Chapter 6: Groups and Organizations - Introductory Sociology - Digital Textbook

Notes:

The Group Perspective

What clubs and organizations did you participate in as a child or young adult? Have you thought about which clubs and organizations you want to join once you graduate and begin working? What do you need to know about a group before joining? When we apply the sociological perspective to groups, we attempt to understand and explain how groups interact within society. This may be more complicated than it first seems. The term group, people who identify and interact with one another (C-19), is another taken-for-granted concept that we use often. Still, we probably have not thought about all the components involved. You have spent time within all kinds and sizes of groups, and soon, you will be able to apply and use the sociological perspective to understand group dynamics. Accurately applying the sociological perspective depends on understanding the different types of groups you will encounter.

Groups, Aggregates, and Categories

Think about the number ofsocial groups,two or more individuals connected by common bonds and shared social relations, of which you have been a member. German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918) studied groups extensively (Simmel and Wolff 1950). The smallest group is adyad,a group of two people. At the other end of the spectrum, a large group could encompass all 300+ million Americans. Group dynamics are significantly different for small groups compared to large groups. The growth of a group from a dyad to atriad,a group of three members, can change how the group functions. When a third member is added to a conversation, the dynamics can change from intense and meaningful conversation to casual, surface-level interaction. Simmel noted that there might be strategies that lead to competition, alliances, or mediation in a triad. As groups’ size increases, even from a dyad to a triad, the group dynamics become more formal. Congressional meetings of the House and Senate are highly formal, and much of the work is actually accomplished within dyads and triads in the hallways. Ideas are developed and deals are made within informal small groups and then debated in Congressional Committees before reaching the House or Senate floors. The larger the group, the greater the need for formal structures to maintain stability and communication among members. The pictures below cover the definitions and examples of types of social groups, categories, and aggregates you are potentially a member of as a college student. Hover your mouse over the images to learn more.

Have you ever thought about how many social groups you have participated in within your lifetime? 100? 500? 1,000? Whether the answer is 100 or 1,000, they are all different. Every social group has unique characteristics. No two groups are exactly alike since each group has different members.

Have you ever joined a study group to prepare for an exam? No two were ever alike. Some of the study groups had members who just wanted all the answers to a study guide since they did not regularly attend class. Others had very rigid members who wanted the study session to go like clockwork and didn’t have time for chitchat. Some study groups were effective, and others were a waste of your time.

Keeping with a college theme, college students across the nation are an example of a social category, a collection of individuals with similar characteristics who may never have met or interacted (C-19). This group encompasses the millions of college students and uses characteristics such as educational level, gender, race, nationality, and income. For example, Black women, Asian Americans, and College Democrats and Republicans are social categories.

You are one of approximately 20 million college students in the U.S., so you are considered a part of the college students’ social category. Once you graduate, you will become a college or university graduate. This is an additional social category because you will have something in common with graduates from around the country, but you will only have met a small number of these students.

Another means of describing types of groups is social aggregate, a collection of individuals in the same geographic location who do not share common characteristics (C-19). Even though there may be 50,000 fans at a college football game cheering on two teams, they are temporarily in the same physical location, with minimum interaction and influence on each other.

Everyone eating in a restaurant represents a social aggregate, and so do all of the people at a movie. Social categories and aggregates are not social groups because they do not interact frequently and share a sense of belonging. Therefore, we can summarize these definitions by stating that four suitemates comprise a social group and reside within a social category of college students. When watching a movie at a theater, they are considered within a social aggregate.

Stages	Characteristics
FORMING	Socializing Displaying eagerness Asking questions Focusing on group identity and purpose
STORMING	High emotions Competition among members Lack of participation by some members Conflict among members
NORMING	Members are engaged and supportive Less emotion and anxiety Reconciliation among members Developing cohesion
PERFORMING	Interdependent Productive Balance of workload among members Efficient workflow and systems
ADJOURNING	Sadness about the group dissolving Awards distributed to recognize members and team Concern about change

… Every group begins at the first stage, forming, but many groups don’t make it out of the storming phase, and few make it to the performing stage. Have you ever wondered why working in groups for projects can be so frustrating when some members don’t contribute their fair share and others submit poor-quality work? It may take 20+ hours of working together to work through the group stages successfully (HP). Many class projects don’t afford enough time to work together in class, and it is difficult for everyone to get together outside of class. If you understand the characteristics of high-performance groups, your group projects can go a lot more smoothly and produce better results. The more you know about group dynamics, the better group experiences you will have. Let’s continue examining how we can classify the various groups we participate in daily.

Types of Groups

Primary and Secondary Groups

we participate in every day. Primary groups are small-scale, intimate, face-to-face long-lasting associations (HP), and secondary groups are large-scale, impersonal, task-focused, and time-limited associations. The primary group is small and shares personal and lasting relationships, such as family and childhood friends. Members of primary groups characteristically have the following:

many shared interests and activities
emotionally close bonds
members who spend a lot of time together
concern for other members’ welfare
a shared sense of “we”

By comparison, members of a secondary group have the following:

shared interests or activities
weak personal bonds and emotional ties
limited contact between members
limited concern for other members

You have a shared interest (making a good grade on the exam) with other members of your study group, but you are not emotionally invested in the other members’ personal lives. Most likely, you only see some of the members during class, and your top priority is not pouring your time and effort into the group so that everyone makes an “A.” As soon as the exam or semester is over, the group will disband without shedding tears. Most often, secondary groups are larger than a study group, as in the case of coworkers, sports clubs, professional organizations, and religious congregations.

Reference Groups

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills follows a group of women’s lives and how they navigate through their friendships. Does this show serve as a reference group for women? If so, how? Both primary and secondary groups have specific expectations and roles, and each can serve as a reference group, a collection of people used for comparison and identification (HP). This group serves as a means to compare a person’s attitudes and actions. It is also used as a way to measure what is normal in society. Families, peers, and coworkers serve as reference groups. Children view their immediate and extended family as a means to gauge what is acceptable in society. High school students observe their peers to determine what to wear, which music to listen to, and which fads to follow. In the workplace, you will observe your colleagues to decide norms, such as whether it is permissible to arrive late and leave early or to have informal conversations with your boss. You might also use your colleagues as a reference group to gauge whether your salary is comparable and your ambition matches your coworkers.

Typically, reference groups develop slowly and over a long period of time. On occasions, groups form a mob mentality that instantly develops into a new and spontaneous reference group. The mob members reference other members’ deviant or criminal behavior and join the activity. An international example was the sustained sexual assault of CBS News Foreign Chief Correspondent and 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan, in 2011, by an Egyptian mob. The explanation is that individuals can justify their behavior if they see others participating in the behavior (serving as a reference group) and if there is a public statement, such as a crowd chanting to encourage them to engage in the behavior. In the case of the attack on Lara Logan by a crowd of 200 Egyptian men, the anti-Semitic slurs being yelled at Logan provided the perpetrators their own form of a rationale for action and provided the bystanders their own reason for not intervening (Replogle 2011).

In-Groups and Out-Groups

sociologist William Graham Sumner (1840–1910) developed the terms in-group, a social unit in which an individual belongs and feels a sense of “we,” and out-group, individuals who do not belong or are excluded from one’s group. Could you easily identify the in-groups and out-groups in high school? Did you have nerds, jocks, emos, preps, gamers, and posers? Were you a member of a social clique, a small, close-knit, and exclusive group of individuals (HP), in high school? Which of the social cliques would you consider to be an in-group? Can you identify your in-groups and out-groups in high school? Sumner indicated that symbolic markers or boundaries such as narratives, creeds, rituals, and social practices help keep individuals out who do not have common beliefs, attitudes, and interests (Sumner and Keller 1940). The boundaries can be closed (impermeability), open (permeability), or somewhere in-between when entering and exiting the group. Closed groups, such as fraternities and sororities, maintain specific entrance requirements, recruitment (rush), and initiations that serve as entrance boundaries. Each organization has specific creeds and rituals that set apart their fraternity or sorority from the other Greeks. An example of an on-campus open organization is Alpha Phi Omega, a coeducational national service organization with few creeds, rituals, and boundaries for entering and exiting. Most groups are open and don’t require formal invitations or applications to join.

Most reference groups serve as positive role models, but in some cases, they provide negative frames of reference, as in the case of the Trenchcoat Mafia. What parent hasn’t cautioned their children not to “hang around the wrong crowd” to avoid the influence of a negative reference group? The parents (primary group) are concerned their child will join a deviant social clique (out-group), which will serve as a reference group. In contrast, the parents want their children to remain in a positive peer group (in-group) and participate in soccer (secondary group) with a “good” group of kids.

Since we are members of a wide variety of groups, it is logical to consider that these groups influence us in many ways. At times, following the group can be positive, and at other times it can be disastrous. Let’s dig a little deeper and explore how likely we are to conform to groups we encounter in our everyday lives.

Group Conformity

Imagine agreeing to participate in an experiment with six other volunteers who you do not know The experimenter enters and states that the study’s goal is to learn about people’s visual judgments.

The experimenter holds up two cards and asks the first six volunteers to indicate which of the three lines is the same length as the card on the left. All six volunteers indicate that line “A” is the same length as the “X” line on the card on the left. What is your answer? Line A, B, or C? View the actual experiment conducted by Solomon Asch here.

Solomon Asch (1907–1996) conducted this experiment, and others, in the 1950s to learn more about group conformity, aligning attitudes and behaviors with group norms (HP), and compliance. n the experiment, six of the seven volunteers were accomplices to the researcher and were coached to periodically offer the wrong answers, even though the correct answers were obvious

After the experiment, the researcher asked the subjects why they chose the wrong answer. The majority responded that they went along with the group because they did not want to be ridiculed or considered “peculiar.” Asch found that when even one of the accomplices answered correctly, the subjects’ conformity was reduced by 80 percent. Note that the experiment, by today’s standards, would not have passed all of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements due to the ethical issue of not informing the subjects of the potential for psychological stress. We must also consider the time period, geographic location, and cultural characteristics associated with the experiment and realize that the results would likely be much different if repeated today. Researchers have recently conducted this experiment with IRB approval and have come to the same result.

Conformity is shown to vary by the time period of the study and the influence of culture. In Britain, Perrin and Spencer (1980) replicated the experiment among British college students, and in only one out of 396 trials did an observer join the erroneous majority. Lalancette and Standing (1990) found that Canadian students did not conform either. Studies in Belgium (Doms and Van Avermaet 1985), Holland (Vlaander and Van Rooijen 1985), and Portugal (Neto 1995) produced similar results to Asch’s experiment. Larsen (1974) created the same experiment with 24 sociology students in the U.S. and found a slight decrease in conformity. He explained that in the 1950s, national pride and the threat of communism were strong, which led to whole-scale conformity among Americans. Therefore, based on a variety of experiments and conflicting results, it is difficult to conclude anything other than the following:

Cross-cultural differences exist in the findings.
The historical social setting may influence conformity.
The original Asch experiment did not meet current ethical research standards.

It is also a reminder of the limitations of sociological experiments, as the experiment was conducted in a laboratory rather than a social setting. It is questionable whether subjects would demonstrate the same level of conformity in everyday social situations at home, school, and work.

There is also power in non-conformity. Groups and organizations are not living entities in themselves; rather, they are comprised of individuals. Nonconformist leaders like the late Tony Hsieh of Zappos can lead groups in new directions. Activists spark social movements and change that impact nations.Nonconformist groups and organizations look at our world of limited and unequal resources, declining ecosystems’ health, and enduring social injustices and offer a new vision for a sustainable future. Prior to being bought by Amazon and before it was part of the in-group, Whole Foods Market’s vision was that businesses harness human and material resources without devaluing the individual’s integrity or the planet’s ecosystems (Whole Foods Market 2019). A major catalyst for embedding the ideas and values of sustainable development in American society will be the continuation of nonconformists leveraging the power of groups, organizations, and corporations. This will require individuals, groups, and organizations to challenge some of the United States’ predominant views, such as our planet having unlimited resources and our reliance on fossil fuels not impacting climate change or our future prosperity. As you will see next, similar views and resulting actions among groups of people can defy logic.

Group Think

Groupthink, the tendency of group members to yield the desire for consensus rather than expressing individual or alternative ideas (HP), occurs in groups, organizations, and the larger society. This desire for consensus among group members can often lead to poor decisions, according to Irving L. Janis (1918–1990), who developed the theory of groupthink in the 1970s.

Pressure for Conformity	Dissenters are pressured not to express their opinions
Self-Censorship	Dissenters choose to withhold their counterarguments
Illusion of Unanimity	The majority view and judgments are assumed to unanimous
Mindguards	Self-appointed members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s views
Illusion of Invulnerability	Members ignore dangers, take excessive risks, and are overly optimistic
Collective Rationalization	Members discount and explain away warning signs
Belief in Inherent Morality	Members believe their decisions are morally correct and ignore ethical considerations
Stereotypes Views of Out-groups	Out-groups are labeled with negative stereotypes and considered as rivals

You may have experienced groupthink during a group project in school by personally disagreeing with the direction of the project but not going against the consensus. Unknowingly, the rest of the group felt the same as you did, but they did not speak up either, and the result was a mediocre grade on the project.

Intense in-group cohesiveness: The NASA team and the subcontractor Thiokol (producer of the “O” rings) had worked together for years and typified an in-group. They thought of themselves as a team and felt a sense of “we.”
Meaningful threat: The meaningful threat was the potential for a delay of months, which would have been a huge setback for the space program.
Group insulation: The group insulation was evident based on only a small group of the team making the decisions and not having enough time to seek additional input from outside the control room.

Organizations and corporations are aware of groupthink risks and have developed counters to eliminate or lessen the groupthink phenomenon and associated symptoms. The Delphi method is a group communication process that allows group members to contribute individually, anonymously, and without knowledge of the group view. Therefore, the symptom of the pressure for conformity is reduced significantly. The method achieves convergence of opinion concerning real-world knowledge from experts that can be applied in fields such as program planning, needs assessment, policy determination, risk management, and resource utilization (Hsu and Sandford 2007). This is one example of how research concerning groupthink is used in practical and beneficial ways.

A new type of groupthink is captured in the phrase “the rise of the New Groupthink” (Cain 2012). The concept is similar to Janis’ definition but takes it to a new level. The New Groupthink reflects today’s corporate culture, emphasizing teams, collaboration, and offices without walls. The emphasis is on groups, excluding the benefit of individuals working alone and the importance of solitude within the creative process. Many of the world’s greatest inventions and artistic works are by individuals and would most likely not have been created if a team had been given the task. Our preference for working in groups is beneficial for some groups and organizations but possibly detrimental in some circumstances. The New Groupthink may cause individuals to go with the flow while working in teams and not speak up, even to the detriment of the quality of projects and the lack of innovations within an organization.

An example of New Groupthink can be seen on social media when a celebrity or brand is “canceled.” After making a heated comment on Twitter, saying, “You’re in their DMs. We’re in them. We’re not the same,” Tampax was bombarded with the hashtag #BoycottTampax in 2022. The company was accused of sexualizing feminine products. Tampax apologized and deleted the tweet, but some won’t forget the incident so quickly (Land 2022). Critics have asked if groupthink occurred as dozens of employees of the leading feminine care brand made the decision. Did the group members feel pressure to act or think a certain way to achieve social approval and prevent negative social consequences during the decision-making process? How could so many social media specialists and marketers miss the foresight to see how the comment could be perceived as sexualized? Which of the eight symptoms of groupthink likely occurred in Tampax’s marketing room?

Groupthink is a concept that often occurs in groups and organizations but is not usually recognized or addressed. When have you experienced groupthink? How did you respond? The next module will discuss types of organizations and characteristics, such as bureaucracy, which can contribute to groupthink.

Organizations within Structures

organization, a structured, purposeful, and goal-oriented collection of people, is a social unit with distinct functions that ranges in size from a handful of people to a large multinational organization with tens of thousands of members. Organizations are integral components of social structures, as they contribute to the distinctive and stable arrangements of social patterns in society. Schools, churches, and corporations are organizations that provide stability in society and reproduce patterns of norms, values, and beliefs

two basic types of organizations: informal and formal. Informal organizations, a system of the personal contacts and relationships of groupings of people, exist outside the organizational charts. These organizations are characterized by casual relationships and repeated contacts without intended purposes. Friendships, cliques, and alliances are examples that focus on a network of personal and social relationships. Informal organizations precede formal organizations, structured and bureaucratic systems regulated by clearly stated norms and rules, as the repetitive arrangement of relationships often morphs into formal organizations. Formal organizations have written rules, policies, and procedures, as well as a distinct division of labor and a system for replacing members.

There are three basic types of formal organizations: normative, utilitarian, and coercive

Normative Organizations

Normative organizations, groups of people based on shared interests and the intangible rewards of membership, are comprised of individuals who join as volunteers to pursue goals they consider morally worthwhile.

Examples include homeowners’ associations, political parties, and nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity. Members freely join and abide by the standards and rules, often to advance a social cause.

Colleges and universities, although becoming much more involved in social causes, are considered utilitarian organizations.

Utilitarian Organizations

Utilitarian organizations, groups of people based on contractual obligations that seek tangible benefits such as monetary compensation, are comprised of individuals who join for a specific purpose, and most often to gain income. Businesses and government agencies are utilitarian organizations, and the flow of their memberships is restricted and limited. Large corporations, such as Google and Exxon, and nonprofit universities and hospitals are also utilitarian formal organizations. Individuals join this type of organization to make a living in exchange for their labor. Labor unions are an example of utilitarian organizations seeking higher wages, better healthcare and retirement benefits, and safer and improved work conditions for employees.

Mythbuster

The majority of companies are sincerely promoting sustainability based on moral and ethical reasoning.

This is a myth.

Many companies have merely used the concept of sustainability and green products and services as a means of advertising and promotions. Greenwashing, the promotion of being a sustainable and green company, when, in fact, sustainable practices are not the norm for the organization, is a common practice to gain customers who want to do business with a sustainable company. In essence, the company may only have a few sustainable practices, policies, or products, but advertisements tout their green focus.

Coercive Organizations

coercive organization, groups of people whose membership is primarily forced and must abide by strict rules and regulations

This type of organization includes prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and the military, and is also evident to varying degrees in nursing homes and monasteries

Members in prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and the military undergo resocialization, an identity transformation in which social norms and roles are altered or replaced

Erving Goffman termed these organizations total institutions, isolated groups with strict rules and regulations to control every aspect of members’ lives (C-19) (Goffman 1961). Goffman indicated the central features are:

All aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under the same single authority.
Each phase of the member’s daily activity is carried on in the immediate company of a large batch of others, all of whom are treated alike and required to do the same thing.
All phases of the day’s activities are tightly scheduled, with one activity leading at a prearranged time into the next; the whole sequence of activities being imposed from above by a system of explicit formal rulings and a body of officials.
The various enforced activities are combined into a single rational plan purportedly designed to fulfill the institution’s official aims (ibid.).

	Normative Organization	Utilitarian Organization	Coercive Organization
Benefit of Membership	Intangible benefits	Tangible benefits	Corrective benefits
Type of Membership	Voluntary basis	Contractual	Required
Feelings of Connectedness	Shared affinity	Some affinity	No affinity

A normative organization has intangible benefits, including individuals voluntarily joining and a feeling of closeness and understanding between members. Utilitarian organizations have tangible benefits such as a salary, bonds, and support between members, although membership holds contractual obligations. A coercive organization often provides rehabilitation, is involuntary, and members do not share close ties. Within these types of formal organizations, rules, routines, and goals contribute to creating social structures, such as bureaucracies.

Bureaucracies

1700s, an intellectual movement began that transformed Western societies from traditional and religious modes of thinking to a scientific basis of understanding society and one’s world. In essence, people were less influenced by the Church and the supernatural and began viewing their world much more rationally. Thus, the term rationalization, wherein traditional modes of thinking are replaced with end/means analysis, was coined by sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) to describe this new way of thinking (Weber 1930).

Illness and misfortunes were no longer predominantly viewed as a result of sin but rather as the result of natural and logical consequences. Diseases like the plague were due to rats and unsanitary conditions rather than leading a wayward life. Weber observed how the process of rationalization replaced tradition, values, and emotions. This modern trend led to choosing the most efficient means of accomplishing a task and emphasizing social control. These concepts began permeating most social structures and institutions in the 19th century and became the predominant mode of thinking during the 20th century. He described these new organizations as bureaucracies, a hierarchical authority structure that uses task specialization, operates on the merit principle, and behaves with impersonality(HP). Franz Kafka (1883–1924), a Czech novelist (below Weber in images of paper depicting bureaucracy), described these rapid changes in society as producing a rigidly inflexible and sterile bureaucratic universe. He stated that bureaucracies overpower people and evoke feelings of senselessness, disorientation, and helplessness.

ideal type, logical or consistent traits of a given social phenomenon, referring to common and consistent elements in an abstract concept such as bureaucracy (Weber 1968). In other words, what are all of the characteristics that normally exist within a bureaucracy or some other social phenomenon? The ideal type of bureaucracy that he observed within formal organizations consisted of the following characteristics:

specialization
hierarchy of authority
rules and regulations
technical competence
impersonality
formal written communication

negative characteristics associated with bureaucracies. One such example is the concept of red tape, adherence to excessive regulations and conformity that prevents decision-making and change. Government entities, such as local public health departments that regularly inspect businesses serving food to ensure restaurants and other food retail outlets follow safe food handling procedures, are often accused of creating red tape, which has an associated negative connotation.

rationalization

traditional modes of thinking are replaced with end/means analysis

red tape

excessive bureaucracy and adherence to rules and formalities

ideal type

logical or consistent traits of a given social phenomena

The Problem with Bureaucracy and Leadership

ike incompetence and the concentration of power, some of them are about the behavior of the employees. Others, like rigidity, are about the bureaucratic structure itself. In all segments of society, bureaucracies’ operation process has been increasingly manipulated to reflect that of the fast-food industry. While corporations view this change as positive, it comes with a host of negative consequences. The leader of the organization, specifically their leadership style, impacts all of these issues. The following section addresses this concern and other problems within groups and organizations. What happens if a person in a bureaucracy is promoted beyond their ability? Can their lack of knowledge become an issue for the organization or those dependent on it?

The Peter Principle and the Spoils System

The above questions are not just hypothetical but, in fact, are known as thePeter Principle, the notion that workers in a bureaucratic organization will continue to be promoted until they reach their level of incompetence(HP). First proposed by Lawrence Peter and Raymond Hull in 1969, the Peter Principle contends that in the workplace, competence and ability are rewarded by promotion and increased responsibility until workers are eventually promoted to a job above their level of competence, at which point their lack of knowledge prevents them from going any further. Of course, the problem is that incompetence applied in bureaucratic settings can spell trouble for those dependent on the bureaucracy. You have probably heard of Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 storm that brought destruction up and down the Gulf Coast. At that time, Mike Brown headed the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). Mike Brown was also a political appointee of former President George W. Bush and a prime example of the spoils system, the practice of politicians awarding jobs to friends and supporters based on liking and not skill.

Oligarchy

iron law of oligarchy, a system in whichthe concentration of power in a democracy rests in the hands of a few elite leaders. The iron law of oligarchy can be seen in the United States government, where a few wealthy individuals and groups hold power and make policy decisions that impact American citizens’ lives

Organizational Inflexibility

Bureaucracies’ rules and regulations can result in decisions that may lack common sense as they strictly follow protocol without considering situational reality.

McDonaldization

Bureaucracies have specific rules that their members must follow. These rules are designed to create rationality within the organization. In the early 1990s, George Ritzer, a contemporary sociologist, argued that society had been transformed by a version of rationalization known as McDonaldization, the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society and the of the rest of the world (HP) (Ritzer 1993). The elements of McDonaldization include rationalization, efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. Hover your mouse over the images below to better understand each element.

Rationalization — A far-reaching process whereby traditional modes of thinking were being replaced by ends/means analysis concerned with efficiency and formalized social control

Example: Fast food restaurants like McDonald’s.

Efficiency— Choosing a means to reach a specific end rapidly, with the least cost or effort.
Example: McDonald’s is one of the most efficient fast-food restaurants.

Calculability— Involves emphasizing the importance of calculating, counting, and quantity over quality.Example: McDonald’s food is weighed and measured. Over 250 billion burgers are sold annually.

Calculability— Involves emphasizing the importance of calculating, counting, and quantity over quality.
Example: McDonald’s food is weighed and measured. Over 250 billion burgers are sold annually.

Predictability — Provide structure and familiarity with the environment and products.
Example: McDonald’s service and food are nearly identical anywhere in the world — no surprises — even in Beijing, China.

Control — Through the replacement of people with reliable nonhuman technology.
Example: McDonald’s restaurants are automated and don’t require actual cooking because food is prepackaged, premeasured, and automatically cooked.

Leadership Roles and Styles

leaders, individuals or groups who help facilitate, guide, and be the representative voice of its members.

Leadership Roles

Leadership roles impact all group members, from the family unit to employees at work.

2 common types of leadership roles.

instrumental leadership, is one in which the leadership is very task-oriented. This leader keeps the group moving in the direction of its goal. Because the focus is on completing the task and not necessarily on individuals’ needs, instrumental leaders tend to cultivate more secondary group relationships instead of personal primary group connections

expressive leadership, leadership endeavors to establish more personal or primary connections with the group members as they work toward accomplishing the task. Expressive leaders often act as friends, keeping their eyes on group members’ social and emotional well-being. In addition to their roles in the group, leaders have different leadership styles.

Leadership Styles

Authoritarian: A leadership style that is based on orders and directives.
Democratic: A leadership style based on increasing harmony and reducing conflict between group members.
Laissez-faire: A leader who takes a hands-off approach to leadership.

Authoritarian: Instrumental, authoritarian leaders, like coaches or military commanders, are task-oriented and keep the group moving toward a specific goal. Group members of an authoritarian leader are supposed to follow without question and do what they are told.

Democratic:Democratic leaders take an expressive role in the group as they try to ensure that everyone plays a part in group decisions. Examples of democratic leaders include a member of the clergy or a mediator.

Laisssez-faire: This is a highly permissive leadership style because the leader plays a minimal role in the group, allowing members to work independently toward the group goal. Artistic, academic, and tech fields often involve laissez-faire leadership.

Combination: A good leader will incorporate various leadership styles to respond more effectively to the group’s needs. Can you explain why the most effective leader incorporates all three leadership styles?

Transformational and Transactional Leaders

A transformational leader causes individuals, groups, and social systems to change. This change may or may not be for society’s good in the long run, but it creates a sense of urgency around the need for social change. “good” and “bad” transactional leaders — Abraham Lincoln, Adolph Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Che Guevara, Martin Luther King Jr., Mao Zedong, and Nelson Mandela

transactional leader acts as a manager by keeping the group functioning smoothly. The transactional leader’s impact on the group should not be undervalued simply because it is less glamorous than the transformational leader. Transactional leaders keep the group functioning on a day-to-day basis. This leader focuses on these types of daily tasks:

establish and standardize practices
provide productive feedback on performances
set goals and give specific direction
focus on increasing the efficiency of routines

More Than a Theory

Sociologists use theory to address concerns about groups and organizations in society and, hopefully, to develop policies that benefit all. Review the theories and consider the accompanying questions designed to help you think about how theory and social groups intersect in your world.

Functionalist Theory: Social groups and organizations include families, corporations, and political parties. This macro perspective is concerned with how the structures of society are designed to meet people’s needs. Dysfunctions can occur when members, leaders, and workers fail to fulfill their roles in the organization

Conflict Theory: This macro-level theory contends that a desire to preserve scarce resources may result in an organization introducing McDonaldization. This is done to rationalize their operation. Such changes can have an untended negative impact on the organization, its employees, and customers alike.

Symbolic Interactionism: Group relationships are an important component of social life. As it relates to leadership styles, this micro perspective looks at how the leader interacts with the group and the actions the leader takes in managing the group. The group’s type and overall goals inform the leader’s relationship with the group.

Privilege and Power

the underrepresentation of women and minorities in leadership positions. This is not to say there have not been any transformational woman leaders because that would be far from true.

The Perpetuation of Inequality in Leadership

Women and minorities are in the workplace but are not rising to leadership positions. Since they work, it’s clear that this issue is not due to a lack of ambition. Very likely, some of what we see has to do with nepotism, the practice of favoritism directed toward family members. Nepotism rests on privilege and access to the groups, social networks, and social structures most often used as the training ground for leadership positions.

social capital, the network of links that develop between people, which may result in a personal, social, and professional advantage. We’ve learned that groups and organizations don’t always promote their members equally. Social capital frequently gives people a boost up the corporate ladder, and not everyone that is promoted is necessarily qualified for the task they are assigned to complete. Sometimes this is a byproduct of social capital, but sometimes it is also a result of the bureaucracy’s design. Social capital can reinforce privilege and is one reason for the lack of women and minorities in leadership positions in corporate America.

statement is a myth or reality:

Men and women behave the same as leaders and have similar leadership styles.

This is a myth.

Favoritism, along with personal and professional networks by those in positions of power, can limit women’s and minorities’ rise in organizations like corporations. Meritocracy, a system that fosters and rewards personal effort, ability, and talent through competition to determine social standing, is often cited as a means to offset favoritism, nepotism, and advantages resulting from social capital. The meritocratic system’s flaw is that it fails to recognize that not everyone gets equal opportunity for work, good education, income, and class connections. Therefore, some individuals are disadvantaged and are not allowed to play on a level playing field

The Voice of the People

In 2015, former Governor Pence of Indiana signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and set off a firestorm of controversy that echoed across the nation. This legislation states that the government cannot infringe on an individual, business, or organization’s religious beliefs (Steinmetz 2015). In 2022, the controversy is still being fought in a legal sense. A Christian baker was granted the right to deny a same-sex couple service in California due to religious freedom (Thoroughgood 2022). By no means were Indiana and California’s laws without precedent. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed similar legislation, and since then, many states have enacted religious freedom laws.

Those in favor of the law contend that people of faith have a right not to interact or do business with anyone whose behavior contradicts their religious beliefs. Those opposed argue this law opens the doors for legal discrimination because an individual or business would be allowed to refuse to serve a customer. Under the law, an Indiana florist, for example, could refuse to serve a lesbian couple’s wedding because the florist’s religion does not condone same-sex marriage. The religious freedom legislation, coupled with the fact that Indiana has no state-level anti-discrimination measures covering LGBTQ+ individuals, concerned many groups and organizations

The sociological imagination can help understand the larger social context of the RFRA. The law’s supporters cite the importance of religious freedom and an individual’s right to practice their faith freely. They say no one should be forced to engage in business with customers whose lifestyle contradicts their religion’s tenets. The law’s opponents argue that members of the LGBTQ+ community have a right not to experience discrimination based on someone else’s religious beliefs. The law’s opponents also contend that the separation of church and state must include businesses and organizations for society to truly be equal. Both of these arguments are very personal and reflect individuals’ lived experiences.

The RFRA presents a public issue, particularly when considering groups’ and organizations’ social responses across the nation to Indiana’s legislation. In addition to thousands of people marching in protest, the governors in Connecticut and Washington and the mayor of San Francisco banned public funds from being spent in Indiana, including those used for business travel (Lerner 2015; Reuters 2015; Rooney 2015). Corporations like Apple, Starbucks, Yelp, and PayPal publicly opposed the legislation. Organizations ranging from NASCAR to the NBA and the NCAA raised the possibility of not doing business in the state for fear of discrimination against athletes and spectators alike. The crowd-sourced service recommendation website Angie’s List responded to the controversy by halting their Indiana office building’s expansion. Similarly, the video game convention group GenCon, which brought 56,000 gamers to the state the previous year, indicated that they would look elsewhere for convention space in the future (Rooney 2015). The firestorm over RFRA was so swift and loud that less than a week after signing the bill, former Governor Pence stated he would correct the legislation to clarify that businesses could not discriminate against members of the LGBTQ+ community (Ortiz 2015).

The response of these groups and organizations to the Indiana legislation illustrates how groups can shape society’s landscape and use social pressure to influence others. Can you think of other examples in which the sociological imagination can help explain how pressure applied by a group can mold the social landscape?

Changes in the Workplace

Changes in society occur due to the actions, behavior, and choices of its groups and organizations. In the case of a couple (dyad), the change could be in a status like marriage or creating a triad with the adoption or birth of a child. Changes for larger groups, like businesses and organizations, can range from new techniques for doing business to new leadership. WeWork transformed how businesses utilize workspace, as coworking space was the hottest trend for start-ups and corporations seeking flexible office environments until the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 21st century, many changes business organizations encounter include emerging technologies and how workers and employers use them. Consider the steps organizations are making to manage workers and increase productivity.

Productivity and Surveillance at Work

Why aren’t workers working when they are supposed to? The reasons workers give for slacking off include the following:

they think it improves productivity
boredom
lack of interest in the work
lack of incentive
unsatisfied with their jobs
feeling underpaid

The internet and social media are the biggest timewasters at work. Over 89 percent of workers spend some time on non-work-related activities like online shopping or social media, resulting in billions of dollars in financial losses annually for U.S. employers

Employees’ use of personal internet and social media has become so prevalent that it spawned the term cyberslacking, when workers spend excessive time online for personal reasons that do not benefit their employer (HP). Cyberslacking has not gone unnoticed by business organizations. To guide workers’ internet and social media activity, corporations have established policies about what websites can be visited and for how long (Needleman 2010). Some employers are taking things a step further by installing cyber-tracking software to monitor their employees’ technology use. These technologies are used to track employee computer keystrokes, monitor the websites they visit, search their email accounts, and follow their Twitter, IM, and text messaging activities. According to the American Management Association, 78 percent of employers now track their workers’ internet and social media behavior (Ribitzky 2017).

Employee monitoring is not limited to cyber behavior. More and more organizations are installing surveillance equipment to keep track of their employees throughout the day. From cameras in the office supply closet to those on the dashboard of a police cruiser, organizations want to know what their workers are doing and why. In the end, the reasons for all the monitoring can be traced back to the organization’s financial well-being. The number one goal of all bureaucracies is to survive, and their chances of doing so are reduced when paid employees waste time cyberslacking, waste money by stealing company supplies, or open the organization to potential lawsuits because of their poor behavior.

While many employees feel that increased surveillance has ethical and privacy implications, research indicates that some monitoring results in increased productivity (Lohr 2014; Mujtaba 2003). Workplace surveillance isn’t the only social change that has impacted groups and organizations. The phrase “going to work” means something very different today than it did 50 years ago. Let’s consider the changes in how we define our work and what it means to work in the 21st century.

Work and Technology

During the pandemic, even the lobby area of Starbucks was closed, and bedrooms and living rooms became offices for video conferences and phone calls. This monumental shift to remote work, also known as telecommuting or remote working, working from someplace other than the office on a full- or part-time basis, has been an overwhelming success for employers and employees alike. Prior to the pandemic, only 5 percent of employees worked from home, and most were managers, white-collar professionals, and highly paid (Curran 2021). As much as 30 percent of American workers telecommuted at some point during the workweek, although the vast majority did so part-time while spending the rest of their workweek in the office (Coate 2021; Tugend 2014). During the pandemic, the percentage of employees working remotely rose to over 50 percent in the U.S. and was even higher among the affluent. Many workers have resisted returning to the office full-time, preferring to go to the office two or three days a week (Reynolds 2021). The advantages of telecommuting include increased job satisfaction, freedom to deal with home and family life, and the ability to escape office gossip and politics. Telecommuting benefits employers through reduced worker costs, reduced worker distractions, and access to a larger pool of workers outside their geographic region (Bigelow 2013). Research indicates that the productivity of remote workers remained stable or, in many cases, increased during the pandemic (Curran 2021). The downside of telecommuting includes distractions at home, loss of face-to-face interaction with colleagues, feelings of isolation on the worker’s part, and an expectation that the worker will be more productive, not less (Kraus 2013; Morozov 2012). Consider the pros and cons of working from home. Is telecommuting for you?

Many companies moved to remote work due to the pandemic, and a majority of employers and employees have indicated that productivity is the same or higher while the level of work-related stress has decreased (Buffer 2022; Alexander et al. 2021; Maurer 2020). Before the pandemic, the choice to telecommute varied by gender. Over 60 percent of telecommuters were men looking to balance work and personal life (Burjek 2015). On the other hand, women indicated that they chose not to telecommute because they were concerned that others would judge them for trying to balance their work/personal life. It will be interesting to see if this gender difference persists after the pandemic.

Although telecommuting seems like a dream job option, remember the lessons from the previous section on worker surveillance. Employers can still monitor your work activity while you are at home using the work computer they supplied for you to complete the job (Morozov 2012). Interestingly, several large companies like Yahoo, IBM, Best Buy, and Bank of America limited or completely banned telecommuting prior to the pandemic because they felt it negatively impacted collaboration and innovation (Bibby 2017). Workers now demand the option to work remotely, and companies must be much more accommodating to retain their employees post-pandemic. Telecommuting also has a social class component. The jobs that work best with this arrangement allow the employee to apply their knowledge remotely, as in the case of an information technology specialist or insurance claims agent. Lower-skilled jobs, like janitor or restaurant server, cannot be completed by telecommuting because the employees have to be physically present to do the work. From a social class perspective, people working in the service sector may be left out of the work-from-home revolution.

As it relates to groups and organizations in the future, social change may have less to do with workers as people and more to do with workers as robots. The technology now exists to design robots that can complete tasks at a fraction of the cost. In Boston, MA, Rethink Robotics developed a $22,000 robot named Baxter that can be easily “trained” by simple demonstration instead of elaborate computer programming (Markoff 2012). In other words, Baxter can learn what to do in much the same way humans learn to complete a task when starting a new job. Even more impressive is the effort by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to teach Baxter how to read its human handler’s mind (Simon 2017).

Society should not ignore the implications of such technology. While the hamburger robot’s cost is not yet revealed, the Baxter robot is available for less than the price of a new car, and the cost of operation comes out to about $4 per hour. By comparison, the federal minimum wage for humans now stands at $7.25 per hour and is as high as $10.00 in Massachusetts and $11.50 in Washington D.C. (Johnson 2016). Along with costing less, robots do not need health insurance, sick days, vacation days, or a pension plan. For business organizations, this seems like a relatively inexpensive solution that will save them a great deal of money. But if you think about it critically, you have to ask about the implications of such change on people. As work becomes more automated, and robots and technology can complete tasks more efficiently and at less cost, who will be most impacted by the change, and what will the people who used to hold those jobs do to earn a living? Only time will tell how Baxter and his ilk will impact people, but one can presume that the change will negatively impact low-wage workers. Whether considering the workplace or our personal lives, social changes in the future that center on technological progression will not merely be about the technology itself but, rather, the impact technology will have on individuals and the larger society.

Summary

Understanding how groups and organizations are structured and how they operate can be beneficial in your everyday life. The types of groups include primary/secondary, in-group/out-group, and reference groups.

Primary groups include your family; secondary groups are normally large-scale and informal. The size of the group impacts the group dynamics. Adding one member to a dyad creates a triad and provides the potential for competition, alliances, and mediation.

As the group size increases, so does the possibility for groupthink, in which there is pressure to conform and engage in self-censorship. The Bay of Pigs and the Challenger Space Shuttle are two historical examples of groupthink.

Groups and organizations are important elements of social structures. Informal and formal organizations are two components of structures. Informal organizations are just as important as formal organizations, considering they provide meaning and structure. The types of formal organizations are normative, utilitarian, and coercive. Voluntary associations and service organizations are normative, corporations that provide jobs are utilitarian, and prisons are coercive organizations.

Weber developed the concept of the ideal type, using bureaucracies as an example. A bureaucracy is characterized by a hierarchy of authority, impersonality, written rules of conduct, promotion based on achievement, a specialized division of labor, and efficiency.

The roles of leadership include instrumental and expressive. The leadership styles are authoritative, democratic, and laissez-faire. A leader can have a transformational or a transactional impact on others.

Social problems exist with leadership, as women and minorities are not equally represented within organizations and corporations. This is due to structural inequalities and issues such as favoritism toward the wealthy, white male majority. Nepotism is another issue that limits opportunities for women to advance. Organizations also have difficulties adapting to their members’ personal troubles. The Peter Principle promotes individuals who are not qualified and weakens the organization.

Technology is changing groups and organizations, as in the case of cyberslacking. Employee productivity decreases due to Facebook, fantasy sports, and other social media websites. Two trends in the workforce are telecommuting and the use of robots to replace humans. Concerning telecommuting, there are positives and negatives for the employer and employee. Robots are controversial, and using them creates ethical dilemmas.

Organizations are changing rapidly, and sociologists are exploring ethical issues related to robots in the workplace and the blending of informal and formal organizational characteristics as in sustainable corporations such as Interface. Overall, a better understanding of social groups and organizations will benefit you now and when you transition into the workforce.