Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations

Chapter 1 COMPLIANCE AS A COMPARATIVE BASEA DEFINITION OF COMPLIANCECompliance is universal, existing in all social units. It is a major element of the relationship between those who have power and those over whom they exercise it (Simmel, 1896). Despite its universality, it has been chosen as a base for this comparative study because it is a central element of organizational structure. The emphasis on compliance within the organization differentiates the latter from other types of social units. Characteristics of organizations such as their specificity, size, complexity and effectiveness each enhances the need for compliance. And in turn, compliance is systematically related to many central organizational variables.Compliancerefers both to a relation in which an actor behaves in accordance with a directive supported by another actor's power, and to the orientation of the subordinated actor to the power applied.Bysupportedwe mean that those who have power manipulate means which they command in such a manner that certain other actors find following the directive rewarding, while not following it incurs deprivations. In this sense, compliance relations are asymmetric (or "vertical"). But it is not assumed that the subordinates have no power, only that they have less.The power-means,manipulated to support the directives, include physical, material, and symbolic rewards and deprivations. Organizations tend to allocate these means systematically and strive to ensure that they will be used in conformity with the organizational norms.Theorientation of the subordinated actorcan be characterized as positive (commitment) or negative (alienation). It is determined in part by the degree to which the power applied is considered legitimate by the subordinated actor, and in part by its congruence with the line of action he would desire. We refer to this orientation, whether positive or negative, asinvolvementin the organization. In sum, there are two parties to a compliance relationship: an actor who exercises power, and an actor, subject to this power, who responds to this subjection with either more or less alienation or more or less commitment.The next task is to use compliance as here defined to develop an analytical base for the classification of organizations. This is done in three steps. First, three kinds ofpowerare differentiated; then, three kinds ofinvolvementare specified; and finally, the associations of kinds ofpowerwith kinds of involvement are indicated. These associations -- which constitutecompliance relationships-- then serve as the basis of our classification of organizations.THREE KINDS OF POWER: A COMPARATIVE DIMENSIONA Classification of PowerPoweris an actor's ability to induce or influence another actor to carry out his directives or any other norms he supports. Goldhamer and Shils state that "a person may be said to have power to the extent that he influences the behavior of others in accordance with his own intentions." (p. 171). Of course, "his own intentions" might be to influence a person to follow others' "intentions" or those of a collectivity. In organizations, enforcing the collectivity norms is likely to be a condition determining the power-holder's access to the means of power.Power positionsare positions whose incumbents regularly have access to means of power. Statements about power positions imply a particular group (or groups) who are subject to this power. For instance, to state that prison guards have a power position implies the subordination of inmates. In the following analysis we focus on power relations in organizations between those higher and those lower in rank. We refer to those in power positions, who are higher in rank, aselitesor as organizationalrepresentatives.We refer to those in subject positions, who are lower in rankEtzioni, Amitai is the author of 'Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations' with ISBN 9780029096208 and ISBN 0029096200.