Doctoral Student, Social Work and Sociology

Michael A. Dover

Submitted to Prof. Mark S. Mizruchi

October 3, 1996

Status and Power Preliminary Examination Question #4 (September 1996)

(Essay to satisfy the conditional pass)

AWhat is the relationship between class analysis and institutional or organizational analysis of status and power? Are they competing perspectives? Complimentary? Do they ask similar questions, or are they investigating different dimensions of inequality?@

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 3

Do they address different dimensions of inequality?...... 3

Aspects of the relationship of the three forms of analysis...... 4

Classical roots of class, organizational and institutional analysis: Marx, Weber, Durkheim.....4

Modern roots of analytic synthesis: Dahrendorf, Mills, Polanyi...... 5

Relationship Continued: Prototypes/Working Definitions: Wright, Stinchcombe, DiMaggio/Powell.....6

Discuss/define Wright/class analysis in relationship to organizational and institutional analysis..6

Discuss/define Stinchcombe/organizational analysis in relation to class and institutional analysis 7

Discuss/define DiMaggio & Powell/institutional analysis in relation to class/organizational ....7

Are they competing perspectives?...... 8

Are they complementary perspectives?...... 10

Conclusions...... 12

References ...... 14

Introduction

The 1970's saw the advent of open systems perspectives on organizations (Mizruchi and Galaskiewicz 1994). During that decade, organizational analysis recognized the centrality of organizational environment in constraining and penetrating organizations, and institutional analysis conceptualized organizations as functioning in the context of the cultural rules and beliefs of the wider institutional environment (Scott 1995). Class analysis sought both to study links between firms= internal states and segmented labor markets (Burawoy 1979; Edwards 1979) and to develop an early form of the social class model of intercorporate relations (Mizruchi and Galaskiewicz 1994). Fueled by the implications of the open systems perspective, the next 15 years saw the development of syntheses represented by the new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Scott 1995; DiMaggio and Powell 1991) and the work of Mizruchi (1992) and others. Three prototypical examples of class, organizational and institutional analysis may be identified from that period: Wright (1986); Stinchcombe (1990), and DiMaggio and Powell (1983), respectively. The relationship between these forms of analysis will be explored by asking whether they address different dimensions of inequality; exploring their roots in classical (Marx, Weber and Durkheim) and early modern (Mills, Dahrendorf and Polanyi) theory; presenting prototypes and definitions of each form of analysis; identifying the questions each asks; and asking whether they are competitive, complementary or both.

Do they address different dimensions of inequality?

Baron and Bielby (1980: 738) argued that social inequality may be studied at several levels of social organization (societal, institutional, organizational, role, individual) and corresponding units of analysis (economy, industry, firm, job and worker). Dimensions of inequality will be considered in terms of these levels/units. DiMaggio and Powell (1991: 9, 16) noted that institutionalism in organizational analysis has primarily been applied at industry-wide, national and international levels. Scott (1995: 60) noted that sociologists apply institutional forms of analysis primarily to the world systems, society and organizational field levels.[i] A review of the preliminary examination list confirmed that institutionalist contributions (North 1981; Skocpol 1992; DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Polanyi 1944; Piore and Sabel 1984; Walder 1995; Fligstein 1996) focused on these levels. Non-institutionalist organizational analysis focused on intra/interorganizational levels (Blau 1968; Pfeffer 1981; Pfeffer 1987; Stinchcombe 1990; McPherson and Rotolo 1996; Perrow 1979). The levels/units of class analysis included the societal (Wright 1986), industrial (Hodson 1986; Burawoy 1993), firm (Stark 1986; Burawoy 1979, 1992), and job levels (Moore 1995; Braverman 1974, Part IV). Thus, class analysis and institutional analysis examine overlapping dimensions. Class and organizational analysis also overlap. Organizational and institutional analysis overlap only at the interorganizational level. This observation, and the need to address both the societal and organizational levels, justify including and distinguishing organizational and institutional analysis.

Aspects of the relationship of the three forms of analysis

Classical roots of class, organizational and institutional analysis: Marx, Weber, Durkheim

One aspect of the relationship of class, organizational and institutional analysis can be found in their distinct (but overlapping) roots in Marx, Weber and Durkheim, respectively. For Marx, the study of power led him to focus primarily on class inequality and on how economic relations shaped consciousness. Marxist class analysis saw the human exercise of power as in the Alast instance@ stemming from a status as bearer of a position rooted in relations of production. But Marx distinguished between aspects of workplace authority produced by capitalism and others which were generic to the social nature of production.[ii] For Marx, the manufacturing organization produced a complex hierarchy of wages and skills reflecting both natural and acquired capacities.[iii] Marx was also concerned with the analysis of historically specific institutional forms, such as Bonapartism and the Factory Acts. Thus, class analysis was primary, but was also applied to the study of organizations and institutions.

For Weber, power was rooted in one=s position as a wielder of varying degrees of economic goods and skills. Status reflected an additional form of stratification based upon prestige or life style. Another aspect of power for Weber was the development of constellations of individual interests.[iv] He recognized that class-conscious organization can succeed when Alarge numbers of persons are in the same class situation@.[v] In addition, power stemmed from the combined legitimatizing effects of three elements of domination: charismatic, legal/bureaucratic and traditional. These elements of power were exercised in social relationships and in organizational and institutional contexts. Relations of authority were related to both rationally-pursued material interests and to shared value orientations towards institutional authority structures themselves. Societal and class conflict were seen as self-limiting, not immanent as in Marx=s account. Bureaucratic rationality served to reduce undue sources of conflict. For Weber, organizational analysis was primary, but class and institutional factors were also important.

Durkheim=s approach to the integrative problem of modern society (Parsons 1937) was concerned with the institutional conveyance of social facts that normatively and coercively constrain human behavior. Parsons also pointed out that Durkheim observed that interests tend to centrifugally escape normative control. But Durkheim noted that rules stemming from different institutional contexts can conflict. The "institution of classes" caused conflicts which threatened organic solidarity (Division: 310). Each class had its own morality (Ethics: 100). Inequality was explained by unequal societal contributions and personal endowments, but the "lower classes" objected (Division: 310). Such factors undermined the interdependence that Durkheim saw as the basis of order (Mizruchi 1992). In response, Durkheim stressed the importance of moral discipline (Suicide: 251).[vi] Despite Durkheim's incomplete attention to organizations (Berkowitz 1988), Durkheim stressed they transmit institutional values (Rules: 4-10).[vii] Institutions were Durkheim=s foundation, but classes and organizations were also studied.

Modern roots of analytic synthesis: Dahrendorf, Mills, Polanyi

Although Dahrendorf, Mills and Polanyi may be seen as loosely representing, respectively, the Weberian emphasis on the centrality of organization, the Marxian emphasis on the centrality of classes, and the Durkheimian stress on social institutions, their work also reflects a more complex and increasingly synthetic relationship between the three forms of analysis. For instance, Dahrendorf (1959) advised social science not to either entirely reject or fully accept Marxist class analysis. For Dahrendorf, there was an institutional isolation between the political state and industrial production, which he saw as independent centers of power. Class conflict concerned the distribution of authority in social organizations which had skill-based hierarchies (1959: 148). Class was derived from one=s social role in an organization, rather than from one=s relationship to the capital-labor divide. Arguably, this form of class analysis becomes, essentially, a form of organizational analysis. By and large, this is a competing, rather than a complementary perspective to Marxist class analysis. But Dahrendorf retained a re-defined concept of class in his analysis, as had Weber before him. Although he viewed the capitalist class as having become a diverse, un-unified group rather than a class, he didn=t entirely substitute analysis of organizational structure and social roles for Marx=s analysis of class relations and interests. Rather, he specified which aspects of Marx he rejected, sustained and supplemented. In this way he followed his own advice and pointed the way towards future syntheses.

Dahrendorf distinguished his institutional isolation theory from Mills= institutionally-linked power elite (Dahrendorf 1959: 270). Mizruchi and Galaskiewicz (1994) said Mills influenced the social class model of analysis. Domhoff (1978) argued Mills wrote from an institutional elite perspective. Mills can be seen as combining elements of institutional, organizational and class analysis. For Mills (1956: 285), there was a structural coincidence of interest among three institutional domains of power - the economic, political, and military. The historical evolution of the power elite was seen as a resulting from shifts in the relative influence of these institutional domains. He viewed organizations as characterized by centralized power and knowledge, which accrued to individuals occupying positions within key organizations (1956: 3). Power was positional and rooted in organizational auspices. But while the power elite were role-determined, they were also role-determining (1956: 25). The power elite didn=t merely occupy positions of power, they also designed and created organizational positions of pivotal power. Mills (1956: 122-3) suggested that interlocking directorates represented evidence of a unified outlook among the Apropertied class@, and that associations such as N.A.M. Atranslate narrow economic powers into industry-wide and class-wide powers@, thus presaging Useem=s idea of classwide rationality (Useem 1984). Mills set a research agenda on elites that took class, organizational and institutional factors into account.

Polanyi (1944) studied social institutions which influenced the subsequent course of history: both purposive, public human inventions (social welfare systems) and various undisclosed powerful social instrumentalities (from little-known regulatory systems to more diffuse processes similar to Durkheim=s social facts). Polanyi argued that while at any one point in time a class analysis of a particular society might conceivably be informative, over the long-run, class interests have only limited explanatory power. His own conception of class referred to standing, rank, status and security, that is, primarily social rather than economic factors. Citizenship was an important form of status for Polanyi. The ultimate source of power was the ability to shape citizen opinion in a way which could produce behavioral conformity. Nevertheless, Polanyi rejected Durkheim=s stress on the need for an all-encompassing ideology which could forge social solidarity. Polanyi identified a fundamental contradiction between the existence of an unregulated market economy (commodification) and the institutional measures of the state (decommodification). The former can lead inexorably to human degradation, but the latter hinders capitalist development. Polanyi had faith in Weberian bureaucracy as an ameliorative instrument of planning, but did not prioritize the study of smaller-scale organizations. Polanyi was the forerunner of efforts to apply institutional analysis to macro-level analysis of societies and institutions.

Prototypes/Working Definitions: Wright, Stinchcombe, DiMaggio/Powell

Discuss/define Wright/class analysis in relationship to organizational and institutional analysis

For Wright, Marx=s analysis of the dynamics of exploitation was the key element of class analysis. But Wright also sought to go beyond the analysis of a simple polarization of class relations within the capitalist mode of production. He developed an analysis of class that could be applied across different modes of production. He contended that control of organizational assets was part and parcel of the mechanism of exploitation, not just ownership of the means of production. Exploitation was based not only on ownership position but on an organizational position coordinating production within a complex division of labor. Organizational analysis of the extent to which managers and supervisors utilize such assets was a key aspect of Wright=s analysis of class structure (Chapter 5). But Wright also argued that class analysis needed to use conjunctural analysis to examine Aconcrete institutional details,@ since both Aclass and non-class relations and practices usually occur@ (1986: 11-13). For the purposes of this answer, class analysis is seen as using concepts such as domination and exploitation by a dominant class to help explain the various dimensions of inequality. Class analysts see organizations as tools of class domination, sites of class struggle or organizational bearers of class relations. Key questions include: How do common class interests stemming from relations of production at the economic Abase@ shape the behavior of class actors and influence superstructural institutions and organizations? How do class forces produced by economic relations influence the nature of institutions and organizations? How do classes impose their will?

Discuss/define Stinchcombe/organizational analysis in relationship to class and institutional analysis

Stinchcombe (1990) relied upon a postulate of organizational rationality rather than an institutional analysis of the societal and cultural contexts of organizational behavior. Specific mechanisms of information processing found in organizational units were stressed, not the rules and belief systems which Scott (1995) saw as incorporating institutional influences. Stinchcombe argued that different concrete rationalities compete with each other to form a hierarchy determined by success in reducing the total environmental uncertainty to which organizational information systems (OISs) respond. OISs engage in organizational acts which can ultimately be traced to the organized structures of intentions of collectivities of individuals. Functional processes ensure that the most rationalized OISs prevail. Stinchcombe stressed the role of rationality, as opposed to institutional analysis=s stress on routines. Stinchcombe also applied organizational analysis to issues of concern to class analysts, such as the internal labor market and external labor market segmentation. Organizational analysis is defined for the purposes of this question in a way which excludes new institutionalist forms of organizational analysis which incorporate both organizational analysis and institutional analysis. Organizational analysis examines status and power from the distinctive standpoint of organizationally-centered structures and processes. While these structures and processes may intermediate between individuals and larger social structures such as social institutions (Scott 1995: 142), the focus of organizational analysis is primarily on organizations and their immediate environments, units and internal actors. Key questions are: How do structures of organizations and networks of organizations shape the nature of individual and institutional behavior? What is the intra-organizational structure of power (Pfeffer 1981)? How do organizations ensure the predictable and dependent

flow of resources from other organizations (Pfeffer 1987)? Are organizations= tools in the hands of managers (Perrow 1979)?

Discuss/define DiMaggio & Powell/institutional analysis= relationship to class/organizational analysis

For DiMaggio and Powell (1983), individuals continue to rationally respond to uncertainty, but within institutional arenas, the maturation of organizational fields from diversity to relative uniformity is accompanied by a process of institutional definition which brings normative factors into play along with the degree of rationality associated with competition.[viii] This process of structuration in organizational fields involves increased interaction; emerging coalitions and patterns of domination; burgeoning field-specific information loads; and heightened awareness of the existence of a uniquely demarcated field itself. Within such fields, both connectedness and structural equivalence can be found, with the latter applying even to unconnected dyads of organizations that are linked to a similar set of other organizations. Within such fields, competitive and institutional isomorphic processes tend to produce organizational homogeneity. Institutional isomorphic processes can include coercive, mimetic/emulative and normative forms of isomorphism (or their combination). For DiMaggio and Powell, this is not a mechanistic, determinate process. Numerous variables at the organizational level and field level influence the extent to which isomorphic processes affect organizations. These variables account for factors which are both endogenous and exogenous to organizations and fields. This enables DiMaggio and Powell to argue their approach improves on previous forms of elite-control analysis and natural selection analysis, which are seen here as related to class and organizational analysis. The concept institutional isomorphism improved institutional analysis= ability to study links between the organizational, interorganizational, institutional and societal levels of social organization. Institutional analysis is narrowly defined here as a form of analysis which accounts for the influence of social institutions on classes, organizations, and individuals. Institutional analysis identifies a variety of regulative (including coercive), normative and cognitive processes that convey the resource requirements, standards, values, and schema embedded in institutional logics, mechanisms and bases of legitimacy and compliance. Institutional analysis asks: How do institutions shape economic relations and organizational and individual behavior? How do innovative actors and interventive organizational collectivities shape institutions (Scott 1995)?

Are they competing perspectives?

Answering the question, AAre they competing perspectives?@, will help to further explore the relationship between the forms of analysis. Burawoy (1990) criticized the tendency to assimilate non-Marxist science into Marxism. Polanyi (1958, cited by Burawoy 1990) viewed Marxism as the anti-thesis of science.[ix] Pfeffer (1987) distinguished clearly between the tenets of the intra-class and resource dependence perspectives, although he also noted there were many similarities.[x] Thus, key advocates of the three forms of analysis have contended that they are competing perspectives. Yet we have seen from the above prototypes and definitions that each form of analysis tends to ask different questions. We have seen from the first section that there are both different and similar (overlapping) dimensions of inequality. And we have seen that each form of analysis can trace itself back to somewhat different theoretical roots. Overall, this may make them different, even incompatible accounts, but it doesn=t make them competing accounts. In fact, they may be complementary in the sense that they each contribute knowledge about different aspects of social organization. But when different forms of analysis (influenced by neo-Marxist, institutional segmentation and organizational theories) were applied to similar levels (organizational stratification), they were considered Acompeting accounts@ by Baron and Bielby (1980: 750). In this answer, accounts are not considered competing unless they apply different forms of analysis to similar levels and ask similar questions. To be potentially complementary, they must be amenable to synthesis (next section). Let=s compare two sets of studies where different forms of analysis are applied to similar questions and levels.