Search

The relationship between size and structure is a general problem in the study of social organization. Organization can be seen as a system of relationships among differentiated activities performed by units of a population. Viewed as arising out of the exchange relations among these units, the structural characteristics of organizations should be affected by population size. As specific expressions of this general concern, size has been included in every taxonomy of group properties and has been related to goals, effectiveness, succession, and job satisfaction in studies of formal organizations (Merton, 1957:310-326; Berelson and Steiner, 1964:364-367; Tannenbaum, 1961; Meltzer and Salter, 1962; Simpson and Gulley, 1962; and Grusky, 1961). But perhaps the greatest amount of theoretical and research attention has focused on the relationship between size and the administrative component as one structural aspect of formal organizations (Melman, 1951; Terrien and Mills, 1955; Tsouderos, 1955; Bendix, 1956:221-223; Haire, 1959:287-296; Anderson and Warkov, 1961; Lindenfeld, 1961; Haas et al., 1963; Hawley et al., 1965; Starbuck, 1965:495-502; Rushing, 1966; Raphael, 1967; Hall et al., 1967). The findings produced by this research along with other inquiries into the effects of size on structural characteristics have been inconclusive. This has led some to conclude that "… size may be irrelevant in determining organizational structure" (Hall et al., 1967:912). Such a conclusion, however, may be premature. It is clear from both our own work and that of others that the effects of size may vary by type of organization (Akers and Campbell, 1968). Further, a clearer understanding of the size factor, especially as related to the administrative segment, requires a systematic investigation into other structural features of organization. In particular, Blau and Scott (1962:227) have suggested that complexity, as a second structural characteristic, may be an intervening variable between size and the administrative component, as well as being itself directly affected by organizational size. While other studies have treated complexity in a variety of ways, none has attempted systematically to explore the interrelationships among size, complexity, and the administrative component in a relatively large number of voluntary organizations. It is the purpose of this paper to examine these interrelationships for one kind of organization. Specifically, we want to consider: 1. the relationship between organizational size and the administrative component, controlling for complexity. 2. the relationship between size and complexity controlling for the relative size of the administrative component. 3. the relationship between complexity and the size of the administrative component controlling for organizational size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with the effects of members on organizations. We looked at the kinds of responses organizations can make to members, the connection of different responses to the type of relationship between organization and members, the choice of different organizational responses, and the conditions maximizing effects of members. The term "organizational response" is used to cover both new developments which are customarily thought to be changes and those which are not usually viewed as changes. The basis for distinguishing two major types of responses to members is how the pressure for change is handled: Any new activities, procedures, norms, or goals introduced in order to alter or manipulate the source of pressure on the organization are called controls. Any new activities, etc., introduced in order to alter or manipulate the targets of pressure are called organizational modifications. The most important organizational responses to members are social controls. These may involve major redistributions of resources, the creation of new departments and services, dramatic shifts in conceptions of the organization's purposes, and so on. At the same time, they represent attempts by agents of the organization to resist, control, contain, manipulate, and prevent possible influence from members on the organization. Many times, these attempts to protect the organization are more costly than modifying those aspects of the organization which are the targets of influence. The social controls can backfire and engender greater member disaffection. Nevertheless, it was assumed that social controls should be a preferred response when pressures from members occur. Should the range of controls available to an organization become depleted—either because it has few available or because previous attempts at control have failed—organizational modifications then occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ORGANIZaTiON goals and their consequences provide a major frame of reference for the systematic investigation of variation in the structure and operation of large-scale organizations. Sociologists have traditionally identified relatively specific goals as one of the distinctive aspects of large-scale organization. But they have not analyzed comparatively the effects of different goals on organizational behavior, nor have they confronted the problem of measuring goals when comparing organizations. In a study recently concluded, custodial and treatment goals of correctional institutions for delinquents were used as the major source for independent variables in the testing of hypothesized relationships about the social structure of these institutions.)Using data from this study, this paper has two purposes. First, we wish to illustrate a method for the measurement of goals when these are defined vaguely and in such a way as to protect the institution's public image. By using several methods of measuring goals we were able to achieve both a more precise definition of goals and one which showed how the goals of different levels and groups in the institution intermeshed. Second, we wish to present illustrative data demonstrating the effects of different goals on the internal structures of the organizations. Specifically, we will compare departmental structures, power balances, and staff perceptions of organizational norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]