Читать книгу Essentials of Sociology - George Ritzer - Страница 179

A great deal of research in the twentieth century focused on the informal organization, that is, how the organization actually works as opposed to the way it is supposed to work as depicted, for example, in Weber’s ideal-typical formal bureaucracy (Blau 1963). For instance, those who occupy offices lower in the bureaucratic hierarchy often have greater knowledge of and competence in specific issues than do those who rank above them. Thus, fellow employees may seek the advice of the lower-level bureaucrat rather than the one who ranks higher in the authority structure. The informal organization can help make up for inadequacies in the formal organization (Gulati and Puranam 2009). It might lead employees to take very useful actions that are ignored by the formal organization. For example, students constitute an informal network that offers advice about which faculty members to seek out if students are looking for undemanding courses or guaranteed high grades. Most generally, it is important not to examine informal and formal organizations in isolation from one another. Rather, the focus should be on the many linkages between them (McEvily, Soda, and Tortoriello 2014). Informal organizations often arise to deal with problems and failures in formal organizations, and formal organizations often change to take account of actions in informal organizations.

Employees sometimes do things that exceed what is expected of them by the organization. However, they more often do less, perhaps far less, than they are expected to do. For example, contrary to the dictates of the formal organization, the most important things that take place in an organization may never be put down in writing. Employees may find it simply too time-consuming to fill out every form or document they are supposed to use. Instead, and contrary to the organization’s rules, they may handle many tasks orally so that if anything goes wrong, there is no damning evidence that could jeopardize careers and even the organization as a whole.

Ask Yourself

What specific bureaucracy came to mind when you read about Weber’s definition of this type of organization? Is there an informal organization at work there? How is it different from the formal organization? In what ways is it more effective or less effective than the formal one is?

The problem for organizations (and individuals) is somewhat different in the digital age. Rather than too little information in writing, the danger is now that too much information is in written form, such as e-mail messages, posts on the internet, tweets, blogs, and the like. Of particular concern are posts that can exist forever and be widely and endlessly circulated. This danger was pointed out in 2016 when WikiLeaks released some of the Democratic Party’s e-mails. They showed that the party, which is supposed to be neutral, favored Hillary Clinton over her close rival, Bernie Sanders, for the party’s nomination for the presidency in 2016. The release of the e-mails arguably contributed to Clinton’s losing the election (Sanger and Perlroth 2016).

Snapchat attempts to deal with the problem of information remaining on the internet forever by automatically deleting posts and photos after a few seconds (except for photos added to users’ “stories,” which remain for 24 hours). While this seems comforting, those who receive the information and photos can save them by taking screenshots. The sender is notified about any screenshots, but there are ways for those taking them to conceal their identities. Nothing ever really goes away on the internet.

While in some bureaucracies, power is meant to be dispersed throughout the offices, it often turns out that an organization becomes an oligarchy. That is, a small group of people at the top illegitimately obtain and exercise far more power than they are supposed to have. This can occur in any organization. Interestingly, this undemocratic process was first described by Robert Michels ([1915] 1962) in the most unlikely of organizations—labor unions and socialist parties that supposedly prized democracy. Michels called this “the iron law of oligarchy” (Martin 2015). Those in power manipulate the organization so that the leaders and their supporters can stay in power indefinitely. At the same time, they make it difficult for others to get or to keep power. While oligarchy certainly develops in some organizations, in reality its occurrence is neither “iron” nor a law. That is, most organizations do not become oligarchical. Nevertheless, the tendency toward oligarchy is another important organizational process not anticipated by Weber’s ideal-typical bureaucracy.

Weber’s model also makes no provision for infighting within organizations. However, internal squabbles, and sometimes outright battles, are an everyday phenomenon within organizations. This is particularly evident in the government and other very large organizations, where one branch or office often engages in pitched turf battles with others. For example, an anonymous official in the Trump administration published an op-ed piece in the New York Times dealing with the systematic resistance to Trump and his policies (Anonymous 2018). In Fear, Woodward (2018) details highly dysfunctional turf battles in the Trump administration. The secretaries of Defense and State not only battled one another but also an array of Trump’s advisers. More striking were the “nasty” and “bloody” battles among those advisers, including Trump’s daughter who had no official position in the administration but who called herself the “first daughter” (Woodward 2018, 145; 237).

Beyond the battles, bureaucratic principles are routinely ignored in the Trump administration. On several occasions officials, frightened by Trump’s proposed, ill-thought-out actions, took worrisome memos off his desk or “slow walked” actions proposed by Trump so that he would forget them or they would not be implemented. Trump himself undermined the formal organization by, for example, telling an assistant to bypass his chief of staff and come directly to him.