1. Formal Organizations or Industrial Sociology
Towards a Social Action Analysis of
Organizations
Intellectual Foundations of Social Science
Amir Ghazinoori
Faculty of Management
Australian School of Business
University of New South Wales
1

2. Agenda
2
1 • Emergence
2 • Historical Paradox
3 • Dilemmas in Modern Organizational Theory
4 • Organizations as Systems
5 • The Impact of Environment
6 • Arguments
7 • Human Relations Model
8 • Structural Functionalist Model
9 • Towards the Social Action Model
10 • A paradigm for Social Action Analysis
11 • In Defence of Organizational Theory

3. 3
Durkheinian Sociology Weberian Sociology
What society is A reality external to individuals The product of individual actors
What individuals are
Social agents who internalize & reproduce
the norms of society
Social agents with interactions & interests that
guide their actions
What sociology is The science of social acts The science of social action
Methodology
Dissection & explanation of social facts
Rejection of subjectivity
Understanding of motives & interests
Reconstitute the meaning of action
Integration of Subjectivity
Scientific Model Natural Science Cultural Science
Tools of Sociology Statistics Ideal-type
The Objects of Research
Cause & function
General Social Laws
Patterns
Plurality of causes
The emergence of separate discipline of “Formal Organizations” has been
associated with the general acceptance of Durkheimian view of organizations as
‘natural systems’ integrated by a value consensus & de-emphasis on the process
through which they are related to social structure.
Emergence

4. 4
INDUSTRIAL SOCIOLOGY
• Concerned with sociological theories and concepts to particular substantive area of
industry.
(Business enterprises, trade unions and process of collective bargaining)
• Industry is studied in context of the environment in which it exists (class, familial
structures, urban structures).
FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS
• Interested in all types of organizations (industrial or otherwise)
• Develop a general theory applicable to all types of organizations.
• Less specifically ‘sociological’
• Not given the first priority to understanding the links between organizations & wider
social structure.

5. Historical Paradox
• Subjective interest of Industrial Sociology.
• limitation of interest within industrial sociologists to ‘industrial’ organizations is to
some extent illogical.
• It has been claimed that industrial sociology studies thought to have an interest
merely in business enterprises and not in non-business organizations such as hospitals
or non-industrial professional associations.
• On the other hand, it has been argued that this lack of intellectual unity_ which cannot be
attained by Industrial Sociology_ is the issue which has been covered somehow within the
Formal Organizations.
• However, while it provides the researcher with multi-disciplinary approach for
interpreting the results, Silverman believes that its very multi-disciplinary character
has created certain obstacles for development of general theory of organizations
(which is the most important objective of Formal Organizations).
5

6. 6
The Dilemmas in Modern Organizational Theory
Silverman believes that there are serious problems about the characteristics of
organizations:
The first set of problems arise in the conception of organizations as organic
systems and the second set of problems arise in analysis of relationships
between what is ‘internal’ or ‘external’ to these systems.
Organizations as
SYSTEMS
The Impact of the
ENVIRONMENT

7. Organizations as ‘Systems’
• Viewing organization as a system take us back to debates between Positivism &
Idealism:
– We may see society as external to individual; exercising constraint on him
– Or, as a reflection of his goals & interests ; shaped by him
– These two approaches have different consequences for organizational analysis
• A Business organizations as a whole…has a purpose that in no sense can be thought of
as the goals or objectives of single individuals. Its purpose is attached to the
organization as a system. (Zaleznik & Moment, 1964)
• Functionalist Approach: analysis centres around the adaptive mechanisms by which
organizational survival occurs because organizations have a goal separated from
individuals and certain needs.
• Problem of Reification
Instead of attempting to establish empirically the conceptions of ends and needs held by
organization’s members, we begin with a periori notions of an ‘organization’s needs’ and
then examine the process through which it secures them
7
When an abstraction (abstract belief or
hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a
concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an
idea is treated as if had a real existence.

8. The Impact of Environment
• Obviously any organization exists within an environment including its community,
economic conditions, social traditions , … .
• Problem; How to treat the relationship that arise between “external” factors and the
organization ?
• Three alternative courses:
8
Closed Systems
Partially Open Systems
Open Systems
Nearer we approach a
closed system, the freer
we will feel to develop
general theories of
organizational behaviour
Consequent awareness of
relationships between
external and internal
features of system will
tend to make us wary of
generalizations

9. Silverman argues that …
• The parallels between this explained environment and reified ‘system’ view of
organizations is apparent.
• The mechanical assumption that systems “need” to adjust fits very well into
conception of an organizations as an organisms.
• This approach avoids managerially disturbing ‘why’ questions about the generation of
change. Instead it emphasizes on question of ‘how’ the system adjust.
• There is more attention on criticism of these
theoretical positions than to suggestion of alternative
approaches.
• However, before that lets look at the historical development of the current
fashionable view on organizations…….
9

10. The Human Relations Model
• Environment
– Human Relation Model has been criticised for offering a closed system model.
– Tried to provide universal principles of ‘good management’ by applying the
psychological theory of human needs into organizational behaviour.
– However, little attention has been paid to external and historical factors which
might have complicated the analysis.
• System
– If Human Relations has shown little interest in analysing outside of organizations,
it has also come down on the Durkheimian side of the debate about immanent
nature of the “system”.
– Conflict is thus not the outcome of the different goals pursued by original groups
with separate interests; rather it stems from faulty communications, difficult
personalities and misunderstandings.
10

11. The Structural-Functionalist Model (1)
11
• Compared to Human Relations which has had to be satisfied with ad hoc set of
assumptions (developed in course of empirical studies), Structural Functionalism
possesses a well-developed theoretical basis.
• System; two types of organizational analysis
– Rational Model: concerned with how organizations attain their ends.
– Natural System Model: concerned with how organizations maintain themselves
or survive and is quite clearly patterned on the functionalists organic analogy.
However there are two further variants:
• Mertonian: providing impetus for an approach to organizations in terms of
‘latent’ as well as ‘manifest’ functions, dysfunctions as well as functions and
‘functional alternatives’ in place of universal functionality of all elements in
the system.
• Parsonian: while retaining the organic analogy, parson would assert the
importance of the value element in ensuring the integration of any system
whether it be society (the social system) or an organization (a sub-system).
Parson integrates the individual into the system. So organization achieves
stability through processes of adoption, operation & co-ordination.

12. The Structural-Functionalist Model (2)
• Environment
– While explaining interaction between an organization and its environment,
however when we try to approach closer to this problem, the high level of
generality of functionalist theory creates certain difficulties.
– For example Parsons defined organizations as ‘partially-open’ system and
suggested that its link with society is based upon the value system which they
share. However even by acceptance of ‘central value system’ in societies, we
don’t know why an organization must have a goal which fits within it. Moreover
the tendency of ‘partially open ‘ systems is to see the organization and its
environment as two sets of ‘givens’.
– Other functionalist (e.g. Selznick, Katz & Kahn) have not agreed with parson over
the degree of ‘openness’.
– More important than these differences, which are sometimes only about
terminology, is the way in which such theories consistently limit their interest in
the environment to its relationship with the needs of their organizational system.
12

13. Towards a Social Action Model
• Natural System Model is particularly appropriate because problem has been shifted
from efficient task fulfilment to flexibility necessary to ensure system survival in the
face of rapid change.
• BUT, Sociology of knowledge cannot provide us with evidence. It can only demonstrate
the ways in which certain propositions and theories may be related to prospective of
the time.
• Alternative approach is required to provide a greater insights.
• We need to decide whether we ought to begin with the ends of systems, as perceived
by the observer, or with ends of the observations.
• In particular we need to decide whether an Immanent or Transcendental model are
more appropriate for analysing social systems.
13

14. Silverman’s Paradigm for Social Action
Analysis of Organizations
14
•Establishing the ends held by different groups.
•Establishing the degree of conflict between these ends.1
•Understanding relationship between these ends and the social situation
•Focus both on outside and inside organizations.2
•Examining the means typically used by different groups to attain their ends.3
•Explain why certain means are used by groups at certain times.4
•Examining the consequences that any piece of action has for social situation of each group.5
• Examining how ends may be modified.
• Examining how the availability & effectiveness of different means may vary.6
How a social action analysis of organizations might proceed?

15. Mein points before defending
the Organizational Theory
• Silverman argues that organizational sociology has embraced too uncritically a
conception of the organizations as a system with it own needs and goals. *
• Silverman is not believed that sociological study of organizations would benefit from
more enquiry into the perceptions held by different members. Instead he argued that
structuralist approaches are both deficient as theory and are tools for subjugation. *
• Silverman argued that human characteristics are being ascribed to the inanimate
which is the reification.*
• In laying the charges of reification against organizational sociology, Silverman made
criticism about whose meaning requires explanation. *
• Silverman contends that talk of goals ascribes volition and purposeful action to
organizations which only humans can have, and is, therefore, guilty of reification or
anthropomorphism.*
* Addressed by Lex Donaldson (1985)
15

16. Thank You
16