Primary Colors: The Dimensions of Meaning in Organizational Participation

The Dimensions of Meaning in
Organizational Participation
(A Synthesis of M. Weber and G.H. Mead)
PART I
Abstracted from Organized Action,
a forthcoming book by Jerry Morris, Ph.D.
PRIMARY COLORS
Copyright©2015GeraldD.Morris,Ph.D.AllRightsReserved.Updated5/10/15.
1

Dedicated to Alex Garber, Ph.D.
1912 - 1984
Sociologist and Mentor
Background photograph courtesy of John Morgan, flickr.com
2

Dimensions of Meaning
3

4
Most people are familiar with PRIMARY COLORS.
 Traditionally they are red, blue, and yellow.
 Other combinations are used, as well.
 These PRIMARY COLORS can be mixed to form a
broad array of other colors.
 This is done in painting, printing, photography,
etc.
 Also, other colors can be separated into the
PRIMARY COLORS; e.g., light filters.

Human social action is similar to the PRIMARY
COLORS.
 It may be thought of as a mix of three kinds of
action.
 The three kinds of social action are blended,
with varying emphasis, in everyday social
action.
 And, they may be pulled apart in our thinking
about such action.
 This is done by comparing different social
actions in a special way. 5

The three kinds of social action are often
mentioned in the words of famous people.
 Theodore Roosevelt spoke of using
government to “organize our entire political,
economical and social life” for democratic
purpose.
 Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke of power as “the
strength required to bring about social,
political, and economic change.”
 Pope John XXIII noted that workers having a
say in their workplaces accords “with recent
progress in the economic, social, and political
system.” 6

 Douglas McArthur, referring to postwar Japan,
said, ”Politically, economically, and socially
Japan is now abreast of many free nations of
the earth and will not again fail the universal
trust.”
 Malcolm X said, “We suffer political oppression,
economic exploitation, and social degradation,
all of them from the same enemy.”
 President Dwight Eisenhower, upon appointing
Earl Warren as Chief Justice, said, “He
represents the kind of political, economic, and
social thinking that I believe we need on the
Supreme Court.”
7

Scholars often refer to the economic, social, and
political dimensions – in varying terms – as basic to
human social action.
 Max Weber, a founder of sociology, referred to
the economic, social, and legal orders in society.
 George H. Mead, noted social-psychologist and
philosopher, referred to the universals –
economic, neighborliness, and political.
 Daniel Bell, Harvard professor and prominent
intellectual, referred to the techno-economic,
cultural, and polity realms of society.
8

The three dimensions exist because all complex
social organization has:
 An objective structure, i.e., material, tangible
patterns of action, such as a division of labor,
exchange relations, daily routines.
 A subjective, intangible body of shared ideas,
i.e., beliefs, values, norms.
 A reflexive process for collective decision
making, i.e., a part of the organization reflects,
looks back on the whole, and makes action
choices on behalf of the entire body.
9

The three dimensions of social action are simply
three dimensions of meaning.
 That is, each dimension is a different context for
assessing the meaning of an action.
 Said otherwise, an action may be viewed in an
economic, social, or political context.
 And, meaning, as the word is used herein, is
simply the presumed consequences of an
action, as seen in a particular context.
(see John Dewey)
10

The terms, economic, social, and political, carry a
lot of baggage.
 To avoid unwanted connotations, different
terms are suggested.
 The economy is the realm of utilities.
 Thus, the presumed consequences of action –
when viewed in a material, economic context –
will be utilitive consequences.
 And, presumed utilitive consequences will
constitute utilitive meaning.
11

Society is the realm of social norms.
 Norms are the socially prescribed ways of
behaving.
 Along with beliefs and values , one may say,
they make up human culture.
when viewed in a social, cultural context – will
be normative consequences.
 And, presumed normative consequences will
constitute normative meaning.
12

Political action, as considered herein, occurs in the
realm of authority.
 After Weber, authority, is simply political power
that is viewed as legitimate.
when viewed in a political, group-authority
context – will be authoritive consequences.
 And, presumed authoritive consequences will
constitute authoritive meaning.
13

To illustrate the dimensions of meaning – which
coexist in all action– consider the following:
A physician is asked to perform a procedure.
 Is it possible to do, as a practical matter, are the
necessary utilities (skills, resources, services,
etc.) available?
 Is it socially acceptable, and does the physician’s
normative (i.e., professional) code allow or
forbid it?
 Is it legal, do hospital rules allow it, is the
physician board certified (authorized) to do it?
14

Meaning and Organizational
Conformation
15

What difference, one may ask, do the dimensions
in social action make?
 Typically, one dimension of meaning is
dominant, or more emphasized by participants,
in any social action – although all action is
mixed.
 This gives rise to different types of societies (see
Weber), organizations, and social groups.
 And, it provides three different approaches to
recruiting and retaining participants.
 However, many leaders focus on one, slight the
others, and thereby limit their effectiveness.
16

Several scholars have used organizational types
similar to the utilitive, normative, and authoritive.*
 Amitai Etzioni used a typology of utilitarian,
normative, and coercive organizations.
 James Q. Wilson and Peter B. Clark used a
typology of utilitarian, solidary, and purposive
organizations.
 Etzioni noted that the different types tend to
have different structures.
 Wilson and Clark also noted that the different
types tend to use different recruitment
mechanisms.
(* Ideal type of authoritive is Weber’s bureaucracy.)
17

What is meant by different structures?
 A dominant meaning (type of consequences
emphasized) calls for conforming patterns of
action (organizational structure) which produce
the consequences.
 After Weber, this is a matter of “elective
affinity” – not causality, but compatibility of
ideas and actions.
 Does an authoritive emphasis favor centralized
decision making, a utilitive emphasis favor
decentralized decision making, and a normative
emphasis favor consensus decision making, or
authority? (see Ouchi)
18

The Master Tenant of the U.S. Air Force, Centralized
Control and Decentralized Operations, appears to
support this hypothesis.
 In the context of this presentation, Control
decisions are authoritive and operational
decisions are utilitive.
 Furthermore, in the last half of the 20th century
combat operations were increasingly centralized
in the Air Force as the importance of political
consequences (e.g., civilian harm, collateral
damage) became more emphasized.
19

Utilitive Emphasis Normative Emphasis Authoritive Emphasis
Entrepreneurial
Business
Cooperative, or Hobby
Business
Cartel, or Monopoly
Business
Research University,
or For-Profit College
Liberal Arts College Military College
Proprietary Hospital Community Hospital Veterans’ Hospital
Catholic Winery Catholic Parochial
School
Catholic Diocese
Business Union Social or Professional
Union
Communist or Company
Union
Mercenary Military
Unit
Special Military Unit
(e.g., Seals)
Regular Military Unit
20
The following table suggests organizational types:

Within every organization – as within a society, or
state – there is ongoing contention (negotiated
order) over the type of meaning that is dominant
and how it is expressed.
 For example, should a union of professionals
focus primarily on material (utilitive) gains,
professional (normative) standards, or
government (authoritive) regulations?
 In each case this is a contention, explicit or
implicit, among individuals and groups.
 To have effect, an individual must be backed by
a group.
21

How the contention occurs must be explored anew
in each organization – it is emergent.
 The struggle over meaning depends upon the
convictions and the collaborations of the
participants – their utilitive, normative and
authoritive orientations and interactions.
 However, the advantage of recognizing the
several dimensions of meaning is that one may
identify and then disentangle (analyze) the
different threads of action.
 Using what Weber called ideal types, one may
sort out the contending types of action.
22

Solidarity, and therefore strength, of an
organization requires agreement, or cohesion,
among the three dimensions of meaning.
 A military needs not only a command structure,
but also a compatible culture and an
appropriate task and resource structure.
 A church needs not only a liturgy, but also
appropriate task performance, resources, and
administration.
 A business needs not only production and
exchange, but a vital community and effective
administration.
23

Further, whatever dimension of meaning is
dominant in an organization, the secondary
dimensions ideally should be subordinate.*
 Say, an organization is principally utilitive
(primarily concerned with task performance,
exchange relations, resources, etc.),
 The authoritive dimension (e.g., delegation of
authority, establishing policies, setting goals),
and,
 The normative dimension (beliefs, values, and
norms) should give primacy to utilitive
considerations.
(*An example is Weber’s ideal type-bureaucracy-wherein utilitive
and normative considerations are fully subordinate to authoritive.)
24

Quite often the contents of the three dimensions
of meaning are not in sync.
 As stated, there’s generally a tussle over which
dimension of meaning has priority.
 Likewise, there may be a tussle within one
dimension, say, a normative struggle over which
beliefs, values, or norms are dominant.
 Such a normative contention may be among
different age, ethnic, professional, gender,
sexual orientation, religious, regional, or other
cultural, identity groups.
 Political factions and economic interest groups,
likewise struggle for dominance.
25

As a side note, and to be taken up in Part II, the
groups within organizations that emphasize and
struggle over utilitive, normative, or authoritive
meaning are comparable to Weber’s ideal type
concepts of class, status group, and party.
 Weber used these concepts, as suggested
herein, to tease out the component streams of
action in large social entities, e.g., institutions,
states.
 However, according to Weber, parties may also
exist in associations (organizations), and thus,
by extension, so may forms similar to classes
and status groups.
26

As an additional note, and also to be taken up in
Part II, George H. Mead’s core concepts – “me,”
“generalized other,” and “I,” are comparable to
Weber’s class, status group, and party.
 At “different levels of analysis” they perform
comparable analytic functions.
 This comparability of core concepts in the
perspectives of Weber and Mead entails the
prospect of a general synthesis.
 It also provides a bridge for symbolic
interactionist analysis of large social structures.
27

There is often a tendency to identify objective,
causative, mechanical or organic circumstances –
such as the nature of the organization’s
environment– as determining the structure and
processes that make up an organization.
 However, all such influences must pass through
the contention, the endless struggle, over
dominant meaning within an organization.
 The influence of external conditions depends
entirely upon their meaning to inside groups.
(a corollary to W.I. Thomas’s dictum)
28

Meaning and Participation
29

Aside from the role of meaning in shaping the
structure and dynamics of organizations, an
important point is as follows:
 One may consciously use the dimensions of
meaning to mobilize organizational participants.
 As noted by Wilson and Clark, one may think of
the three dimensions of meaning as three
generic types of incentives.
 They underlie all means of recruitment and
retention of organizational participants.
30

Speaking of utilitive inducements to participation
means:
 All aspects of the material conditions that may
affect a person’s choice to participate.
These may be such things as:
 Task, assignment, job
 Income (e.g., monetary, deferred, in-kind
compensation)
 Conditions (e.g., meeting facilities, working
conditions, hours, convenient location)
 Benefits (e.g., recreational, health, dental)
31

 Commodities (e.g., housing, meals, snacks,
refreshments, automobile, computer, cell
phone)
 Security (e.g., employment, retirement,
personal safety)
 Future opportunities (e.g., promotion, training,
work experience)
 Perks (e.g., parking, childcare, expense account,
transportation)
 Services (e.g., legal, investment, tax, counseling)
32

Speaking of normative inducements to
participation means:
 All aspects of the expression of cultural ideas
(beliefs, values, norms) that may affect a
person’s choice to participate.
 Core ideas (e.g., beliefs, values, norms)
 Sense of community*, camaraderie, fellowship
 Group identity
 Status (e.g. prestige, esteem)
(*see Cohen, Symbolic Construction of Community)
33

 Honor (i.e., code of behavior, standards)
 Ceremonies (e.g., rituals, celebrations)
 Symbols (e.g., logo, emblem, flag)
 Style (e.g., dress, manners, persona)
 Exclusivity, privileged access
 Language, (e.g., mother tongue, dialect,
professional terminology)
 Narratives, stories, lore, history
 Heroes, exemplars
 Villains, fools, opponents
 Special artifacts, objects
34

 Cuisine
 Arts:
 Dance
 Music
 Literature
 Theatre
 Occult practices, magic, superstition
 A claim to superiority in some respect
 A denigration of other groups
 A sense of centering, a place, a home territory
35

Speaking of authoritive inducements to
participation means:
 All aspects of the disposition and use of
authority that may affect a person’s choice to
participate.
 Mission, purpose
 Leadership, staff
 Goals, objectives
 Strategy, tactics
 Policies, rules
36

 Problem solving
 Innovation
 Supervision, monitoring
 Conflict resolution, adjudication
 Communications – info from leadership
 Communications – opportunities for input
 Relations with other organizations
 Conduct of public relations
 Public image
(In this context, rules are simply enduring collective decisions)
37

Meaning and Leadership
38

To effectively use utilitive, normative, and
authoritive inducements one must probe their
meaning to participants.
 Within an organization, what are the categories
(classes) of individuals with different economic,
material circumstances ?
 Using an inventory of utilitive inducements,
such as previously discussed, how do various
classes view each of the material inducements
offered by the organization?
 How are prospective inducements viewed?
39

Within the organization what are the identity
(status) groups – groups with somewhat distinctive
beliefs, values, norms?
 Group members may be identified by listening
to communications, by observing patterns of
action, by talking with informants, etc.
 Using an inventory of normative inducements,
such as previously discussed, how do they view
each of the normative inducements offered by
the organization?
40

Within the organization what are the politically
inclined (party) groups – whose members appear
to share distinctive views on organizational
authority?
 Identifying such groups and individuals may be
a sleuthing task, requiring careful observation
and listening.
 Using an inventory of authoritive inducements,
such as previously discussed, how do they view
each of the authoritive characteristics of the
organization?
41

Again, classes* in organizations are collections of
individuals with comparable economic, material
situations, e.g., similar tasks, working conditions,
resources, compensation, etc.
 Status groups* are groups, perhaps amorphous,
e.g., age, ethnic, professional, gender, regional,
sexual orientation, religious or other identity
groups with distinctive subcultures.
 Parties* are organized, or somewhat organized,
attempts to influence the disposition and use of
authority, e.g., cliques, factions, caucuses, or
parties.
(*These ideal types are only approximated by real groups, and a
real group may be, at once, class, status, and party.)
42

Fundamentally, assessing the meaning of
inducements to organizational participants is a
political process.
(Politics is an art of group mobilization.)
 Conversing with participants throughout the
organization.
 Observation of participants in all organizational
activities and settings.
 These actions may be supplemented by
“management by walking around,” structured
interviews, focus groups, surveys, town halls,
forums, etc.
43

Leadership may then make informed choices.
 It is a continuous, reflexive process of assessing,
modifying, evaluating, and adjusting the
practices which convey meaning in
organizational action.
 Determining what is meaningful, in each of the
three dimensions, is not– cannot be—a
mechanical process.
 It is a matter of exploration, of judgment, of
experimentation*, of personal experience on
the part of leaders.
(i.e., pragmatic philosophy: “truth is what works”)
44

Leadership requires reflexive action.
 It requires mentally standing outside of oneself
– viewing oneself from the perspectives of
selected others.
 It requires mentally standing above, or to the
side of, organizational action – for purposes of
evaluation, problem solving, innovation, etc.
 However, this reflection may be enhanced by a
through consideration of the dimensions of
meaning in organizational action.
45

The Dimensions of Meaning in
Organizational Participation
PART II
46
PRIMARY COLORS

Meaning and Collective
Action
47

As mentioned earlier, Weber identified three
orders in society – economic, social, and legal –
which encompass classes, status groups, and
parties.
 These are correctly viewed as different
modalities of social stratification.
 However, they also provide conceptual tools for
the analysis of social action.
 For example, in Weber’s most widely read book,
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
protestants are a status group and capitalists
are a class.
48

A class is an aggregate of individuals who have
similar economic situations, more particularly
similar, objective, economic interests, and
especially as determined within exchange
relationships.
 Herein, in an organizational context, a class is an
aggregate who have similar positions in a task
structure – or other, similar material,
organizational conditions.
 Examples would be similar tasks, working
conditions, hours, resources, opportunities.
 A class is a collection, not a social group.
49

A status group is a group, perhaps an amorphous
group, with a social standing and a somewhat
distinctive set of ideas – beliefs, values, norms, i.e.,
culture.
 According to Reinhard Bendix, Weber used the
term broadly for cultural groups.
 Common examples of status groups are
different age, ethnic, professional, gender,
religious, regional, sexual orientation, or any
other identity groups with distinctive
subcultures.
50

Status groups are the bearers of social conventions,
i.e., social norms.
 In society, each status group has a distinctive
style of life – i.e., a set of social preferences.
 Depending on the social context, what one
ordinarily refers to as reference groups, identity
groups, or professional groups are simply
examples of status groups.
 Are they a source of normative guidance to
which group members turn? Do they have a
recognized standing in a social context?
51

Parties are organizations attempting to influence
the holding and exercise of authority – within
another organization.
 Within a host organization, parties may be
rudimentary, e.g., factions, cliques, caucuses.
 The top administration of an organization is,
itself, a party or a coalition of parties.
 Parties may be based on class interests, status
group ideas, or simply a quest for organizational
authority – and typically all three.
52

Emphasizing a particular dimension of meaning as
the base of party support, as before, gives rise to
types of action.
 More particularly, it gives rise to Weber’s types
of authority, or legitimate power.
 This is not causative necessity, but elective
affinity.
 Again, by elective, affinity is meant a
compatibility of ideas and action.
53

This presentation suggests that emphasis upon
class, more particularly serving utilitive interests, as
the basis of party action, favors rational authority.
 Emphasis upon status, more particularly
honoring established normative conventions,
favors traditional authority, and
 An authoritive emphasis – upon power itself as
an objective – favors a superlative, charismatic
ability to gain and successfully exercise
authority.
(cf. Randall Collins)
54

Classes, status groups, and parties provide the
impetus for collective struggles, within societies or
within organizations, over the dominant meaning
of social action.
 They are the basis for utilitive, normative, and
authoritive contention within organized action.
 One may analyze social action by comparing it
to constructed, idealized patterns of class,
status group, and party action, assessing in
what ways it is, or is not, similar.
 Such patterns are called ideal types and allow
one to identify and “pull out” the different
currents of action.
55

An example of class, status group, and party
contention is the GOP southern strategy.
 Republicans used status group, i.e., cultural
wedge issues, to disrupt a working class
alignment with the Democratic Party.
 Another example was the historic battle for
control within the National Rifle Association.
 Reportedly it was a struggle between
recreational, lifestyle hunters and those who
represented corporate economic interests, or
had larger political aims.
56

In a third example, the AFT, the teachers union,
from the mid-1930s to the mid-1960s, had an
active two-party system.
 The National Caucus was based on inclusive,
local unions with a utilitive (class) orientation –
business unionism – that shunned divisive social
issues.
 The Progressive Caucus was based on local
unions with a normative (status group)
orientation – social unions – that embraced
contentious, progressive issues and were elitist
and exclusionary.
57

A digression:
 One must be vigilant to avoid reification of
analytic concepts. That is, a class, status group,
or party is not a thing one can poke with a stick.
 These, and other concepts, herein, are what
Blummer referred to as sensitizing concepts.
They help one look for general attributes that
are shared among factually discrete social
actions.
 In addition, while this presentation avoids a
positivistic concept of causality, this does not
mean one cannot anticipate or predict
outcomes of social action – simply based on its
recognized meaning.
58

Mead – Weber Synthesis
59

Turning now to George H. Mead, this presentation
will not explore the philosophical similarities with
Weber.
 Suffice it to say they had corresponding
outlooks on the nature of social science.
 Numerous scholars have referred to this
similarity and mentioned a possible synthesis or
joining of their perspectives.
 As mentioned earlier, a bridge exists in the
correspondence of their core concepts,
concepts from Weber’s general sociology and
from Mead’s social psychology.
60

Mead presented a very influential perspective on
the social origin of the individual, human
personality and of distinctly human behavior.
 The human personality, or self, is formed
through social interaction in a language
community.
 Individuals learn to mentally borrow the
attitudes of others toward themselves, thereby
giving rise to reflexive, self-aware action.
 This allows self-guided, intelligent, rational,
problem solving action.
61

The human mind is an internalization of social
interaction; it is interaction with oneself, conducted
via language symbols.
 Thus, thinking is a conversation with oneself, a
conversation stimulated by encountering a
problem, a barrier to ongoing action.
 Mead describes the conversation in terms of an
interaction involving the me, the generalized
other, and the I.
 Subjectively assuming the attitudes of others
toward oneself –which is objectified as me, one
responds as I, in an emergent action.
62

As an example, I act, and my action contains
significant gestures or significant symbols which
indicate the intent, or meaning of the action.
 As a socialized person, I covertly or overtly
respond to the meaning of my own action, the
action of me, as I have learned others might do.
 Further, I may continue responding to my
immediately preceding actions (actions as I, but
objectified as me), as relevant others might do,
and, thus, self interaction goes on.
63

Consider the idea that class and me are analogous
concepts.
 When I think of myself in my position and
actions within an organization, I am essentially
considering myself in a class situation.
 That is, I view myself in a task situation,
possibly with all manner of material
considerations, coincidentally shared by an
aggregate of individuals similarly situated.
 At the same time, at a social-psychological level,
I am looking at me, my objectified self,
reflexively considering my actions.
64

In considering my actions within the organization, I
necessarily view them from the perspectives of
others – or a composite of others.
 These others can be any groups, or individuals
representing groups, with attitudes taken as
pertinent to my actions.
 Examples could include an executive group,
various staff or professional groups, a work
group, a range of possible informal groups in
the organization, or others on the outside.
 Upon taking the perspectives of reference,
status groups, serving as others, and,
65

 Upon visualizing my action, or potential action,
as me in my job, or class, situation,
 I respond as I – within bounded authority,
delegated by the top administration – i.e., I acts
as an agent of the dominant party within the
organization – unless challenging authority.
 With respect to challenging management’s
authority, consider the following brief narrative
about an employee’s decision to support, or
oppose, a union.
66

As an employee, I think of my myself (my me) in my
job situation and pay grade (my class), from the
perspectives of, say, a Jewish or Catholic religious
and N.E. regional background (status groups,
others).
 I (as other) easily envision myself (me) joining
the union (party) and without hesitation I (I)
sign a union card.
 Some co-workers, particularly those with
different jobs (classes) and religious or regional
(status group, other) backgrounds may view
themselves (their me’s) as doing well on their
own, and so (their I’s) reject the union (party).
67

Now, both I and top administration have emergent
properties – spontaneity, innovation, etc. – recall
Weber’s non-bureaucratic head of a legal-rational,
or bureaucratic, organization.
 The authoritive head, be it an individual, an
executive group, a council, or a board of
trustees, is the chief reflexive, decision-making
entity in an organization.
 As a political entity, it will typically have
emergent, unpredictable , and opportunistic
qualities comparable to those associated with
Mead’s I.
68

Decision making in an organization is like that of an
individual, but typically the process is more overt
and the others factually participating.
 Recall that Hebert Blumer said the self-
interaction of an organization is the “same sort
of picture” as with an individual.
 In particular, at different levels of analysis
(organizational and individual) Weber’s class,
status group, and party and Mead’s me, other,
and I are analogous terms.
 This correspondence shows the commonality of
Weber’s and Mead’s analytic perspectives.
69

Another illustration is in the use of ideal types.
One pulls apart, or analyzes, a real action by
comparing it to each of several idealized courses of
action.
 Such an idealized course of action is a Weberian
ideal type, or alternatively is a single-minded,
abstracted, Median attitude of other.
 The several idealized courses of action each
represent a single-minded, or purely rational
pursuit of a particular type of meaning.
 So, one has – for use in the analysis – several
abstracted others, or several ideal types.
70

The correspondence or divergence of the real
action from the idealized patterns is noted.
 Significant gestures (see Mead) imbedded in the
real action are especially helpful in revealing the
meanings attributed by actors – hence wherein
an ideal type or abstracted other fits the action.
 One then summarizes the extent and manner
that action comports with each idealized
pattern, i.e., expresses that type of meaning.
 The product is a synopsis of the way in which a
particular action was brought about by a
mixture of different meaning orientations –
types, others.
71

Conclusion
72

It is the author’s contention that the conceptual
tools employed by Max Weber and George Herbert
Mead correspond in a very thoroughgoing manner.
 The convergence of core concepts, outlined
herein, along with other commonalities,
illustrates the prospect of a general synthesis of
Weber’s and Mead’s theoretical perspectives.
 Such a synthesis would operate at the micro,
meso, and macro levels of analysis and would
address all manner of social phenomena.
73

Primary Colors: The Dimensions of Meaning in Organizational Participation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Primary Colors: The Dimensions of Meaning in Organizational Participation

Similar to Primary Colors: The Dimensions of Meaning in Organizational Participation (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Primary Colors: The Dimensions of Meaning in Organizational Participation