more complex coalitions were to be included, the numbers would still be greater (four people yield ten possibilities).
Bob
Mary
Bob
Mary
2 PEOPLE = 1 RELATIONSHIPS
3 PEOPLE = 3 RELATIONSHIPS
Juanita
Juanita
Juanita
Bob
Mary
Bob
Mary
Bob
Mary
Wendy
Carlos
Wendy
Wendy
Carlos Li
4 PEOPLE = 6 RELATIONSHIPS
5 PEOPLE = 10 RELATIONSHIPS
6 PEOPLE = 15 RELATIONSHIPS 9

10. Leadership All groups have leaders.
There are transformational leaders and transactional leaders.
Transformational leaders are inspirational and change the purpose and meaning of the group.
Transactional leaders are pragmatic and interested in accomplishing tasks.
Another thing that tends to come with larger, more formally organized groups is the presence of a clear leader. However, even small groups have leaders; all groups have leaders. Obviously the role of the leader varies depending on the type, size, and purpose of the group. A family, for instance, needs a leader just as much as a corporation, but the roles will look different.
Your text discusses two types of leaders: transformational and transactional. The transformational leader is someone who comes in, clarifies—maybe adjusts—the mission of the group, and inspires the members to work toward something new, something transformational. The transactional leader is more of a rule follower, a get-things-done kind of leader who will keep the group moving forward but will not focus on vision or social change. I’m sure you can imagine positive and negative instances of each, and in practice, it appears that many leaders combine characteristics of both.

11. Conformity: The research
People largely conform to group norms.
Three important studies to know:
Solomon Asch: Group pressure
Stanley Milgram: Obedience to authority
Irving L. Janis: Groupthink
In groups the vast majority of people conform to the norms and expectations of the group. Even so-called “non-conformists” typically conform to a set of norms, just a different set than more “mainstream” individuals. For example, think about skateboarding culture, which is often presented as a rebellious, outsider type of culture. If you look the world over—and there are actual studies that have done this—there is a common culture, a shared set of norms and values, that permeates those who adopt this group as their own. Those who do not conform to certain basic values will ultimately feel uncomfortable in the group.
Three studies that are cited over and over when discussing conformity are Asch (1952), Milgram (1963), and Janis (originally 1972). Asch found that in response to group pressure, study subjects would choose an answer they knew was incorrect rather than challenge the group. Milgram found that people would violate their own values under the weight of authority. And Janis found that members of a group will tune out information that contradicts firmly held positions of the group; he called this groupthink. Each of these well-known studies illustrates the power of the group over the individual.

12. Social networks
Social networks are composed of direct and indirect associations that link people and groups.
Networks offer connections beyond the immediate, and thereby can extend opportunities.
Chances are you’ve all heard the phrase, “It’s not what you know, it’s whom you know.” Sociologically, I would alter that phrase just a bit to say, it’s whom you know, and whom they know, and so on. Social networks are the multitudes of connections people have, not only directly, but also indirectly. That is, not just your friends and relatives, but also their friends and relatives, and theirs, and theirs It is interesting that groups also have networks that can help individuals. Graduates of this school, for example, will have a network of former alums that comes along with their degree. People who are members of various clubs and organizations also have expanded networks on which they can draw.

13. Networks and inequality
Different groups have access to more or less helpful networks. This exacerbates inequalities that are already in place.
As you might expect, these contacts, however “weak,” provide excellent possibilities for people, as a wide network increases the chances of knowing someone who can help in any given situation. The downside of social networks is that they tend to reproduce inequalities that are already in place. Who, for example, is more likely to have a network of people who might help in getting a great first job, the daughter of a physician or the daughter of a dishwasher? The way that networks work means that those who have access to people of influence tend to have wider networks and more possibilities than those whose networks are more local, less far-reaching, and less influential.

14. Online social networking
Online social networking offers many of the same benefits as conventional networks, without some of the constraints.
The Internet was originally used for military and academic purposes, but now it is available (and used) as a network for hundreds of millions of users—an estimated 245 million Americans in 2011.
Online social networking, on the other hand, bypasses some of the constraints of traditional networks. People have easier access to individuals they would not otherwise be able to reach, and the expansion of networks happens more quickly, since physical proximity is not at issue. As your textbook indicates, huge numbers of Americans are using the Internet; as many as 181 million people a day are online.
One of the interesting changes that comes with online connections is that rather than basing these relationships on personal characteristics, they are typically based on shared interests. This means that at least some of the “advantages” that are bestowed on traditionally privileged groups in our society are reduced in an online environment. In other words, you do not have to be a wealthy, white male to construct a wide network online; opportunities are more evenly distributed than was traditionally the case.

15. Unequal access online
Though the digital divide seems to be closing in terms of basic access to the Internet, disparities remain.
Those with family incomes under $75,000/yr use the Internet less than those with higher incomes, and the differences in usage expand when looking at those earning less than $30,000/yr.
Recent data suggests that the gap between those with access to the Internet and those without has narrowed considerably, and that this is true not only in the U.S. but in other parts of the world. This means that more people can tap into the benefits of online networks than ever before.
And yet, we do still see important disparities in actual usage (as opposed to access). Nearly all Americans in families earning $75,000 or more use the Internet—95%—while in families earning less than $75,000 the numbers are around 70%, and in families earning under $30,000, it’s 57%. These differences are significant in illustrating the gap between access and use and help us understand who is actually utilizing the power of online networks.

16. Organizations
Organizations are groups that associate for the purpose of achieving some goal or action.
Organizations have identifiable membership.
The study of organizations is a core topic in sociology, as they are one of the dominant forms of social relations.
Now that we’ve covered groups more broadly, along with the more diffuse notion of social networks, let’s move on to organizations.
Organizations are a type of group that has a clear authority structure and that associates with a purpose. Additionally, organizations have an identifiable membership of people who are more or less committed to the goals of the group. In modern societies, organizations are one of the dominant forms of social relations, and they are, perhaps, the type of groups in which most of our public lives—as opposed to our private, domestic lives—takes place. As such, it is imperative that we understand how organizations work, how they are structured, how we affect them, and how they affect us. It is also helpful to know something of the history of organizations, which we will come to momentarily. 16

17. Formal organizations
Many organizations take on a highly rational form, with a clear chain of command and standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Formality is often for the purposes of legality and legitimacy.
Formal organizations have become increasingly important in modernity.
Many, though not all, organizations are what we call formal organizations. This means that not only do they have a purpose, membership, and authority structure, they are organized in a logical, rational form, often with a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) that dictate much of their day-to-day functioning.
In part, this formality of organization has to do with the need for clear legal guidelines and legitimacy in achieving group aims. The trend toward formality also seems to align with the development of modernity and its rational impulses. Additionally, as the world becomes increasingly interdependent, often connected by unknown organizations, we need to know that these groups are legitimate. Formal sets of rules and principles can help in establishing that legitimacy.
While the formality of organizations goes far in assuring us of a group’s credibility, it also has some potential downsides. In formal organizations, routine actions are taken out of our hands—they must be done according to protocol. For many people, this feels dehumanizing or controlling in spite of the logistical benefits. In formal organizations, one size often fits all, which removes the sense of personal service or attention.

18. Organizational theory
There are many approaches to studying organizations sociologically:
Bureaucracy theories
Informal networks
Dysfunction theory
Oligarchy
Feminist organizational theory
Now that you have a sense of what organizations are, I’ll spend the next few minutes discussing some of the major sociological theories dealing with organizations. I’ll begin with bureaucracy, which is really the beginning of sociological organizational theory. Then we’ll look at two challenges to the idea of bureaucratic inevitability with a look at the importance of informal networks and a critique of bureaucratic dysfunction. I’ll wrap up this discussion of theories with a look at oligarchy—an extension of bureaucracy—and feminist organizational theory, which challenges the male-dominated standpoint of both organizations and the theories that explain them.

19. Bureaucracy
A bureaucracy is a formal organization best known for its style of hierarchical authority.
Pros: effectiveness, careful operations
Cons: dehumanizing, red tape
Max Weber is the sociologist most closely associated with bureaucracy theory.
Chances are that you all have some perspective on bureaucracy, and for many of you, that perspective is not terribly favorable. Although our society is constituted by bureaucracy after bureaucracy, some of which are truly imperative, given our social system, we tend to knock bureaucracies for many reasons. We see them as impersonal and obstructive. We call the people who run them “mindless bureaucrats.” And yet, they structure huge parts of our lives in such a way that we, as individuals, can accomplish many more things than we could without them. Whatever our objections to bureaucracies—many of which are quite legitimate—they are effective at organizing us in the task of achieving particular goals.
What exactly is a bureaucracy? A bureaucracy is a formal organization that has a clear style of hierarchical authority and a set of formal rules and procedures that structure all actions and relationships.
Max Weber is the sociologist who is closely linked to conceptualizing bureaucracies and their role in modern societies.

20. Weber on bureaucracy
Weber saw bureaucracies as the future of organizations in the modern world.
They were highly efficient compared to earlier, less rational forms of organization (see his ideal type).
Weber recognized the plusses and minuses. He saw bureaucracy as inevitable due to its effectiveness but worried over its dullness and lack of humanity.
What Weber saw was a rise of bureaucratic organizations that paralleled the emergence of modern societies. Nations were increasingly bureaucratized into political states. Businesses, universities, and other major social systems also moved in the direction of increasingly formalized, hierarchical organization. Since the time of Weber, that process has only continued, to the extent that rational systems—which are the essence of bureaucracy—now govern nearly all aspects of public life.
To say that Weber recognized the rise of bureaucracies, and indeed argued that they were inevitable, even necessary, to modern societies, is not to say that he was a cheerleader for the form. While he did see the necessity of bureaucracies, he also saw that there were real problems, especially as the bureaucratization of society affected the lives of individuals.
What Weber did was identify the characteristics of an ideal type (meaning pure, not perfect) of bureaucracy. He saw five key elements:
1. Clear hierarchy of authority; chain of command
2. Written rules governing the actions of all officials
3. Role of officials: job description, full time, salaried
4. Role of officials within the organization separate from their private lives
5. Officials and workers do not own the business, they work for it
These factors are very important elements of modern, bureaucratic organizations, and your textbook offers expanded explanations of each. What Weber believed was that bureaucracies that met these characteristics—or came close—would be the most effective at accomplishing their tasks.

21. Informal relations
An early challenge to bureaucracy theory came from those who identified informal networks and relations inside formal organizations.
Informal relations and chains of command function within organizations.
Fruitful, informal social-business networks also exist between organizations.
The recognition of the importance of informal networks and informal relationships in formal organizations came to light well after Weber explicated his theory of the inevitability of bureaucracy. In the 1970s, John Meyer and Brian Rowan did research that indicated that while organizations do indeed have the formal systems and rules Weber noted, these actually bear little resemblance to the day-to-day functioning of the organization.
The case they make is that informal networks and relationships are drawn on every day and that they can provide a release valve for the order and dullness of the bureaucratic routine. There does not seem to be consensus as to whether informal networks improve or hinder broader efficiency, but they clearly do broaden networks between and within firms in ways that may well support innovation and cooperation.

22. Harmful effects of bureaucracy
Robert Merton identified what he saw as the dysfunctions of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy stifles creativity with its sea of rules and SOPs.
Bureaucracy is also overly pragmatic and lacks a visionary element.
Occasionally, rules dominate goals.
Another challenge of sorts came from the mid-twentieth-century theorist Robert Merton. In a sense, Merton was drawing out some of Weber’s own concerns about the effects of bureaucracy on people. What Merton called the dysfunctions of bureaucracy involves the ways in which bureaucracy seems to foster rigidity and inhibit creativity and innovation. Bureaucracies seem most comfortable with pragmatic (transactional) rather than transformative leadership, and as such could end up prioritizing rules over goals—which would not, of course, be in the best interest of an organization. Thus, what Merton, who was himself a functionalist, saw was a certain kind of dysfunction built into bureaucracies.

23. Other organizational theories
The iron law of oligarchy: the rule of the few over the many
Feminist approaches to organizational studies
Organizations are structured in a gendered way, which reinforces gender inequality in society.
Gender inequality in organizations persists.
Two other sociological approaches to organizations include what’s known as the iron law of oligarchy and feminist approaches.
Very briefly, oligarchy theories emphasize the anti-democratic tendencies of bureaucracies, noting their hierarchical authority structures, which by definition concentrate power in the hands of a few at the top. Robert Michels, who was a student of Weber’s, explicated this position, arguing that in modern societies constituted by bureaucracies, the rule of the few jeopardizes democratic systems.
Feminist approaches, not surprisingly, take a wholly different tack. Feminist sociologists have focused on two main issues dealing with bureaucracies: first, that organizations have long been structured according to patriarchal (male-dominated) norms, which include gender segregation. The outcome of this is the reproduction of gender inequality even today. A second theme is that careers in bureaucracies, particularly for officials and managers, have long been organized with the assumption of a wife at home to support the career; even women who were in the workplace played supporting roles. The result of this long-standing pattern is that it remains difficult for women to achieve power, or even equality, in bureaucratic organizations. 23

24. Looking at this data, we can see some of the concerns feminist scholars have about how gender and bureaucracy interact. In the graph at the top we see that 15% of executive VP or higher positions in the 500 largest companies are held by women. Yet, in 2012 among the Fortune 500 companies, only 18 CEOs were women, and this number was celebrated as a significant increase over This means that less than 4% of CEOs in the biggest commercial bureaucracies were women. In the bottom graph, we see the potential for concern about what happens in the marriages of high-earning women, which brings up many questions about our societal expectations about what men and women should be doing, should be earning, etc.
Figure 5.3 Balancing Act?
© 2013 W. W. Norton Co., Inc.

25. Does bureaucracy theory hold up?
There have been both theoretical and applied challenges to bureaucracy as the only model of formal organization in the modern world.
Horizontal models of formal organization
Decentralization of organizations (e.g., telecommuting)
McDonaldization
In more recent years the challenges and responses to bureaucracy theory have continued.
Horizontal models of organization emerged in the 1980s in response to a fear of the ascent of Japanese industry. These models are less authoritarian and more inclusive, and have indeed found a place in certain industries here in the United States, especially in the field of computer technology.
Another challenge has come from the trend of decentralization. At least in part as a result of new technologies, organizations now have the ability to decentralize, not only authority (as in horizontal models), but also physical workspaces. That change, perhaps epitomized in the rise of telecommuting, has led to changes in the way organizations hire and deal with employees. Large numbers of telecommuters are contract employees who are less tied to the organization, and who, in the eyes of the organization, are virtually nonhuman. Even so, telecommuters tend to be highly productive and very satisfied with their work lives. An interesting note here is that the number of telecommuters actually appears to be declining, according to data from WorldatWork (2011). They found that in 2010 approximately 26 million Americans telecommuted at least one day per month, down from around 34 million in 2008.
Then there is George Ritzer’s McDonaldization thesis. Ritzer responded to critiques of Weber’s theory with his own explication of rationality in the modern world, which is essentially an update on bureaucracy theory. Ritzer, too, saw the inevitability of increasing rationality and also feared the negative effects of that trend. Ritzer saw exceptions to this pattern but ultimately saw those as the exceptions that prove the rule, rather than indications that society is moving away from bureaucratic forms. 25

26. Social capital
Social capital is what we gain in knowledge, networks, and status through participation and membership in groups and organizations.
Social capital contributes to feelings of well-being and belonging, in addition to economic success.
There is a great deal of inequality in social capital among individuals, organizations, and even countries.
I will wrap up this material by introducing a very important concept: social capital. Social capital refers to the kinds of knowledge and networks people have that allow them to succeed in various endeavors. Social capital is not something we are born with, though surely our social location—family, social class, and so on—plays a role in how much social capital we have. Rather, social capital is something that flourishes when individuals are fully engaged in social groups of many kinds. As your textbook indicates, people who are involved tend to feel empowered; they carry some sense of purpose and efficacy that leads to others trusting them to produce results of one kind or another.
As with social networks more broadly, social capital remains problematic in terms of inequality. Members of social categories that are endowed with power in our society also get a jump start on social capital. So, being white, being male, being Christian, being educated—all of these factors—increase a person’s initial levels of social capital. Those who do not fit neatly into these categories have more work to do to build social capital, and there are often barriers to doing this. What this does is reproduce the various structures of inequality already in place.
And it is interesting that this happens not only with individuals but also with groups and even nation-states. Certain groups begin with more social capital, and therefore have the upper hand in negotiations of many kinds.
As you might expect, social capital is a very important asset for people (and groups), and much of it is derived from membership in groups. Not surprisingly, the more social capital a group has, the more its members derive. 26

27. Chapter 5: Groups, Networks, and Organizations

28. Clicker Questions
1. The term for the social knowledge and connections that enable people to accomplish their goals and extend their influence is a. cultural capital. b. political capital. c. social capital. d. economic capital.
Answer: c
Feedback: How Do Groups and Organization Affect Your Life? p Social capital is the social knowledge and connections that enable people to accomplish their goals and extend their influence. 28

29. Clicker Questions
2. What is an example of how gender is embedded in the very structure of modern organizations? a. The benefits that female workers receive are different from those of male workers. b. Facilities within modern organizations (bathrooms and break rooms) are segregated by sex. c. The ideas of a bureaucratic career are based on the male career, with women cast in supporting roles. d. It is acceptable for women to take more frequent bathroom breaks than men.
Answer: c
Feedback: How Do Organizations Function? pp. 148–149. By relegating women to a supporting role in the workplace, modern organizations have developed as male-dominated preserves in which women are excluded from power, denied opportunities to advance their careers, and victimized on the basis of their gender through sexual harassment and discrimination.

30. Clicker Questions
3. Which kind of group provides standards by which we judge ourselves? a. an in-group b. a primary group c. an out-group d. a reference group
Answer: d
Feedback: What Are Social Groups? pp. 136–137. A reference group is a group that provides a standard for judging one’s attitudes or behaviors.

31. Clicker Questions
4. Which of the following would be the best example of a formal organization? a. all of the people of the United States who self-identify as “working class” b. the group of people gathered at the corner of First Avenue and Elm, waiting for the 2:36 p.m. #4 bus c. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “Mormons”) d. the collection of siblings and older cousins that provides one with a standard for judging one’s own attitudes or behavior
Answer: c
Feedback: How Do Organizations Function? p A formal organization is rationally designed to achieve its objectives, often by means of explicit rules, regulations, and procedures.

32. Clicker Questions
5. Which of the following is one of Weber’s characteristics of bureaucracy? a. There is a clear-cut hierarchy of authority. b. Officials are part time and paid by the hour. c. Members of the organization own the material resources with which they operate. d. There is no clear-cut separation between the tasks of an official within the organization and his life outside.
Answer: a
Feedback: How Do Organizations Function? p Characteristics of the ideal type of bureaucracy include: 1) A clear-cut hierarchy of authority, such that tasks in the organization are distributed as “official” duties; 2) Written rules govern the conduct of officials at all levels of the organization; 3) Officials are full time and salaried; 4) There is a separation between the tasks of an official within the organization and his or her life outside; and 5) No members of the organization own the material resources with which they operate.

33. Clicker Questions
6. Which of the following is a characteristic of a primary group? a. Members interact face-to-face. b. It is impersonal. c. Members interact to achieve a specific goal. d. There is a weak sense of bonding and commitment.
Answer: a
Feedback: What Are Social Groups? p A primary group is a group that is characterized by intense emotional ties, face-to-face interaction, intimacy, and a strong, enduring sense of commitment.

34. Clicker Questions
7. What is the “iron law of oligarchy”? a. Weber’s theory of red tape b. Michels’s theory that there is an inherent tendency for power to concentrate at the top of large organizations c. Weber’s theory that power concentrates in the hands of permanent officials at the expense of an organization’s elected officials or appointed directors d. the feminist theory that power always concentrates in the hands of men
Answer: b
Feedback: How Do Organizations Function? p The “iron law of oligarchy,” a term coined by Weber’s student Robert Michels, means that large organizations tend toward centralization of power, making democracy difficult.