V READING

Task 3. Read the text about systematic approach to the organization theory proposed by Amitai Etzioni. Write down three interesting things you remember. Compare your notes with other students.

WHY DO WE OBEY THE RULES?

Obviously, not all of our relationships with or­ganizations are the same. The relationship between the sales clerk and the company presi­dent is quite different from the relationship between the priest and the parishioner, and both are different from the relationship be­tween the warden and the prisoner.

Amitai Etzioni classified our relationship to different sorts of organizations in terms of the kind of power they have over us. Imagine, for example, an organization whose goal is the reg­ular collection of garbage. Picking up garbage is a strenuous activity involving large numbers of people. The organization must persuade some­one who ordinarily would not touch other peo­ple's garbage to work toward this common goal. According to Etzioni, there are three ways of doing it.

The organization can compel the accep­tance of its goal by punishing any failure to perform. Compulsion is the motivating force in such organizations as prisons, forced labor camps, and military training camps. They have what Etzioni described as coercive power. The garbage collectors in this case are inmates.

The organization can buy acceptance of its goal by paying its members for picking up other people's garbage. Instead of the nega­tive reward of punishment, there is the pos­itive reward of cash. Motivation is achieved through remunerative power, and the or­ganization is a business or a government de­partment. The garbage collectors are now employees.

Individuals can accept the goal of the orga­nization as a personal goal. They might find garbage collecting a worthwhile activity be­cause they believe in the value of sanitation or because they personally prefer clean sidewalks and fresh air. In this case motiva­tion comes from identification with the or­ganizational goal, and the rewards are psy­chological and emotional. This organization has normative power, and the garbage col­lectors are voluntary participants. Garbage collecting may not attract many volunteers, but amateur rock music groups, Softball teams, and community service organiza­tions do.

Etzioni found that an organization typically relies on one type of power to motivate its members. Workers in an automobile plant, for example, are paid for their work (remunerative power). They may identify with the company's goals, but the company does not depend on this identification (normative power) to get them to come to work in the morning. Prisons, on the other hand, rely on coercive power. Some in­mates may identify with the goals of the prison and others may be paid for their labors, but the prison does not depend on its normative or re­munerative power to motivate them. While many organizations exercise all three types of power, each relies primarily on only one.

To make certain that the rules are obeyed, bureaucratic organizations centralize decision making and decentralize execution. The supe­rior decides that something should be done, and the subordinate does it. If every action of the subordinate had to wait for the direct order of the superior, however, there would have to be one supervisor for every four or five work­ers. If each worker had to be told individually to tighten a particular bolt every time an auto­mobile came down the assembly line, for exam­ple, the costs in time and effort would be high and productivity would be low. Bureaucracies are efficient partly because they delegate re­sponsibility and save the costs of close supervi­sion. Rules and regulations take the place of supervisors' orders, and control is exercised from a distance. Once a rule is learned – "se­cure muffler to chassis by tightening all bolts" – one person can supervise the work of a hundred. Control by rules and regulations is most suitable for repetitive, simple work that does not provide much opportunity for creativ­ity or the exercise of authority. Much factory work, for example, falls into this category. The lower levels of the bureaucracy are most likely to have this type of control over behaviour.

A more highly trained and educated work force needs even less direct supervision. Rou­tine decision making can be delegated because the guidelines for making the decision have been set from above. The traffic police officer decides which driver to arrest according to the rule that everyone who exceeds the speed limit by 10 MPH is speeding. The decision to give a particular driver a ticket may be delegated, but the police officer's behaviour is still predictable. He or she can be depended upon not to give tickets to drivers who stay within the speed limit. Decentralized decision making actually increases organizational control in this way. Moreover, bureaucratic rules make personal supervision unnecessary. Whether a supervisor is there or not, the police officer will continue to make arrests for speeding. The result is greater efficiency, greater control, and lower costs for the organization.