1. set of social relationships that are closed
or limit admission of outsiders
Organizations 2. member have common goals
3. co-operate to persue
all three must be met
bc departures from pattern are
counteracted by routine and sanction
patterns of social interactions that attained
level of reproducibility
unless collective action/external shock
blocks or disrupts reproductive process
patterns: going to church, not sitting in
Organizations & institutions Institutions
front in lectures at ucb
ex: religion, education, economy, marriages,
weekends, etc.
ex: new startup firms
Not all organizations are Institutions
is organization, but no pattern of social
Class 1 interaction. Not an institution
Not all institutions are organizatoins ex: religions Not closed/limit admission to outsiders
There are organizations that are associated
ex: law firms associated w/marriages
with institutions, but not it.
Too of organizational sociologist trade
Theories
social theory as religion
exploitation of labor by capital
capitalist organization as the place where
Karl Marx site of exploitative class relations
the exploitation happens
Organization of capitalist class; eg: through
board of directors of corp
social solidarity within organizations
Classical sociological perspectives Emile Durkheim
Role of collective rep in organizational life
Modern, bureaucratic org. is primary
instrument of the rationalization of human
activity.
Max weber
compared to traditional authority
believed bureaucracy was efficient
today; opposite
expertise officials trained experts
instruments of expertise, but also discipline
merit system; reward & punishment,
discipline
promote obedience as opposed to efficiency
Bureacracy is inefficient red tape
org. too many unnecessary officials; raise
BLOAT
cost & reduce efficiency
feudal system
Class 2 traditional society communal institutions the family
the church towns
importance of associative inst. as opposed
to communcal inst.
clubs, teams
schools
modern society groups ppl belong to to achieve some goal
firms
social movements etc
social action as individual proposition
organization as key building blocks
rather than org. themselves
world ordered by communal inst -> associative inst
transition
seen from world dom. by family -> dom. by
associative institutions
how env, structure, indsutry, networks,
organizational demography inequality etc shape who ends up in orgs
and how orgs behave
Demographic perspective 63
Explains organizational behavior by
Power and constraints from RESOURCE
treating connections and dependence as
DEPENDENCE
main driver of Power and action!
what info you get
resource access
connections matter most, it shapes
options
Social Relations & connections primary;
attributes/ traits are secondary what pressure others can put on you
relationships CAUSE outcomes: shape
what you do, what you want, and who has
POWER
drivers of dependence:
motivation/need
Power is relationship
alternatives
-Power=dependence
More need + fewer alternatives = more
dependece = less power
internally: teams bc work divided
Organizations are dependent all the time
externally: firms depend on banks, gov,
suppliers, distributors, customers,
communities, assoc. etc
follow rules/norms
A) Comply
problem: still vulnerable next time
lie/create illusion of complying
block info flows
B) Avoid make evaluation criteria ambiguous
ex: law school inflating employment status--
> expose --> tightened rules (can backfire)
Stop demands before occur
Orgs strategy ab dependence co-opt exchange partners (bring inside)
Power and dependence
lobby authorities for favourable rules
(resource dependence theory)
C) Prevent influence attempts
build governance structures to control
demands
ex: open source copyleft licenses as gov
mechanism to prevent firms from claiming
improved software
get more altneratives by expanding
relationships
Relational Perspective D) Eliminate dependence (reeduce reliance) alliances/joint ventures
mergers, diversity
vertically integrate (suppliers/distributors)
Firms merge more when mutually
dependent, but power imbalance affects
whether or not they do
firms add bankers to boards when they
Examples
need funding (co-opt exchange partner ex)
director interlocks help corp. coordinate to
influence policys
Dependencies shape governance choices
and alliances
formal; come from position; boss power
Vertical power: Hiearchy
over employee
power between peers/units/partner firms bc
Vertical vs Horizontal power Horizontal power: Interdependence
they need each other to get work done
vertical ties supply chain flows
Between organizations
horizontal ties alliance/joint ventures
Dense network of board interlocks help
Elite control idea maintain an economic elite (coordinate
political acion, shape policy)
Advantages and constraints that come from
your web of relationships, NOT one
dependency relationships
RDT is power and constraints from resource
Your opportunities, info, status, dependence
constraints depend on your networ -dependence relationships--power & control
position and ties
Social capital theory -ties and network position mainly as
resources, although come w obligations
examples
networks shape access to information &
material resources, affecting outcomes
Resources & Identities derived from social
relations
referred job applicants more likley to get
offers
Includes obligations that channel action &
create constraints
High intensity (time, intimacy, trust)
Strong ties
less bridging - social circle overlap
Social Capital Week ties low intensity
Week ties outperform strong ties for novel
as bridging ties that connect otherwise
information because they connect to
disconnected groups
difference circles!
number of ties, relates to info exposure &
Degree
influence
How quickly exchanges reach actor ; help or
Closeness
hurt
Centrality
being on shortest paths --> control over
Betweenness
gatekeeping
being connected to others who are
Eigenvector themselves central; linked to
status/popularity or core membership
Subtopic 7
Explain behavior via demographics & interactions: but it misses
shared meanings & evaluations ppl use to interpret those
interactions and attributes
Shared meaning/ interpretive framework
as primary driver of organizational life
cultural research studies shared, patterned how ppl decide, how things are, how these
interpretive schemas shared schemas guide ind, groups, & org
underlying assumptions (schemas)
espoused values (good/bad)
Organizational culture shared norms
symbols (stories, artifacts,etc)
How these define how we do things and
what matters
Organizations seek legitimacy, which rests on regulatory, normative,
cognitive foundations:
-Organizations don’t adopt structures and practices only because
they’re efficient. They also adopt them because they’re seen as
legitimate
social facts thats collectively understood &
coercive (backed by sanctions)
Institutions can constrain and enable action
Persist via routines that reproduce them
over time
Organizational institutionalism
(institutional theory)
institutionalized rule are often ceremonial conformity is vital for legitimacy and
(symbolic rather than functional) survival even if inefficient
Regulatory (laws, reg, court dec)
Three pillars of legitimacy Normative (professional/experts)
Cognitive (widely shared perceptions)
More legitimacy --> Less need for active justification -->
benefits of legitimacy acc to theory more likely to accept it and provide resources, -->
acceptance--> growth & persist
Organizatoins become similar through
coercive/normative/mimetic pressures
Central macro-cultural question:
"Why do organizations become so similar
in structure and practice?"
organizations become similar because
Field level similarity
Competitive Isomorphism market competition pushes them toward
--Isomorphism
the most efficient/effective forms
Cultural Perspective
Coercive state mandates & resource dependencies
Professions/trade associations shaping professional norms, training, and standards
expectations tell people what “proper” practice looks like.
Institutional isomorphism Normative
legitimacy pressures make some forms look
required/appropriate
Mimetic pressure to copy other orgs when uncertain
relationships between org. formal public
facing structures & actual day to day work
What org says it does and what it actually formal structure adopted mainly to LOOK
does have week/inconsistent connection legitimate; daily practice unchanged
When: to maintain legitimacy while getting
work done
Decoupling & loose coupling
org separate formal structures from actual
day to day practices-- or couple loosely
this protects technical core (discretion, avoid
inspection, buffer from outside inf.)
What org says it does and what it actually
does align closely
Coupling when organizations are more
visible/proximate to demanding actors or
tight coupling dependent on powerful demanders
demands align w. internal norms
Pressures are publicized + quantified--
makes compliance comparable
Pushed by inc scrutiny, scandal driven
recoupling
reform, proff. staff entrenchment
Coupling often looser when adopted mainly for legitimacy; tighter
when driven by technical core demands
but these structures can be costly,
impractival, or conflict w/ what it takes to
get core work done)
Inst. environments push orgs. to adopt
"proper structure"
org keep legitimacy by adopting "forms"
while protecting core by not fully
implementing
erosion of previously institutionalized
Deinstitutionalization
practices
Delegitimation loss of acceptance
Deinstitutionalization + delegitimation
(how inst.die) loosely connected org. elements more
"Social entropy"
vulnerable to erosion
Triggers include tec, pol, econ, cultural
forces
ppl's network comes from strategic
positioning and brokerage
Ronald Burt
Ppl as purposeful actors who gain
advantage by choosing & managing ties
Social structure -> dense clusters connected
by occasional bridges
bc opinions/behavior are more similar
within groups than across groups, people
Brokerage (being connected across who bridge groups have vision advantage
otherwise separate groups) is form of
social capital & helps ppl have good ideas earlier access to different ideas, broader
options, spot opportunities other miss
(information arbitrage)
idea value is strongly negatively associated
with network constraint
Social networks P1 Main findings Brokerage predicts idea sucess
brokers are more likley to express ideas,
idea rated valuable, less likley to be
dismissed ideas
help each side understand other sides
awareness
interest/constraints
transfer best practice move practice from one group to another
Four levels of brokerage
(how it create value) recognize how other groups think/behave
analogy
have implications for your group
combine elements from multiple groups to
synthesis
smt new
contacts are tightly interconnected-- fewer
High constraint
structural holes
Network Constraints
contatcs not all tied tgt--> you broker
Low constraint
across more holes!
Ronald Burt & Mario Small- interested in
benefits from social capital/ties, differ of
where our social ties come from
how do ppl make ties that later help them?
Social capital = Benefit from ties; resources in
social relations
where does network inequality come from?
ppl's network comes from strategic
positioning and brokerage
Burt
Ppl as purposeful actors who gain
advantage by choosing & managing ties
ppl's networks come from organizatinal
institutionally produced, accidental
contexts that structure who meets whom,
byproducts of organizational life
often w/o anyone intending to network
your ties are shaped by the organizations you
participate in routinely (schools, workplaces,
clubs) because organizations: ⬇️
Social networks P2 1. create opportunities to interact
Calls this: Organizational embeddness 2. impose rules/routines that repeatedly put
perspective you next to certain ppl
Small 3. can generate obligations formally and
informally
4. connect you to other orgs and resources
Tie formation is often not an investment rebut idea that assume ties come from
choice rational investments
Organizations shape both the size and
Social structure Sociol 110 composition of your network and kinds orgs can mandate obligations
of obligations in it
organizations connect you to ppl and
other orgs & inst. resources
the centers routine/rules generate
Small's childcare center example interactions between moms-- friendship as
unplanned byproduct of showing up
Argue: elite colleges can include low income
students on paper while still making them campous life is org. around wealth as default
feel unwelcome in practice
Elite campuses are saturated with wealth center arround affluent students
priviledged poor low income but attend private schools
Low income students aren't all the same
doubly disadvantaged low income+ public school
lots of success depends on unwritten
knowledge
Clint Smith Hidden curriculum
college assumed understanding of norms
Policies built on wealth based assumptions
Structural exclusion
(dining hall closed over break)
may mark them as different
Even support can stigmatize
reinforce bounderies
Idea: Problem is institutional design
+cultural assumptions that give sense that
you don't belong
Argue: Public flagship university can
magnify small class differences into very
different life trajectories through
organizational pathways students get
steered to once they arrive
Class inequality in college, Part similar students w/ different outcomes not
1: Inequality within schools explained by ability alone
Not meritocracy at work
divergence happens through universities
organizational infrastructure
student outcomes depends on fit between:
Student class backround + orientations to
Core model
college
Universities org. characteristics (pathways
provided)
when groups of students become
constituencies w shred agendas: these are
classed and gendered
Reproduction via social closure: affluent
students use college social life to build
networks, taste, relationships-- supported by
money
Armstrong & Hamilton Class Projects
Mobility project: middle class students
treat college as route to upward mobility;
need clear credentials
affluent students has parental resources;
convert advatange into merit
Party pathway fun, easy majors, affluent social closures
(vocationally oriented; ideally includes
Pathways(Key concept) Mobility pathway advising, financial support, and structured
guidance)
high competition, early sorting, parental
Professional pathway
involvement assumed
solvency (money)
Universities have organizational
imperatives that shape which pathways get prestige maximization (rank)
resourced
equity/legitimacy
“Protective segregation”: alternative
even non-partiers are shaped by the party
subcultures survive by creating enclaves
pathway’s dominance.
away from the dominant party scene
Measure income segregation across colleges
Measure outcomes by college and by parent
Asks: Does US college system reduce income.
intergenerational inequality, or does it
reproduce it because richer kids get into reduce under rep of bottom quintile
better colleges? students
Simulate counterfactual
admissions/enrollment rules to see how
but at ivy plus colleges, bottom quintle
much segregation and mobility could
change if you reallocated students across barley moves! only inc middle class rep
colleges, holding college “programs” fixed
would need to treet bottom quintle students
w/ +160 points to fully desegregate
mobility: how many students from low
income families end up as high earnig
adults for specific college
at ivy schools, more students from the top
1% than from the entire bottom half of the Only 3.8% from the bottom quintile
parent income distribution
Colleges are extremely segregated by
parental income
A lot of segregation is within tiers of the
Class inequality in college, Part college
2: Inequality between school colleges are as segregated as
neighborhoods
nationally, gap is big
Most of the rich–poor earnings gap
within same college, rich-poor gap shrinks a
among college-goers is between colleges,
lot
not within colleges
where you go to college explains a lot of
income persistence
Selection (not causal): College A admits
people who would have earned more
anyway.
Causal effect: College A changes people
(training, networks, credential) so they earn
more.
Mobility & college
estimate using dale-krueger style
approach about 80% of earning gaps
80% causal
between colleges-controlling for race, age,
etc-- is due to college itself, NOT selection
You can get mobility gains by changing who
attends which colleges---rest on strong
causal assumptions
Explain why different groups inside big
corporations (manufactoring, marketing,
finance, etc) rise and fall in power over
time
early 1900s: entrepreneurs/manufacturing
dominated
Top leadership shifts in stages in largest US
mid-century: sales & marketing rose
firms
post-1950s/60s into the 1970s: finance
increasingly dominated (and by 1979 is the
single largest source of presidents
Argue: Choosing president is a political
decision: reflects who controls the org and
which internal groups def become dom.
Power is not mainly ab personality
Power comes from positions in the
Figsteins model
organization & control of key resources
How do organizations also from ability to define and solve firms
"important problems"
understand what their biggest
problems are? Orgs are shaped by:
-figstein
(existing strategies, structures, technologies,
Internal constraints
physical limits)
1. Organizations operate in inst. contexts
Other orgs competitors, suppliers, customers
Theory: What drives intraorganizational The state regulation + macro policy
power struggles
Formal ownership/authority
Subunit control of resources + problem
2. Power bases inside firms
definition
-> Power change when firms
strategy/strucutre changes that makes one
subunit more central than other
President selection -> indicator of internal
power (reflect which subunit logic dom.)
power is structural and political (org
Summary postion, resource dependence, ability to
define key problems)
Mechanism for finance’s rise: multidivisional
structures + mergers/diversification make capital
allocation and performance evaluation central, which
privileges finance.
How did US corporations shift from being understood
as social institutions w/ multiple responsibilities to
being treated as liquid financial assets whose main
purpose is maximizing stock price?
Main ASK & answer:
shift happened through shareholder value revolution (1980
takeover movement), where Wall Street investment banks used
hostile takeovers, junk bonds, leveraged buyouts, and
restructuring to force corporations under financial market
discipline
Shareholder value is not timeless capitalism. It is a historically
produced wallstreet worldview that became dominant through
power struggles, inst. practices, and organizational cultures
important bc ppl assume capitalism always
maximizing shareholder returns
a social institution
Main argument
responsible to workers, communities,
Corporation used to be understood as
managers, innovation, long term stability
not reducible to stock price alone
Wallstreet transformed that into
corporation (Stock) & corporate mission
(raise share price)
corporations had mutiple stakeholders
LT stability mattered
Before: corporation as social institution mainting integrety of firm
layoff NOT default solution
Corporation as a commuinty
wallstreet financers used junk bonds,
hostile takeovers, leveraged buyouts to
threaten firms w/takeover
Forced managers to prioritize stock price,
1980 takeover movement SR returns, cost cutting, layoffs, asset
sales
Because low stock price = vulnerability to
takeover
The rise of Shareholder Value layoffs -> leaner company -> higher stock
culture in Corporate America price -> better economy
-Karen ho
Wallstreet justifies layoffs & restructing worker suffering
through "efficiency"
LT damage
"efficiency" became a way to justiffy asset stripping
downsizing, debt loading, mergers,
breakups, layoffs
social cost as neccessary
reduce productivity
destroy firm knowledge
Restructuring in name of shareholder value
lower morale
actually:
damanage innovation
hurt stock price later on!
The contradiction Because shareholder value cannot be
understood as pure rational economics
deals often hurt long term value but still
proceed because Wall Street culture
rewards deal flow and ST gains
so why push deals that destroy value?
organizational culture
WS career incentives
deal making culture
must be understood through
ST bonus structures
inst. beliefs
power relations
financial logic is culturally learned, org.
reproduced, morally justified, historically
contingent.
There is no pure shareholder value
separate from WS institutional culture Shareholder value is more a historically
specfiic WS organizational culture that
redefined corps around stock price,
liquidity, restructuring. Than economic
truth
argue: Free trade policy since the 1990s has hollowed out blue-collar
manufacturing work, concentrating the gains among corporations and
consumers while workers bear the costs almost entirely alone.
20th-century middle-class jobs, especially
microcosm of macro trend: corporate logic
in manufacturing, have been moved Carrier case
vs worker stability
offshore
Workers felt politically invisible until
candidates like Trump and Sanders named
their pain
Core argument: The inequality conversation is too focused on the ultra-
rich vs. everyone else. The more pervasive and consequential divide is
between college-educated and non-college-educated workers — a gap that
has grown dramatically since the 1980s.
Income inequality in the U.S. If all the income gains that flowed to the top 1% over the last 35 years had
been redistributed evenly, every household in the bottom 99% would have
since 1980 (three distinctly People don't have the right education and received an extra $7,100 a year.
different explanations for rising skills for today's "knowledge economy"
income inequality) emphasis on how the bottom falling is the
bigger policy crisis
Fix: access to education, NOT
redistribution fromt he top
Core argument: Inequality isn't inherent to capitalism — it's the result of a
Sears pioneered profit-sharing, thrived for
specific corporate culture shift in the 1980s, when companies stopped
decades, abandoned it, then went bankrupt
treating workers as stakeholders and began prioritizing shareholders
in 2018
Capitalism is nothing new; it has reigned almost exclusively.
in America since the nation's founding.
But a shift in corporate culture around historical and structural: rules of the game
1980 caused a turn for the worse, for have changed, not just market force
workers
Reich key villain: shareholder primacy ideology
Fix: Profit sharing. has historical
precedent
michaels iron law of oligarchy predicts all
orgs drift to oligarchy, conservative
leadership and goals over time.
Core: How do Established, bureaucratic
In labor: unions become "business unions"
social movement organizations break out of
— just servicing existing members, filing
oligarchy & radicalize under combo of 3
grievances, avoiding disruption
conditions
Piven & Cloward extend this: once
movements formalize, they lose their
disruptive edge
shock that destablize entrenched leadership
ex: Lost strike, financial mismanagement,
1. Political crisis within the local
etc
Opens the door for new leadership to come in
new leaders who came from civil rights
organizing, the United Farm Workers, anti-
apartheid activism, Central American
Why hasn't the labor movement solidarity movements, etc.
acted like a movement?
-voss & sherman Bring new vision, disruptive tactics, broader
2. Outside activists with movement
worldview — reinterpret crisis as mandate
experience
to organize
they interpreted labor's decline as a
mandate to organize, not just a crisis to
weather.
Provides resources, legitimacy, mandate —
sustains change from above
3. International union pressure
w/o this, local innovators lack inst. support
to overcome staff & member resistence
Both members and staff resist change — members are used to
the servicing model ("I pay dues, you fix my problems"), staff
fear losing power/jobs.
Key finding on resistance -> Fully revitalized locals overcame this through education,
retraining, and sometimes replacing resistant staff. Partially
revitalized locals couldn't get past it.
Core:Which protest tactics cause orgaizations to change?
diruprtive ones (sit in, vandalism) or non disruptive ones
(rallies, demonstrations)
Gamson (1975): violent/disruptive
movements more likely to achieve goals —
they impose costs and draw attention
Social control hypothesis (Piven & Cloward):
disruptive tactics force state actors to make
concessions to restore order
Background & debate
Others argue disruption damages a
movement's reputation and backfires
Neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell):
organizations also change by copying peers
— mimicry, not just protest
Key findings
What social movement tactics
are effective? -Rojas
from AA studies movemet
disruptive protest removes the conditions
under which sympathetic administrators
can act
State actors intervene and pressure
Why disruptive protest fails
administrators to restore order
Administrators are consumed with
EX: Whe students riot or occupy buildings discipline, police, and political optics — not
curricular reform
The administrator loses the authority and
discretion needed to convert movement
demands into legitimate policy
Non disruptive protest works precisely it signals public support & gives
bc it preserves administrators ability to sympathetic insiders political cover to push
act for change w/o triggering crackdown
numbers don't matter! Its Organizations
Why doesn't Black student enrollment Campuses that got AAS programs had Black
predict change? Student organizations.
->> Formal organization enables
coordination, solidarity, and strategic
planning. Without it, even a large Black
student population doesn't mobilize
effectively.
or limit admission of outsiders
Organizations 2. member have common goals
3. co-operate to persue
all three must be met
bc departures from pattern are
counteracted by routine and sanction
patterns of social interactions that attained
level of reproducibility
unless collective action/external shock
blocks or disrupts reproductive process
patterns: going to church, not sitting in
Organizations & institutions Institutions
front in lectures at ucb
ex: religion, education, economy, marriages,
weekends, etc.
ex: new startup firms
Not all organizations are Institutions
is organization, but no pattern of social
Class 1 interaction. Not an institution
Not all institutions are organizatoins ex: religions Not closed/limit admission to outsiders
There are organizations that are associated
ex: law firms associated w/marriages
with institutions, but not it.
Too of organizational sociologist trade
Theories
social theory as religion
exploitation of labor by capital
capitalist organization as the place where
Karl Marx site of exploitative class relations
the exploitation happens
Organization of capitalist class; eg: through
board of directors of corp
social solidarity within organizations
Classical sociological perspectives Emile Durkheim
Role of collective rep in organizational life
Modern, bureaucratic org. is primary
instrument of the rationalization of human
activity.
Max weber
compared to traditional authority
believed bureaucracy was efficient
today; opposite
expertise officials trained experts
instruments of expertise, but also discipline
merit system; reward & punishment,
discipline
promote obedience as opposed to efficiency
Bureacracy is inefficient red tape
org. too many unnecessary officials; raise
BLOAT
cost & reduce efficiency
feudal system
Class 2 traditional society communal institutions the family
the church towns
importance of associative inst. as opposed
to communcal inst.
clubs, teams
schools
modern society groups ppl belong to to achieve some goal
firms
social movements etc
social action as individual proposition
organization as key building blocks
rather than org. themselves
world ordered by communal inst -> associative inst
transition
seen from world dom. by family -> dom. by
associative institutions
how env, structure, indsutry, networks,
organizational demography inequality etc shape who ends up in orgs
and how orgs behave
Demographic perspective 63
Explains organizational behavior by
Power and constraints from RESOURCE
treating connections and dependence as
DEPENDENCE
main driver of Power and action!
what info you get
resource access
connections matter most, it shapes
options
Social Relations & connections primary;
attributes/ traits are secondary what pressure others can put on you
relationships CAUSE outcomes: shape
what you do, what you want, and who has
POWER
drivers of dependence:
motivation/need
Power is relationship
alternatives
-Power=dependence
More need + fewer alternatives = more
dependece = less power
internally: teams bc work divided
Organizations are dependent all the time
externally: firms depend on banks, gov,
suppliers, distributors, customers,
communities, assoc. etc
follow rules/norms
A) Comply
problem: still vulnerable next time
lie/create illusion of complying
block info flows
B) Avoid make evaluation criteria ambiguous
ex: law school inflating employment status--
> expose --> tightened rules (can backfire)
Stop demands before occur
Orgs strategy ab dependence co-opt exchange partners (bring inside)
Power and dependence
lobby authorities for favourable rules
(resource dependence theory)
C) Prevent influence attempts
build governance structures to control
demands
ex: open source copyleft licenses as gov
mechanism to prevent firms from claiming
improved software
get more altneratives by expanding
relationships
Relational Perspective D) Eliminate dependence (reeduce reliance) alliances/joint ventures
mergers, diversity
vertically integrate (suppliers/distributors)
Firms merge more when mutually
dependent, but power imbalance affects
whether or not they do
firms add bankers to boards when they
Examples
need funding (co-opt exchange partner ex)
director interlocks help corp. coordinate to
influence policys
Dependencies shape governance choices
and alliances
formal; come from position; boss power
Vertical power: Hiearchy
over employee
power between peers/units/partner firms bc
Vertical vs Horizontal power Horizontal power: Interdependence
they need each other to get work done
vertical ties supply chain flows
Between organizations
horizontal ties alliance/joint ventures
Dense network of board interlocks help
Elite control idea maintain an economic elite (coordinate
political acion, shape policy)
Advantages and constraints that come from
your web of relationships, NOT one
dependency relationships
RDT is power and constraints from resource
Your opportunities, info, status, dependence
constraints depend on your networ -dependence relationships--power & control
position and ties
Social capital theory -ties and network position mainly as
resources, although come w obligations
examples
networks shape access to information &
material resources, affecting outcomes
Resources & Identities derived from social
relations
referred job applicants more likley to get
offers
Includes obligations that channel action &
create constraints
High intensity (time, intimacy, trust)
Strong ties
less bridging - social circle overlap
Social Capital Week ties low intensity
Week ties outperform strong ties for novel
as bridging ties that connect otherwise
information because they connect to
disconnected groups
difference circles!
number of ties, relates to info exposure &
Degree
influence
How quickly exchanges reach actor ; help or
Closeness
hurt
Centrality
being on shortest paths --> control over
Betweenness
gatekeeping
being connected to others who are
Eigenvector themselves central; linked to
status/popularity or core membership
Subtopic 7
Explain behavior via demographics & interactions: but it misses
shared meanings & evaluations ppl use to interpret those
interactions and attributes
Shared meaning/ interpretive framework
as primary driver of organizational life
cultural research studies shared, patterned how ppl decide, how things are, how these
interpretive schemas shared schemas guide ind, groups, & org
underlying assumptions (schemas)
espoused values (good/bad)
Organizational culture shared norms
symbols (stories, artifacts,etc)
How these define how we do things and
what matters
Organizations seek legitimacy, which rests on regulatory, normative,
cognitive foundations:
-Organizations don’t adopt structures and practices only because
they’re efficient. They also adopt them because they’re seen as
legitimate
social facts thats collectively understood &
coercive (backed by sanctions)
Institutions can constrain and enable action
Persist via routines that reproduce them
over time
Organizational institutionalism
(institutional theory)
institutionalized rule are often ceremonial conformity is vital for legitimacy and
(symbolic rather than functional) survival even if inefficient
Regulatory (laws, reg, court dec)
Three pillars of legitimacy Normative (professional/experts)
Cognitive (widely shared perceptions)
More legitimacy --> Less need for active justification -->
benefits of legitimacy acc to theory more likely to accept it and provide resources, -->
acceptance--> growth & persist
Organizatoins become similar through
coercive/normative/mimetic pressures
Central macro-cultural question:
"Why do organizations become so similar
in structure and practice?"
organizations become similar because
Field level similarity
Competitive Isomorphism market competition pushes them toward
--Isomorphism
the most efficient/effective forms
Cultural Perspective
Coercive state mandates & resource dependencies
Professions/trade associations shaping professional norms, training, and standards
expectations tell people what “proper” practice looks like.
Institutional isomorphism Normative
legitimacy pressures make some forms look
required/appropriate
Mimetic pressure to copy other orgs when uncertain
relationships between org. formal public
facing structures & actual day to day work
What org says it does and what it actually formal structure adopted mainly to LOOK
does have week/inconsistent connection legitimate; daily practice unchanged
When: to maintain legitimacy while getting
work done
Decoupling & loose coupling
org separate formal structures from actual
day to day practices-- or couple loosely
this protects technical core (discretion, avoid
inspection, buffer from outside inf.)
What org says it does and what it actually
does align closely
Coupling when organizations are more
visible/proximate to demanding actors or
tight coupling dependent on powerful demanders
demands align w. internal norms
Pressures are publicized + quantified--
makes compliance comparable
Pushed by inc scrutiny, scandal driven
recoupling
reform, proff. staff entrenchment
Coupling often looser when adopted mainly for legitimacy; tighter
when driven by technical core demands
but these structures can be costly,
impractival, or conflict w/ what it takes to
get core work done)
Inst. environments push orgs. to adopt
"proper structure"
org keep legitimacy by adopting "forms"
while protecting core by not fully
implementing
erosion of previously institutionalized
Deinstitutionalization
practices
Delegitimation loss of acceptance
Deinstitutionalization + delegitimation
(how inst.die) loosely connected org. elements more
"Social entropy"
vulnerable to erosion
Triggers include tec, pol, econ, cultural
forces
ppl's network comes from strategic
positioning and brokerage
Ronald Burt
Ppl as purposeful actors who gain
advantage by choosing & managing ties
Social structure -> dense clusters connected
by occasional bridges
bc opinions/behavior are more similar
within groups than across groups, people
Brokerage (being connected across who bridge groups have vision advantage
otherwise separate groups) is form of
social capital & helps ppl have good ideas earlier access to different ideas, broader
options, spot opportunities other miss
(information arbitrage)
idea value is strongly negatively associated
with network constraint
Social networks P1 Main findings Brokerage predicts idea sucess
brokers are more likley to express ideas,
idea rated valuable, less likley to be
dismissed ideas
help each side understand other sides
awareness
interest/constraints
transfer best practice move practice from one group to another
Four levels of brokerage
(how it create value) recognize how other groups think/behave
analogy
have implications for your group
combine elements from multiple groups to
synthesis
smt new
contacts are tightly interconnected-- fewer
High constraint
structural holes
Network Constraints
contatcs not all tied tgt--> you broker
Low constraint
across more holes!
Ronald Burt & Mario Small- interested in
benefits from social capital/ties, differ of
where our social ties come from
how do ppl make ties that later help them?
Social capital = Benefit from ties; resources in
social relations
where does network inequality come from?
ppl's network comes from strategic
positioning and brokerage
Burt
Ppl as purposeful actors who gain
advantage by choosing & managing ties
ppl's networks come from organizatinal
institutionally produced, accidental
contexts that structure who meets whom,
byproducts of organizational life
often w/o anyone intending to network
your ties are shaped by the organizations you
participate in routinely (schools, workplaces,
clubs) because organizations: ⬇️
Social networks P2 1. create opportunities to interact
Calls this: Organizational embeddness 2. impose rules/routines that repeatedly put
perspective you next to certain ppl
Small 3. can generate obligations formally and
informally
4. connect you to other orgs and resources
Tie formation is often not an investment rebut idea that assume ties come from
choice rational investments
Organizations shape both the size and
Social structure Sociol 110 composition of your network and kinds orgs can mandate obligations
of obligations in it
organizations connect you to ppl and
other orgs & inst. resources
the centers routine/rules generate
Small's childcare center example interactions between moms-- friendship as
unplanned byproduct of showing up
Argue: elite colleges can include low income
students on paper while still making them campous life is org. around wealth as default
feel unwelcome in practice
Elite campuses are saturated with wealth center arround affluent students
priviledged poor low income but attend private schools
Low income students aren't all the same
doubly disadvantaged low income+ public school
lots of success depends on unwritten
knowledge
Clint Smith Hidden curriculum
college assumed understanding of norms
Policies built on wealth based assumptions
Structural exclusion
(dining hall closed over break)
may mark them as different
Even support can stigmatize
reinforce bounderies
Idea: Problem is institutional design
+cultural assumptions that give sense that
you don't belong
Argue: Public flagship university can
magnify small class differences into very
different life trajectories through
organizational pathways students get
steered to once they arrive
Class inequality in college, Part similar students w/ different outcomes not
1: Inequality within schools explained by ability alone
Not meritocracy at work
divergence happens through universities
organizational infrastructure
student outcomes depends on fit between:
Student class backround + orientations to
Core model
college
Universities org. characteristics (pathways
provided)
when groups of students become
constituencies w shred agendas: these are
classed and gendered
Reproduction via social closure: affluent
students use college social life to build
networks, taste, relationships-- supported by
money
Armstrong & Hamilton Class Projects
Mobility project: middle class students
treat college as route to upward mobility;
need clear credentials
affluent students has parental resources;
convert advatange into merit
Party pathway fun, easy majors, affluent social closures
(vocationally oriented; ideally includes
Pathways(Key concept) Mobility pathway advising, financial support, and structured
guidance)
high competition, early sorting, parental
Professional pathway
involvement assumed
solvency (money)
Universities have organizational
imperatives that shape which pathways get prestige maximization (rank)
resourced
equity/legitimacy
“Protective segregation”: alternative
even non-partiers are shaped by the party
subcultures survive by creating enclaves
pathway’s dominance.
away from the dominant party scene
Measure income segregation across colleges
Measure outcomes by college and by parent
Asks: Does US college system reduce income.
intergenerational inequality, or does it
reproduce it because richer kids get into reduce under rep of bottom quintile
better colleges? students
Simulate counterfactual
admissions/enrollment rules to see how
but at ivy plus colleges, bottom quintle
much segregation and mobility could
change if you reallocated students across barley moves! only inc middle class rep
colleges, holding college “programs” fixed
would need to treet bottom quintle students
w/ +160 points to fully desegregate
mobility: how many students from low
income families end up as high earnig
adults for specific college
at ivy schools, more students from the top
1% than from the entire bottom half of the Only 3.8% from the bottom quintile
parent income distribution
Colleges are extremely segregated by
parental income
A lot of segregation is within tiers of the
Class inequality in college, Part college
2: Inequality between school colleges are as segregated as
neighborhoods
nationally, gap is big
Most of the rich–poor earnings gap
within same college, rich-poor gap shrinks a
among college-goers is between colleges,
lot
not within colleges
where you go to college explains a lot of
income persistence
Selection (not causal): College A admits
people who would have earned more
anyway.
Causal effect: College A changes people
(training, networks, credential) so they earn
more.
Mobility & college
estimate using dale-krueger style
approach about 80% of earning gaps
80% causal
between colleges-controlling for race, age,
etc-- is due to college itself, NOT selection
You can get mobility gains by changing who
attends which colleges---rest on strong
causal assumptions
Explain why different groups inside big
corporations (manufactoring, marketing,
finance, etc) rise and fall in power over
time
early 1900s: entrepreneurs/manufacturing
dominated
Top leadership shifts in stages in largest US
mid-century: sales & marketing rose
firms
post-1950s/60s into the 1970s: finance
increasingly dominated (and by 1979 is the
single largest source of presidents
Argue: Choosing president is a political
decision: reflects who controls the org and
which internal groups def become dom.
Power is not mainly ab personality
Power comes from positions in the
Figsteins model
organization & control of key resources
How do organizations also from ability to define and solve firms
"important problems"
understand what their biggest
problems are? Orgs are shaped by:
-figstein
(existing strategies, structures, technologies,
Internal constraints
physical limits)
1. Organizations operate in inst. contexts
Other orgs competitors, suppliers, customers
Theory: What drives intraorganizational The state regulation + macro policy
power struggles
Formal ownership/authority
Subunit control of resources + problem
2. Power bases inside firms
definition
-> Power change when firms
strategy/strucutre changes that makes one
subunit more central than other
President selection -> indicator of internal
power (reflect which subunit logic dom.)
power is structural and political (org
Summary postion, resource dependence, ability to
define key problems)
Mechanism for finance’s rise: multidivisional
structures + mergers/diversification make capital
allocation and performance evaluation central, which
privileges finance.
How did US corporations shift from being understood
as social institutions w/ multiple responsibilities to
being treated as liquid financial assets whose main
purpose is maximizing stock price?
Main ASK & answer:
shift happened through shareholder value revolution (1980
takeover movement), where Wall Street investment banks used
hostile takeovers, junk bonds, leveraged buyouts, and
restructuring to force corporations under financial market
discipline
Shareholder value is not timeless capitalism. It is a historically
produced wallstreet worldview that became dominant through
power struggles, inst. practices, and organizational cultures
important bc ppl assume capitalism always
maximizing shareholder returns
a social institution
Main argument
responsible to workers, communities,
Corporation used to be understood as
managers, innovation, long term stability
not reducible to stock price alone
Wallstreet transformed that into
corporation (Stock) & corporate mission
(raise share price)
corporations had mutiple stakeholders
LT stability mattered
Before: corporation as social institution mainting integrety of firm
layoff NOT default solution
Corporation as a commuinty
wallstreet financers used junk bonds,
hostile takeovers, leveraged buyouts to
threaten firms w/takeover
Forced managers to prioritize stock price,
1980 takeover movement SR returns, cost cutting, layoffs, asset
sales
Because low stock price = vulnerability to
takeover
The rise of Shareholder Value layoffs -> leaner company -> higher stock
culture in Corporate America price -> better economy
-Karen ho
Wallstreet justifies layoffs & restructing worker suffering
through "efficiency"
LT damage
"efficiency" became a way to justiffy asset stripping
downsizing, debt loading, mergers,
breakups, layoffs
social cost as neccessary
reduce productivity
destroy firm knowledge
Restructuring in name of shareholder value
lower morale
actually:
damanage innovation
hurt stock price later on!
The contradiction Because shareholder value cannot be
understood as pure rational economics
deals often hurt long term value but still
proceed because Wall Street culture
rewards deal flow and ST gains
so why push deals that destroy value?
organizational culture
WS career incentives
deal making culture
must be understood through
ST bonus structures
inst. beliefs
power relations
financial logic is culturally learned, org.
reproduced, morally justified, historically
contingent.
There is no pure shareholder value
separate from WS institutional culture Shareholder value is more a historically
specfiic WS organizational culture that
redefined corps around stock price,
liquidity, restructuring. Than economic
truth
argue: Free trade policy since the 1990s has hollowed out blue-collar
manufacturing work, concentrating the gains among corporations and
consumers while workers bear the costs almost entirely alone.
20th-century middle-class jobs, especially
microcosm of macro trend: corporate logic
in manufacturing, have been moved Carrier case
vs worker stability
offshore
Workers felt politically invisible until
candidates like Trump and Sanders named
their pain
Core argument: The inequality conversation is too focused on the ultra-
rich vs. everyone else. The more pervasive and consequential divide is
between college-educated and non-college-educated workers — a gap that
has grown dramatically since the 1980s.
Income inequality in the U.S. If all the income gains that flowed to the top 1% over the last 35 years had
been redistributed evenly, every household in the bottom 99% would have
since 1980 (three distinctly People don't have the right education and received an extra $7,100 a year.
different explanations for rising skills for today's "knowledge economy"
income inequality) emphasis on how the bottom falling is the
bigger policy crisis
Fix: access to education, NOT
redistribution fromt he top
Core argument: Inequality isn't inherent to capitalism — it's the result of a
Sears pioneered profit-sharing, thrived for
specific corporate culture shift in the 1980s, when companies stopped
decades, abandoned it, then went bankrupt
treating workers as stakeholders and began prioritizing shareholders
in 2018
Capitalism is nothing new; it has reigned almost exclusively.
in America since the nation's founding.
But a shift in corporate culture around historical and structural: rules of the game
1980 caused a turn for the worse, for have changed, not just market force
workers
Reich key villain: shareholder primacy ideology
Fix: Profit sharing. has historical
precedent
michaels iron law of oligarchy predicts all
orgs drift to oligarchy, conservative
leadership and goals over time.
Core: How do Established, bureaucratic
In labor: unions become "business unions"
social movement organizations break out of
— just servicing existing members, filing
oligarchy & radicalize under combo of 3
grievances, avoiding disruption
conditions
Piven & Cloward extend this: once
movements formalize, they lose their
disruptive edge
shock that destablize entrenched leadership
ex: Lost strike, financial mismanagement,
1. Political crisis within the local
etc
Opens the door for new leadership to come in
new leaders who came from civil rights
organizing, the United Farm Workers, anti-
apartheid activism, Central American
Why hasn't the labor movement solidarity movements, etc.
acted like a movement?
-voss & sherman Bring new vision, disruptive tactics, broader
2. Outside activists with movement
worldview — reinterpret crisis as mandate
experience
to organize
they interpreted labor's decline as a
mandate to organize, not just a crisis to
weather.
Provides resources, legitimacy, mandate —
sustains change from above
3. International union pressure
w/o this, local innovators lack inst. support
to overcome staff & member resistence
Both members and staff resist change — members are used to
the servicing model ("I pay dues, you fix my problems"), staff
fear losing power/jobs.
Key finding on resistance -> Fully revitalized locals overcame this through education,
retraining, and sometimes replacing resistant staff. Partially
revitalized locals couldn't get past it.
Core:Which protest tactics cause orgaizations to change?
diruprtive ones (sit in, vandalism) or non disruptive ones
(rallies, demonstrations)
Gamson (1975): violent/disruptive
movements more likely to achieve goals —
they impose costs and draw attention
Social control hypothesis (Piven & Cloward):
disruptive tactics force state actors to make
concessions to restore order
Background & debate
Others argue disruption damages a
movement's reputation and backfires
Neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell):
organizations also change by copying peers
— mimicry, not just protest
Key findings
What social movement tactics
are effective? -Rojas
from AA studies movemet
disruptive protest removes the conditions
under which sympathetic administrators
can act
State actors intervene and pressure
Why disruptive protest fails
administrators to restore order
Administrators are consumed with
EX: Whe students riot or occupy buildings discipline, police, and political optics — not
curricular reform
The administrator loses the authority and
discretion needed to convert movement
demands into legitimate policy
Non disruptive protest works precisely it signals public support & gives
bc it preserves administrators ability to sympathetic insiders political cover to push
act for change w/o triggering crackdown
numbers don't matter! Its Organizations
Why doesn't Black student enrollment Campuses that got AAS programs had Black
predict change? Student organizations.
->> Formal organization enables
coordination, solidarity, and strategic
planning. Without it, even a large Black
student population doesn't mobilize
effectively.
