Bibilographische Zitation:
Geser, Hans: Organizations as Social Actors. In: Sociology in Switzerland: Sociology of Work and Organization. Online Publikationen. Zürich 2002. http://socio.ch/arbeit/t_hgeser5.htm

Today, theories of social action and social interaction must come to terms with the fact that, besides human individuals, various supra-individual entities (formal organizations, authorities, institutions, etc.) need to be accounted for as actors.

Evidently, individual and non-individual partners face each other in the case of most contractual agreements (on employment, leasing, purchasing, etc.), as well as in the case of countless administrative and judicial proceedings like taxation, social welfare, education, or legal litigation. (see, for example, Röhl 1987: 428).

Moreover, any macrosociology that only roughly takes into account the complexity and dynamics of modern society must consider to what large most major societal events and developments have their causal roots at the meso level of formal organizations (see, for example, Boulding 1953; Drucker 1973).

Thus it is evident that stratification systems are deeply shaped by organizational job supplies, recruitment practices, employment conditions, forms of remuneration and rules of promotion (see, for example, Baron/Bielby 1980), that macroeconomic developments remain inexplicable unless the global systems of banks and industrial enterprises are also taken into consideration (see, for example, Suter 1989), and that political decisions just like administrative implementation processes are fundamentally shaped the interorganizational relations between authorities, administrative bureaucracies, interest associations and private institutions (see, for example, Schmitter/Lehmbruch 1982; Hanf/Scharpf 1978; Wollmann 1980).

Certainly, the theoretical consequences one might wish to draw from such observations depend on relationships one postulates as obtaining between individual and organizational level s.

Those who assume that trade unions just articulate and implement the will of their membership majority, that industrial enterprises function purely as instruments of capital reproduction in the interest of the ruling capitalist class and that clinics faithfully reflect the value system of the medical profession dominating them, will not be greatly impressed or alarmed by any development of formal organizational structures. “Organization” appears in this view as a socio-structural medium, through witch the values and goals of individuals (e. g. leaders) or aggregates of individuals (e.g. elites, professional groups, ethnic groups, etc.) are expressed and enter into relationships with each other.

More dramatic consequences have to be drawn when organizations are credited with the ability to escape either partially or entirely from the commitment to their members and to create their own objectives, norms and action strategies on the basis of their socio-technical internal structures on the one hand, and their specific environmental conditions on the other. It is only when we concede even an partial autonomy of this kind that we are obliged to regard organizations, analogous to individuals, as social actors sui generis. Only in this case, a manifold of concepts and hypotheses hitherto developed for the analysis of interindividual relationships have to be revised in such a way that they can now be applied to also to organisational actions as well as to interorganizational relations and to relationships between individuals and organizations.

To what extent does it make sense, for example, to ascribe “intentions” or insinuate “attitudes” to organizations, to expect a “sense of duty” or even “gratitude” and “loyalty” from them if we should decide to free such concepts completely from their anthropomorphic connotations? What does the statement mean that enterprises maintain an “identity” or confess a certain “philosophy”, “expect” tax relief or “feel” committed to its context of national origin - given the fact that they obviously lack the capacity to draw on psychological mechanisms for anchoring such dispositions internally?

How is it possible that individuals and organizations communicate and cooperate on a reciprocal basis, conclude contracts with each other and conduct judicial proceedings against each other, or compete for the same scarce resources (e.g. land), even though the individual actor is not confronted with an ALTER EGO which could be an object of empathy, participate in a common “life world” (Lebenswelt) and engage in processes of “intersubjective communication”?

And what qualities do social expectation structures, role specializations, management processes, power relations, normative systems and mechanisms of socialization and social control possess if they emerge in the relationship between organizations, not in interpersonal interactions?

Questions of this kind, which, clearly, call for a reformulation of all the concepts and propositions of action and interaction theory on a more abstract level, have so far received astonishingly little attention, although social scientists as well as historians are usually very prone to ascribe to supra-individual entities the status of social actors.

Anyone tackling the project of an action and interaction theory of organizations will therefore find a rich pool of empirical regularities and theoretical propositions, which can be examined for possibilities of further generalization.- not only in the narrow field of the sociology of organization but also, for example, in the literature on economic competition and cartel behaviour, on neocorporatist association structures, inter-state relations and military conflicts.

In the following, the aim is to explain why there are sufficient reasons for ascribing to organizations, at least to a limited extent, the status of supra-individual actors sui generis (par. 2) and to investigate the fundamental differences between individual and supra-individual actors (par. 3).

The clarification of such questions represents, if not a sufficient, then certainly a necessary condition for arriving at a generalized action and interaction theory which goes beyond anthropocentric concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, so that interorganizational relations and “diagonal” social relations (between organizations and individuals) can also be addressed.

Top

In the strict sociological sense of the word, groups, associations, companies, authorities, institutions, states or other social collectivities can only be considered “actors” insofar as they meet the two following conditions:

1. Processes, events or other effects are identifiable which must necessarily be attributed to the collectivity as the major level of causation not to any of its subunits or individual members.

2. At least some of these effects can be describes described as “actions” (in the Weberian sense of the term), because they are undeniably based on meaningful intentions.

Many non-organized collectives with adequately defined external boundaries and sufficiently stable internal relations doubtlessly satisfy the first, more modest, condition. This is because even microscopic groups of people (cf. Goffman 1974: 43ff.) and certainly more extensive aggregates such as social movements, ethnic groups or social classes and castes can be accredited with emergent causal effects. However, this applies in particular to formal organizations because they constitute islands of elevated order and division of labour, which are sharply segregated from their societal setting as well as from the personality system of their individual members.

Countless theoretical arguments and empirical findings support the hypothesis that organizations of all sorts possess at least a limited functional autonomy, which has its origin in the complexity of their structures and processes (and the resulting requirements of integration and adaptation).

For example, administrative offices can never be understood exclusively as pure executive bodies of official legal standards, because they always cultivate an independent sphere of formal and informal norms and practices, too (cf. Luhmann 1966, 24ff.; Schumacher-Wolf 1988: 47ff.). Likewise, the external conduct of economic enterprises seems primarily determined not by property relations or by their manager’s personality traits, but rather by their dependencies on external resources, customers, institutions and environmental conditions, that result from their production duties, technologies and internal structures (cf. Thompson 1967; Aldrich/Pfeffer 1976; Pfeffer 1987: 25ff.; Burt 1983, and others).

Similiarly, parties, trade unions and other associations can never just be seen as purely the executive bodies of their member bases (or leading elites), because the transformation processes that articulate individual will as collective action are subject to a variety of influences, which are rooted, for example, in the form of the decision-making processes employed, in the lack of internal communication and coordination capacities, or in restrictive environmental conditions affecting the association (see, for example, Offe/Wiesenthal 1980: 72ff.; McCarthy/Zald 1977).

As is well known, the analysis of democratic decision-making processes has led to the sobering conclusion that individual preference structures, for purely logical reasons, are not a suitable basis for collective decisions because they easily aggregate to intransitive summative preferences (cf. Arrow 1963). This implies that the capacity for consistent collective decision-making must be regarded as an emergent achievement of a social system because the decisions made do not coincide with the sum of individual preferences, even where there is unlimited democratic participation.

At a similarly high level of abstraction, Mancur Olson has tried to show that organizations which produce “collective goods” cannot be adequately understood in terms of the motivations, values and objectives operating at the individual level, because individuals, even if they strongly identify with the aims of the organization, will - for utilitarian reasons - prefer to play the role of the “free rider” rather than make an active contribution themselves. From this it follows that precisely those organizations that realize the aims desired by their supporters to a maximum extent must be conceived as relatively strongly independent bodies vis-à-vis their supporter base, which actively seek to influence the motivation of participants ((e.g. through the distribution of “selective incentives”) (Olson 1965: passim).

Along with this primary autonomy, which is inseparably linked to their constituent and reproductive mechanisms, organizations frequently enjoy a secondary autonomy, which manifests itself as a partial uncoupling from the original purposes and heterocephal dependencies. Its dual origin is due to the fact that each organization invariably represents both a field of dense interaction, within which a variety of expectation structures, norms and cultural traditions sediment in time, and an additional frame of reference, to which both members and committed outsiders can orientate their individual action.

Thus the leaders of interest associations and social movements as well as company managers tend to emphasize that besides all the interests of members or other stakeholders, the “organization” has its own requirements of continuity, self-representation and growth. (Michels 1911: 74ff.; Zald/Ash-Garner 1987; Selznick 1960; Dan-Cohen 1986: 22).

In the area of private enterprise, this problem is considered primarily from the perspective introduced by Berle/Means (1932), of how far management succeeds in steadily liberating itself from the control of the owners. A tentative appraisal of the still ongoing controversy nevertheless suggests that, even where there is secure owner control, managers enjoy the leeway in matters of company policy to bring many additional interests to bear that are geared towards the peculiarities of the organization and its environment. This leeway increases, too, whenever the owners relinquish control or when they are too numerous or too heterogeneous to a to articulate their preferences in a consistent way (see Herman 1981: passim; Ott 1977: 167).

Compared with governmental ownership an control, which goes along with potentially illimitable risks of interference, private ownership in all likelihood proves to be a better basis for organizational autonomy, because the interests articulated by owners (return on investment, profitability, etc.) are much too generalized to adequately determine the more specific decisions made by company management (regarding new investments, implementing new technologies, changing product lines, diversifications, etc.).

The second, more demanding, condition is not normally satisfied by non-organized collectives at all and only in a partial or variable way by most formal organizations. The tendency to reify ethnicities, classes, castes and institutional orders as action subjects - which, unfortunately, is not only widespread in casual everyday linguistic usage, but also among social scientists and historians - must prove untenable in the light of established perspectives in action and interaction theories because it fails to identify a clearly defined target of attribution for autonomously selected and meaningfully intended - and thus also morally responsible - acts of behaviour.

On the other hand, however, it would seem absurd to regard such facts as

• the Bundestag passes a law,

• Bayer produces aspirin,

• the federal bank increases its discount rate,

not as social actions in the most genuine sense of the word, because the constituents implied in the term “action” (autonomous decision-making, meaningful orientation, use of instrumental means, etc.) are even more explicit and unambiguous than in the case of most individual behavior (cf. Dan-Cohen 1986: 26).

On the one hand, organizations evidently tend to allocate competencies in a way that the responsibility for all formal actions can be attributed to specific members, However, this strategy of individualizing responsibilities conflicts with the intrinsic feature of formal organizations, to be social systems differentiated both vertically (into hierarchical levels) and horizontally (into specialized roles). The result is that formal systems of competence are consistently superseded (and increasingly so with greater complexity of structure) by functional interdependencies that compel a transfer of attribution from the individual to the organizational level:

1. Vertical differentiation obscures individual attribution because organizational action procedures involve qualitatively different “responsibilities” for different positions. If, for example, civil servant make obviously flawed decision within their sphere of his discretion, then the question also arises as to whether their front-line manager has perhaps neglected his supervisory duty, whether the second-line manager has allowed them too much latitude through lack of detailed instructions or whether the most senior officer would not have done better not to delegate any more responsibilities that allow the margins of discretion to be autonomously determined (cf. Schünemann 1979).

2. Horizontal differentiation undermines individual attribution strategies to the extent that, say, individual decisions come about as the result of reciprocal coordination efforts between heads of different departments or boards of management, or workplace decisions are elaborated within quality circles or teams.

Criminal law, too, is compelled nolens volens to lay claim to organizations as the attribution targets of actions because only in atypical extreme cases does it succeed in disaggregating collective delinquencies into a set of culpable individual offences: for example, when centralization is so high that an individual manager is responsible of all the decisions taken, or when social monitoring and control is so deficient that employees are not inhibited from committing self-interested “excessive actions” (cf. Schünemann 1979: 37ff.).

Normally, however, the decisions - and, certainly, the executive actions - of an organization already represent emergent overall system outcomes, which are the result of many influences from different members and subunits (see, for example, March/Simon 1958: 38f.; Martin 1977: passim; Dalton/Barnes/Zaleznick 1968; Herman 1981: 18).

It is particularly difficult to attribute individual decisions and actions in organizations that practise “organic management”, because this implies that opaque and fluid-variable relations of authority and influence dominate (Schünemann 1979: 38). More decentralized and informalized organizations are accustomed to present themselves as emergent collective actors sui generis because, lacking any opportunity to attribute activities to specific individuals, not only external agencies (the state, the public, collaborative partners, etc.) but the members themselves have no other choice but to address their demands and expectations to the overall organization as a whole.

In the case of legal litigation, for example, it is highly advantageous to direct the charge at the organization instead of the organization’s individual members. Firstly, this simplifies the evidence procedure because it is usually most apparent that certain offences or effects of the damage incurred have their origins in organizational action procedures, even if it remains unclear which members have behaved engaged in negligent or culpable action. And, secondly, the prospects of receiving material compensation from the accused are thereby improved because even horrendous damages can easily be paid.(cf. Coleman 1974: 90).

The legal acknowledgement of corporate actors finds its high point in their recognition as “legal persons” who, analogous to individuals, are formally entitled to make use of most basic constitutional rights and almost the entire machinery of private law (Ott 1977: 83ff.; Röhl 1987: 427f.; Dan-Cohen 1986: passim). J.S. Coleman has quite rightly pointed out the astonishing fact, too little reflected in theory, that the institution of the “legal person” is used first and foremost to guarantee the autonomy of organizations vis-à-vis their societal context (and not their integration into this context). This is achieved by granting them numerous rights of individual liberty originally only enjoyed by human individuals (e.g. the right to the protection of property, the freedom of contract, establishment, speech and association) without, on the other hand, subjecting them significantly to the control sanctions of criminal law (cf. Coleman 1974: 55ff.)

Compared with the liberation of the individual in the course of bourgeois revolutions, this more recent, much less noticed liberation of corporate actors represents a more far-reaching and perilous social development over the longer term because autonomous organizations have a much larger influence on society (especially on the economy and the political system).

Particularly problematic is the right of legal persons to themselves retain ownership of legal persons. As the example of Japanese conglomerates shows, self-supporting interorganizational systems can arise on the basis of intransitive and cyclical interlocking property relationships, which do not need to be anchored at any point on the level of individual actors or interindividual groups (families, elites, classes etc.). In some legal systems, there have not even been sufficient precautions taken against the eventuality of a company owning all or the majority of its shares by itself (cf. Stone 1966; Dan-Cohen 1986: 47ff.).

It is with the figure of the “legal person” that the legislator compels the organizations to accept the supra-individual attribution of legal norms, and to develop a “self-concept” based on the premise that they are actors sui generis independent of all their members and owners.

Finally, besides the legislator, many groups in the public sphere are increasingly inclined to lay claim to organizations not only as the objects of specific expectations of performance, but also as the vehicles of various social co-responsibilities and as the targets of public criticism or punitive sanctions (boycotts, etc.). Thus large business enterprises acquire the status of autonomous social actors to the extent that they are expected to be responsive to a complex set of conflicting role expectations (from shareholders, consumers, suppliers, creditors, local authorities, etc.) and to synthesize such differing perspectives in their decision-making (Meald 1970; Gilliand 1969, McKie 1974, Jacoby 1973, and others.). Just as individuals need to accentuate their personal identity more forcefully for preserving their internal stability and consistency in a field of very heterogeneous and variable role expectations (see, for example, Krappmann 1971), organizations also see themselves compelled to develop a more pronounced “corporate identity” on which their value orientations, strategic goals and operative activities can be based..

Top

The behaviour of human individuals is only controlled to a limited extent by self-related or external normative expectations, because their actions are subject to many influences of a physical and psychological kind that largely escape their control. Contingencies related to age, health and education, along with countless other factors, effect that even following the simplest moral laws (and certainly satisfying sophisticated ethical precepts) can normally only be desired or hoped for, but certainly not expected and guaranteed in the each particular case. This is because individuals cannot be normatively obliged to equip themselves with the motivation and skills needed to actually implement the behaviour or even to reach the required objectives.

In the case of deviant individual behaviour, it may be very difficult - as many court proceedings shows - to determine the mere existence (to say nothing of the exact scale) of a moral liability, and a fortiori it is true of all informal interaction contexts that normative attributions usually compete with cognitive (e.g. psychological or medical) interpretations.

By contrast, formal organizations must accept that at least all decisions and actions claiming binding formal validity must be attributed to them as conscious, fully accountable acts, and that many other effects caused by them are also interpreted as if they can or could be influenced (e.g. stimulated, permitted, modified or prevented) by deliberate controls. Hence, with every case of official misconduct on the part of a member, the question arises as to whether in the recruitment, qualification or hierarchical control of the person involved the exercise of due care has been neglected. Because organizations need to present themselves as fully competent actors in order to acquire public trust and reputation, they like to represent themselves as actors who, unlike human beings, have no possibility of exculpating themselves by claiming to be in a status of “diminished responsibility”. Thus they lack the opportunity to claim extenuating circumstances by appealing to poor socialization, tiredness, sickness, “youthful immaturity”, psychopathically disturbed conditions or “justifiable anger”, or to claim “lapses of memory” for exempting themselves from past commitments.

The attribution of actions and action outcomes to organizations, therefore, has the supreme advantage that any doubt as to whether or not a normative interpretation and reaction is appropriate disappears. It is accordingly made easier for the attributing agency (e.g the supervisory governmental organs) to maintain a principally assertive stance and to systematically implement appropriate strategies of supervision, admonition and sanctioning.

Empirically this is seen, for example, in the frequency with which courts convict organizations, compared to individuals, where action for damages is concerned, sentencing them to pay high punitive damages” and costs of restitution (cf. Coleman 1974: 90).

Even when damage can only be attributed to factors lying entirely outside its control (e.g. adverse circumstances, inadequate scientific knowledge, etc.), it can still be charged with a future responsibility for secondary prevention: by taking measures that the same thing does not happen again (e. g. expanding its knowledge, acquiring better technical equipment, intensifying internal controls or suspending the activities associated with risk).

This is because in contrast to individuals - where it is virtually the rule - “recidivism” is barely tolerated with organizations, if only because of the size of the damage. Instead, organizations are expected to additionally bear the responsibility for increasing their self-responsibility over time.

Even when they are affected by crimes (burglary, embezzlement, arson, web hacking etc.) organizations are often denied the option of presenting themselves, similar to individuals, as mere innocent “victims” in need of protection and compensation. Rather, in such cases, besides the unquestionable guilt of the (individual) perpetrator is the “complicity” of the organization, which plainly has not taken enough safety precautions to prevent such incidents from occurring (Hagan 1982).

The uncompromising severity of the normative expectations directed at organizations finds expression in the present tendency, for example, of making them answerable, according to the principle of “strict liability”, for all damage caused by them or their products even when no culpable actions or omissions can be identified.

If the principle of “caveat emptor” applied in the past, which placed the responsibility for exercising due care and accepting the risks of dissatisfaction firmly on the shoulders of the buyer of a commodity, the new liability legislation tends to the converse principle of "caveat venditor", which charges the vendor with guaranteeing the quality of his services and with covering himself financially against claims for damages (cf. Schünemann 1979: 191ff.; Goodpaster 1984: 108).

The sociological preconditions for this change in the law clearly consist in the fact that today, the vendors are usually highly skilled and solvent companies while the buyers are incompetent laypersons, whereas in pre-industrial societies, vendors were often simple peasants and artisans who sold their products to rather well-to-do and knowledgeable buyers (usually from higher social strata).

In addition, the bewildering complexity of modern production processes today means that the consumer suffering a damage can no longer be expected to be well-informed about the standards of diligence in manufacturing and to furnish suitable proof of culpable negligence in the case of making a legal claim. Just as, earlier, the principle of kinship liability contributed to strengthening the solidarity within the target group and to attaching more weight to the collective than to the individual member, modern causal liability reinforces the autonomous actor status of the organization.

Only organizations can be normatively expected to have precise knowledge of a very large variety of normative standards, to understand their exact meaning and to actively endeavour to remain up-to-date about changes in these standards. In particular, the tremendous complexity and dynamics of the modern legal system would be utterly inconceivable if the majority of legal provisions were not aimed exclusively at organizations. It is only to organizations, never to individuals, that the classical Roman principle of ERROR JURIS NOCET can be applied today, i.e. the requirement to be completely informed about the current state of law in the case of every specific action.

Thus the development of positive law will be much inhibited as long as standards are only directed at individuals because it takes totalitarian control apparatuses to communicate and implement to any far-reaching extent new types of legal standards that are divorced in any way from individual behavioral habits or cultural traditions. Positive legal norms are much easier to enforce on organizations because, in executing them, it is only necessary to contact a small number of actors that in addition have a sufficient aptitude for learning and provide their own formalized communication and control structures for implementing these standards (Ott 1972: 403).

Top

In the case of human individuals, the capacities for positive action are so irregular and vary so much from one person to the next that a truly universal individual ethics can only be realized in practice as an ethics of omission. That is to say that only proscribed actions (not to kill, not to steal, not to lie, etc.) can be standardized as obligatory to any extent and regularly sanctioned. Prescribed actions (to love your neighbour or honour your father and mother), on the other hand, must be formulated in a much less mandatory manner, because individuals cannot realistically be called to account for lacking the proper capacity to act.

Legally enforceable duties to act, as they are constituted in modern administrative law, have to focus exclusively on fairly easy-to-achieve behaviour (e.g. the fastening of car seatbelts) or they must restrict themselves to a specialized professional group. On the other hand, from knowing an organization’s self-selected functional role and its proven survival and performance capacities it can be reasonably assumed that in certain specialized areas it is in a position to carry out highly complex procedures and achieve demanding production targets in a reliable and consistently reproducible way. Organizations might be expected, for instance, to take sufficient care in handling dangerous raw materials and technologies, to guarantee consistent durability and safety of their products or to maintain a prescribed level of apprenticeship training.

Above all, the largest-organizations (national state bureaucracies, central banks, armies, international organizations, etc.) must come to terms with the fact that they are permanently entrusted with realizing the most important societal goals (preservation of world peace, safeguarding welfare, developing a cure for cancer, and so on) and that they are subjected to constant scrutiny by a public which often tends to articulate an excessive perfectionism and almost hysteric fear of risks and failiure.

Only tentatively is the view taking hold in our society, which is still shaped by humanistic prejudices, that it is not so much the philosophically and educationally overexposed ethics of personal conviction ("Gesinnungsethik", but rather the much less highlighted ethics of responsibility ("Verantwortungsethik"), which is essential for the functioning of modern societies and the well-being of its population.

We are drawn to this conclusion not least by the fact that the most serious hazards and incidences of damage result less and less from those malicious deviant actions (e.g. theft, murder, etc.) that traditional individual ethics so rigorously censures, but rather from neglected duties to exercise due care (which under the same conventional morality receive a milder judgement as “pardonable human weaknesses”) (cf. Wootton 1963). Hence the number of human lives destroyed by premeditated murder is slight in comparison to the fatalities attributable to negligence-related accidents at work, to burst dams, avalanches, collapsed mines, etc., and that the corrosive damage caused by inadequate air pollution control is, although less obvious, disproportionately greater than the losses that result from wilful acts of vandalism and arson.

Declaring organizations to be the big sinners can also allow individuals to exonerate themselves from intropunitive and each other from extrapunitive attribution of fault, in other words to exculpate themselves collectively. Hence it is common to find the blame for the destruction of the ozone layer being apportioned not to the individual consumer, but to the organizational producer of hair sprays and, where winter road accidents are concerned, the failure of the gritting services being held responsible rather than anyone’s inattentiveness.

In consequence, not merely conflicts between individuals but also collective conflicts between different categories of individuals (e.g. generations, ethnic groups or social classes) may lose their relevance and intensity. It is easier, for instance, to leave the enormously wealthy villa owners in peace if it is assumed that their personally managed property is extremely modest compared with that of large insurance companies and that it is not worth bothering about the air pollution from their grand open fires given the much larger toxic emissions caused by chemical plants.

Thanks to their abilities to upgrade their own skill levels (e.g. by recruiting additional experts or procuring new technologies) it is also much easier for organizations than it is for individuals to make the aims of their conduct, rather than the manner of their conduct, the object of compulsory standards, and to expect them to specify by themselves the optimum procedures for realizing these aims. Thus the state legislator becomes dependent on organizational service providers to the extent that he applies the law no longer in the classical-liberalistic sense as a medium of behavioural control, but rather in the new welfare-state sense as an instrument of calculated “social engineering”. Thanks to such capacities for self-control and self-transformation, organizations are also better suited than individuals to being integrated as subunits into even greater social systems and more extensive governance complexes because a higher control center can usually confine itself to addressing them with relatively general expectations of performance (instead of detailed expectations of behaviour) (cf. Ott 1972: 345ff.).

Accordingly, almost infinitely complex holding and conglomerate structures can be segmented on the basis of “divisional differentiation” because the member companies retain the status of independent “profit centers” and therefore can be controlled with a very modest amount of supervision (cf. Chandler 1962; Williamson 1971; Leontiades 1987: 48ff.).

Top

3.3 Transparency of the internal structures and processes

In conventional anthropomorphic action and interaction theories, actor subjects are conceived which only enter the sphere of “action” with respect to some of their external modes of behaviour, yet principally remain outside this sphere with their self-reflective psychological system. All human subject confront each other in a mode of radical separation, because each has immediate full access to his own consciousness, while access to the inner world of other subjects is extremely mediated and incomplete (cf. Schütz 1974: passim).

Thus all social action, communication and interaction, as well as the formation of all kinds of social structure, takes place under the less than ideal condition that only the manifest actions are subject to intersubjective perception, evaluation and control, while all its psychological antecedents (motivations, qualifications, in­ten­tions, etc.) remain unobservable for outsiders. This has the consequence that

• behavioural expectations remain relatively fragile and usually require normative support since, they cannot be adequately safeguarded predicted by cognitive means;

• there is still much room for strategic role-playing and making pretensions (“impression management”);

• social controls and sanctions can only become effective ex post (i.e. after an action has been carried out) and therefore tend to have a restitutive or punitive (rather than a preventive) character.

With organizations there is no such fundamental discontinuity between inside and outside because the intrasystemic structures and processes are “made of the same stuff” as the mechanisms constituting the actor’s relations to his or her environment (or to other actors). Hence, when defining their internal standards, organizations tend to maintain a similarly high level of verbal explicitness as is characteristic of the expectations directed at them from outside (e.g. legal rules) (Röhl 1987: 430). Furthermore, the same communication and decision-making processes, without which the organization could not develop its own formal structure, can also be used to create interorganizational normative structures. If, for example, a trade union is holding talks with employers, parallel to this it will invariably conduct internal negotiation processes with various subgroups too, with the purpose of coordinating the interorganizational with the intraorganizational expectations and demands (see, for example, Sabel 1981).

While interacting individuals need to engage in sophisticated communication processes to overcome a state of primary (and constantly self-renewing) mutual non-transparency, organizations are, conversely, more dependent on measures of secrecy and confidentiality to ensure a certain amount of differentiation and autonomy in order to assure that not too much transparency exists.

Thanks to this transparency of internal processes, there are increased opportunities to “understand”, successfully predict and/or effectively control organizational actions - because, in contrast to individuals, not only the manifest actions, but also the system-internal boundary conditions and selection processes constituting them are blatantly obvious. Long before a specific action is implemented, it is often quite evident that an organization has the "intention" or is "on the way" to carry it out: e.g. by recognizing that it has already begun to install the requisite air purification filter, for example, or to devise an old-age pension scheme in keeping with the new social legislation.

Consequently, exogenous control interventions (e.g. on the part of state authorities) can take the form of preventive and supportive measures effective already at the planning stage of organizational action, not the form of punitions and restitutions applies ex post - as it is the case in most realms of individual behavior.

The rules applying inside organizations, too, can be codified without any trouble because, unlike intraindividual “convictions” or “attitudes”, they have the same degree of explicitness as legal standards and are created and ratified by applying the same mechanisms of social decision-making (cf. Röhl 1987: 429). Similarly, the concept of “conformity” acquires a more refined meaning when applied to organizations. While an individual is already “in conformity” whenever his manifest behaviour corresponds to certain external norms, corporate "conformity" additionally implies that the organization keeps its internal norms in agreement with external (e.g. legal) standards. By analogy, the concept of “organizational deviance” is ambiguous because it fails to specify whether this term implies a discrepancy between norm and behaviour or a deviation of intraorganizational norms from external (e.g. legal) rules.

It is easier with organizations than with individuals to see from outside what relationships they foster with their environment and what their relationships to third-party actors are. If one knows, for example, what roles and subsystems an organization has set apart for interacting with various environmental segments, with what responsibilities they are entrusted and what skills and competencies the members active in these areas possess, it can be deduced to what external actors, events and developments they pay particular attention and in what frame of reference they interpret the problems they encounter (Miles 1987: 59).

The temporal continuity of structural differentiations and role allocations of this kind provides a guarantee that the organization pays regular regard to certain aspects of its environment - and ignores other aspects with the same regularity.

While individuals are in a position to modify their areas of attention and interpretive horizons within fractions of a second und unnoticed from outside, for organizations such reorientations often represent complicated restructuring processes, which require time and can often be easily monitored from the outside.

This is also a reason why organizations are highly calculable actors, both for each other and for individuals, and therefore often escape normative (= sanctionable) expectations because they are apt to provide sufficient assurances in a purely cognitive way.

Top

3.4 Goal specificity

Numerous peculiarities of individual action and interindividual interaction arise from the fact that human beings are non-specialized actors, who in the course of living their lives pursue an unlimited variety of different interests, aims and values, while constantly retaining the capability to modify their orientations at every moment.

This makes it difficult for them

a) to accumulate especially comprehensive action capacities for themselves in any specific functional area because they are forced to broadly diversify their resources, activities and learning processes;

b) to gain mutual certainty in interactional relationships about the intentions and action goals, motivations, sensitivities of their partners

c) to keep relationships narrowly focussed on highly specific functions.

Because the specificity and stability of action skills and behavioural expectations are so little safeguarded by the internal structure of the actors, they need to be guaranteed even more by external influences (e.g. by mechanisms of frame-setting and social control). Therefore, dense normative structures (as found in the world of work) are needed for motivating individuals to consistently upgrade highly specific skills and to interact on a level of highly reliable mutual expectations. Outside the range of formalized norms, habitualized traditions or other exogenous orientations, the specificity and reliability of action expectations must be constantly regenerated by means of continuous communication and negotiation processes, and as they usually cannot be sufficiently ascertained themselves in a cognitive way, they have to be enforced by normative sanctions.

On the other hand, such opportunities for exerting normative influence remain limited insofar as it is impossible to know for certain, (given the insufficient knowledge about his or her current needs and preferences), to which sanctions an individual will react in a predictable way. Accordingly, the control exercised over individuals remains tied to the use of extremely unspecified sanction methods (e.g. physical force or pecuniary rewards), which are similarly effective under very different circumstances and psychological or socio-culturally conditions. Compared to individuals, organizations must be regarded as actors that carry the conditions for specifying and stabilizing their action orientations more strongly in themselves because they acquire their raison d'être and the legitimacy of their existence from their stable commitment to certain goals, a and because they are only productive when they freeze their resources into highly specified socio-technical structures.

As part of their narrow and fixed spectrum of aims and activities, organizations can acquire very great and potentially unlimited knowledge, which allows them to easily survive in competition with individual actors. Thus, in the real estate business or in stock exchange dealings, for example, just as with political articulation processes or judicial proceedings, it is increasingly common today to find that the organizations taking part act extremely knowledgeably and confidently as “repeat players”, while the individuals adapt with difficulty to a situation they have rarely or never before encountered until now and where they easily become dependent on intermediaries (brokers, lawyers, etc.) (cf. Röhl 1987: 429; Galanter 1974; Dan-Cohen 1986: 144ff.).

Based on the expectation that they will have to keep solving similar problems in the future too, organizations develop the dual endeavour to ensure the provision of appropriate internal problem-solving capacities, and to outwardly exert influence on their external environmental conditions.

Thus it can be seen that individuals involved in litigation are usually only interested in the optimum outcome of the current individual case, whereas organizations seek to clarify the legal norms by which future court cases are judged and ruled on (Dan-Cohen 1986: 144).

Besides system-internal transparency (see above), the specificity and stability of their system parameters help to place interacting organizations in a position to acquire, in a purely cognitive manner, highly converging and reliable mutual ideas about their goals, skills, intended actions and ready responses. This “domain consensus” (cf. Litwak/Hylton 1962; Benson 1975) gives them the opportunity to enter (with minimal needs for communicative clarification) into highly structured interaction relations characterized by security of expectation and expeditious cooperation. Thus even extremely sophisticated forms of collaboration based on the division of labour are used to taking place mainly within the framework of “lose networks”, within which there is a low need for vertical authority relations and management processes on the one hand, and for horizontal processes of negotiation and influence on the other (Turk 1977; Vaughan 1983: 21).

Such low requirements for structuring of interorganizational cooperation systems also help to explain the astonishing phenomenon that modern Western societies depend on purely privately constituted organizations (e.g. parties, leading associations, airlines, media companies, and many others.) to perform some of their most important public functions, without apparently needing to subject these organizations to state supervision or to contractually safeguard their future survival and performance (Ott 1977: passim).

Their rigid, usually irreversible, focus on specific objectives and action programmes also makes organizations, astonishingly vulnerable, regardless of their size. As it is evident for everybody that their functioning depends on the constant inflow of specific raw materials, on the continuance of regular work activities and on the permanent openness of specific markets, they can be hurt most effectively by means of rather unsophisticated actions or omissions (boycotts, strikes, etc.).

It is for the same reason that organizations can be integrated more reliably than individuals into superordinate control systems - because it can be very accurately inferred from knowledge of their specific vulnerabilities to what types of sanctions they react in a particular way. While it is impossible to say for certain whether long custodial sentences deter future criminals or whether higher family allowances cause the birth rate to rise, one can more confidently assert the extent to which profit-oriented companies experience subsidies as positive incentives and export restrictions as negative sanctions (Röhl 1987: 429).

The more a modern state exerts its authority both over and through organizations, the more antiquated the idea appears that state authority is based primarily on the monopolizing of physical instruments of force. In fact, the dominant position of the state tends to depend more nowadays on its very much more sophisticated ability to use the specific vulnerabilities of organizations as starting points for specific sanction strategies.

For the organization itself, the commitment to specific purposes has the immense advantage that it achieves clear orientation criteria with respect to the design of its structures and the evaluation of its own activities. Outsiders also profit from this to the extent that the organization approaches them as a highly predictable actor that creates little turbulence and arouses little fear even though it manages huge resources and action capacities.

Organizations that go beyond their institutionally embedded functional role and encroach on the affairs of other institutions or even arrogate overall social responsibility will frequently catapult themselves into unregulated new territories and tend therefore to spread high uncertainties about what they will do in the future.

Whenever a trade union or another voluntary association is included in governmental policy decisions (e.g. within the framework of corporatist arrangements), its attitudes are usually no longer effectively determined by the interests of its membership base and its role as a collective bargaining partner. And whenever a private company profiles as a cultural sponsor, economic selection criteria are not normally sufficient to determine which artists, artistic schools, institutions or events should be included in the sponsorship scheme.

Thus private-sector corporations are faced with the dilemma that while they are compelled by their objective social standing to include in their activities more wide-ranging “public welfare objectives”, any deviation from strictly economic aims is very hard to justify because very powerful actors that do not know (or, rather, do not explicitly declare) exactly just how they will act represent an unbearably high risk for other actors, and they fail to offer any clear starting points for public controls.

Top

As acting subjects, human individuals are indeed “indivisible” to the extent that they are incapable of turning their attention to completely different issues and events at the same time and of carrying out several complex actions simultaneously. Usually the focus is fixed on a single “main action”, which makes demands on the greater part of their brain-related capacities and alongside which, at best, rather low-key secondary activities that demand little attention can run in parallel.

This has the dual effect that (a) they have to make some hard decisions each time between disjunctive alternatives of experience and behaviour and (b) each increase in the number and diversity of their actions also increases the total time required for execution.

In contrast, organizations are accustomed to commit only a segregated subcomponent of their overall system (e.g. a role, team or department) to each course of action, with the result that they are able to perform simultaneously a large variety of tasks on the same level of attention.

More than any single individual, they are able to participate in parallel in normative cultures of the most varied, and contradictory, kinds. Hence it not uncommon to find that in the sales department of a company a style of helpful politeness prevails, while in the billing department cut-throat, poker-faced practices predominate (see, for example, Röhl 1987: 430). Large trade unions - such as in the Netherlands - can harmonize their contradictory relations with the employers’ organizations by giving priority to the cooperative aspects of the relationship at the meso level, while giving priority to the conflictive aspects at the micro and macro levels (cf. Wassenberg 1982). Given such multi-layered associations, it is no longer possible to talk in an absolute sense, but only in relation to a specific normative reference field, of “conforming” or “deviant” organizational action.

Thanks to their ability to also allow qualitatively very different and demanding activities (e.g. consultancy, decision-making, planning and implementation processes) to operate side by side, organizations are again in a far better position than individuals to participate in the primary generation, discursive elaboration, explication and transformation of values, norms, objectives or other verbally expressed action guidelines for action..

Human individuals are normally required to behave receptively towards norms already in existence, by, for example,

a) limiting the processes of norm formation to the early stage of the interaction process and fixing them in a fairly irreversible manner as structural premises of the social system (cf. Luhmann 1972);

b) accepting without modification normative schemata that are firmly anchored in their social-cultural setting (e.g. the norms of exchanging ritualistic greeting formulae or queuing up in an orderly fashion);

c) subordinating themselves to authoritative bodies (e.g. legislatures, courts, etc.), to which they delegate the right to formulate and validate normative standards on their behalf.

The more individuals are inclined or compelled to maintain a swift responsiveness towards unforeseen events and pressing problems, to develop a broad spectrum of different role activities and to frequently place themselves in novel social fields and situations, the less they are normally in a position to affect the normative premises of their action. And vice versa: to the extent that they are preoccupied with negotiating and substantiating expectations and norms, they are too greatly absorbed in verbal communication processes to pay due regard to environmental conditions and operative (inter)actions.

By comparison,, organizations are better able to execute norm-applying “operational actions” and norm-constituting “communicative action” at the same time.

On the one hand, they are in a position to lend maximum validity to the norms, by guaranteeing a perfect degree of compliance, which individuals can never achieve, through the creation of programmes and routinized procedures. On the other hand, however, they can limit such routinizations to relatively peripheral subsystems (e.g. single posts, offices, departments), which for their part are subordinate to hierarchical control by higher ruling bodies authorized to critically evaluate and redefine such programmes.

It is clear, for instance, that administrative offices, bodies and institutions that came into being with the development of the welfare state are predestined - not just on the basis of their actual position of power but also thanks to their knowledge, judgement and articulation capabilities - to exert influence on the continuation or modification of these same policies. They ensure that more and more political demands, initiatives and attitudes originate as “withinputs” in the established organizational executive bodies, instead of being brought to the authorities - as is suggested by the popular model of David Easton (1967) - as “inputs” from the public sphere (cf. Scharpf 1973: 66ff.). Even in the case of (apparently) completely “exogenous” demands articulated, for example, by citizens’ initiatives or social movements, it can be seen on closer inspection that they are carried along to an astonishingly great extent by established institutions - or professionals very close to them such as social workers, teachers, administrative lawyers etc. (cf. McCarthy/Zald 1987: 357ff.).

As a result of their reversibility, interorganizational norm structures are better apt than interindividual norm structures to reflect current social power, conflict and interest relations, and to adapt smoothly and quickly to changes in such conditions. Thanks to their interorganizational negotiating systems, modern societies are in a much better position than traditional settings to tolerate within themselves very heterogeneous and conflicting, even contradictory, groupings (interest groups, ideological belief systems, etc.) for long periods of time - by institutionalizing the conflicts obtaining between them, instead of eliminating them through repression or eradication.

“Institutionalization” means that the conflict,

a) on the one hand, is made perennial because the interest associations specially developed to regulate it and staffed with professional personnel ensure that it remains a salient issue over unlimited periods of time;

b) on the other hand, is subject constantly to precise patterns of regulation, which are more readily accepted insofar as they are permanently open to revisions.

Top

Although it is very common - not only in everyday language, but also in the more precise terminology of jurisprudence, as well as in history, economics and the social sciences - to see organizations as action subjects and as targets for the attribution of responsibility, normative expectations or sanctions, there have so far been no systematic attempts to clearly explain the differences between individual and superindividual actors and to draw the appropriate consequences within theories of action and interaction.

Hence legal theory must ask itself if it is not frankly absurd to extrapolate to legal persons without qualification almost all the constitutional "human rights" originally conceived for protecting the life and dignity of human persons (cf. Dan Cohen 1986; Röhl 1987: 427). Likewise, in economics, too little thought is paid to how far, say, private enterprises are also subject to the principle of “decreasing marginal utility” borrowed from experiences in physiological and psychological realms.

Even the actor models established in sociology prove to be too anthropocentric because organizations have neither a biological body with sensomotoric capacities from which a theory of external behaviour can take its starting point, nor a sphere of conscious experience, which might support an phenomenological action theory based on subjectivity and intersubjective relations.

Thus a fruitful guideline idea is to see organizations as secondary actors that have a constituent basis founded in human actions (and action outcomes such as written texts or artefacts), while individuals are primary actors who generate their actions on the basis of biological and psychological system levels.

All the characteristics and capacities of organized actors referred to above are rooted in the fundamental fact that they are “made of the same stuff” that they produce themselves: their ability to undertake complex activities on their own initiative, along with the transparency of their internal processes, their capacity for goal definition and their availability for highly diversified activities and social participation.

Since they do not stand in a direct relation to the sphere of psychological-physical facts, but are only linked through the contributory actions of their individual members, organizations are generally better disposed than individuals to be “perfect” actors that approximately conform to the idealized model conditions of current action theories. Compared with individuals, there is often a far greater degree of evidence that they are in a position to act “autonomously and self-responsibly” in the ethically defined sense of the term, “rationally utilitarian” according to the model of Homo oeconomicus or, “in full knowledge of the current legal situation”, as the legal system presumes.

Likewise, sociology often finds it easy to demonstrate for organizations the objective existence of “intentions”, “aims”, “plans”, “qualifications” and other action constituents, which are often methodologically very difficult to verify in the case of individuals.

The rising acceptance of strict causal liability and many other phenomena show that organizations in today’s society are confronted with increasingly demanding expectations, and that they, unlike individuals, are assumed to constantly perfect their action capacities (say, with regard to controlling risks).

On the other hand, there is growing uneasiness that organizations must also be permanently respected as self-centered actors articulating their own interests of survival and growth - indeed, that modern society increasingly represents a social order created by and for organizations, within which individuals must find new strategies for asserting their “life-world” values, habits and goals.

A social theory in keeping with the complexity of the situation should therefore be able to build on an interaction theory that addresses in a sophisticated and comprehensive way the relations between organizations, on the one hand, and between organizations und individuals, on the other.

Top

References

Aldrich, H.E., Pfeffer, J. Environments of Organizations. (Annual Review of Sociology 2, 1976: 79-105).

Arrow, K.J. Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press, New York 1963 (2nd edition)

Barnard, I. The Functions of the Executive, ???

Baron, J.N., Bielby, W.T. Bringing the Firms Back. In: Stratification, Segmentation and the Organization of Work (American Sociological Review, 45, 1980: 737-765)

Benson, J.K. The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy (Administrative Science Quarterly 6, 1962: 395-426).

Berle, A.A., Means, G.C. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Mac Millan, New York 1932.

Burt, R.S. Corporate Profits and Cooptation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy. Academic Press, New York 1983.

Boulding, K. The Organizational Revolution. Harper, New York 1953.

Chandler, A.D. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. 1962.

Coleman, J.S. Power and the Structure of Society, Norton & Co., New York 1974.

Dalton, G.W., Barnes, L.B., Zaleznick, A. The Distribution of Authority in Formal Organizations.

Dan-Cohen, M. Rights, Persons and Organizations. A Legal Theory for Bureaucratic Society. University of Los Angeles Press, Chicago 1986.

Drucker, P. Management, Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper & Roe, New York 1962.

Easton, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life, Wiley, New York 1967.

Galanter, M. Why the "Haves" Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change (Law and Social Review, 9, 1974: 95ff.).

Geser, H. Elemente zu einer soziologischen Theorie des Unterlassens (Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 38, 1986: 643-669).

Gilliand, Ch.E. Readings und Business Responsibility. D.H. Mark, Braintree Mass. 1969.

Goffman, E. Das Individuum im öffentlichen Austausch. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1974.

Goodpaster, K.E. Ethics in Management. Boston 1984.

Hagan, J. The Corporate Advantage: A Study of Corporate and Individual Victims in a Criminal Justice System. Social Forces 60, 1982: 993-1023.

Hanf, K., Scharpf F.W. Interorganizational Policy Making, Sage Publications, London 1978.

Herman, E.S. Corporate Control, Corporate Power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1981.

Jacoby, N.H. Corporate Power and Social Responsibility. MacMillan, New York 1973.

Jonas, H. Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Fuhrkamp, Frankfurt 1984.

Kohlberg, L. Stage and Sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization (in: Goslin, D.A. (ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, RandMcNally, Chicago 1969: 347-480).

Krappmann, L. Soziologische Dimensionen der Identität. Klett, Stuttgart 1971.

Leblebici, H. Salancik, G.R. Stability in Interorganizational Exchanges: Rulemaking Processes of the Chicago Board of Trade (Administrative Science Quarterly 27, 1982: 227-242).

Leontiades M. Mischkonzerne verändern die Welt. ECON Verlag, Düsseldorf1987.

Litwak, E., Hylton, L.F. Interorganizational analysis: a hypothesis on coordinating agencies (Administrative Science Quarterly 6, 1962: 395-426).

McCarthy, J.D., Zald, M.N. Social Movements in an Organizational Society. Transaction Books. New Brunswick 1987.

McCarthy, J.D., Zald, M.N. Resource Mobilization and Social Movements. A Partial Theory. (American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1977: 1212-1241).

McKie, J.W. Social Responsibility and Business Predicament. The Brookings Institute, Washington D.C. 1974.

March, J.F., Simon, H.A. Organizations. Wiley, New York 1958.

Martin, R. The Sociology of Power. Routledge & Kegan, London 1977.

Meald, M. The Social Responsibilites of Business. The Press of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, 1970.

Miles, R.L. Managing the Corporate Social Environment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1987.

Offe, C., Wiesenthal H. Two Logics of Collective Action: Theoretical Notes on Social Class and Organizational Form. In: Political Power and Social Theory, Vol. l, edited by Zeitlin, M., JAI-Press, Greenwich, Connecticut 1980.

Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. 1965.

Ott, C. Die soziale Effektivität des Rechts bei der politischen Kontrolle der Wirtschaft (in; Rehbinder, M./Schelsky, H. (Hrsg.) Zur Effektivität des Rechts. Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie, Bd. 3, Bertelsmannn, Düsseldorf 1972: 345-408.

Ott, C. Recht und Realität der Unternehmenskorporation. Mohr, Tübingen 1977.

Perrow, Ch. Normale Katastrophen. Die unvermeidlichen Risiken der Grosstechnik. Campus, Frankfurt 1988.

Pfeffer, J.A. Resource Dependence Perspective on Intercorporate Relations (in: Mizruchi, M.S., Schwartz, M. (eds.) Intercorporate Relations. The Structural Analysis of Business. Cambridge University Press, New York 1987: 25-55).

Röhl, K.F. Rechtssoziologie. Carl Heymann's Verlag, Köln 1987.

Sabel, Ch.F. The Internal Politics of Trade Unions. In: Organizing Interests in Western Europe, edited by Berger, Cambridge University Press, S. Cambridge, Mass. 1981.

Sarason, S.R., Lorentz, E. The Challenge of the Resource Exchange Network. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco 1979.

Schmitter, Ph. C., Lehmbruch G. (eds.) Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills 1978.

Schünemann, B. Unternehmenskriminalität und Strafrecht. Carl Heymann's Verlag, Köln 1979.

Schütz, A. Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1974.

Stone, J. Social Dimensions of Law and Justice. Stanford University press, Stanford 1966.

Suter, Ch. Schuldenzyklen in der Dritten Welt. Kreditaufnahme, Zahlungskrisen und Schuldenregelungen peripherer Länder im Weltsystem 1820-1986. Athenäum, Franfurt 1989.

Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York 1967.

Turk, H. Organizations in Modern Life. Jossey-Bass Publ., San Francisco 1977.

Vaughan, D. Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1983.

Weber, M. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Mohr, Tübingen 1972 (5. Auflage).

Williamson, O. Managerial Discretion, Organizational Form and the Multidivision Hypothesis (in: Marris.R., Wood A. (eds.) The Corporate Economy, MacMillan, London 1971, 343-386).

Wootton, B. Crime and the Criminal Law. London 1963.

Zald, M.N., Ash, G.R. Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change (in: Zald, M.N., McCarthy, J.D. Social Movements in an Organizational Society, Transaction Books, New Brunswick 1987: 121-141).

Top

Footnote:

[1] A German version of this text has appeared in 1990 (Organisationen als soziale Akteure Zeitschrift für Soziologie 19, 1990, 401-417).

Last update: 24 Jul 08