We conclude our discussion of Alvin Gouldner two-part article, “Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles.” In the second part of the article, Gouldner presented an initial proposal for a taxonomy of four types of locals and two types of cosmopolitans as a way kickstart the broader research agenda. However, this groundbreaking study had some significant limitations, most notably that the separation between manifest and latent roles was problematic. After addressing the contemporary implications of this article, we cover some of the different directions followed by recent scholars to bring more clarity to the latent role construct.

Sociologist Alvin Gouldner discusses manifest and latent roles in organizational structures, highlighting the importance of understanding hidden role identities. The podcast explores the intersection of sociology and management studies, the dynamics of social identities within organizations, and the unique context of academic studies compared to practical settings. Gouldner's research at Moll University and the differentiation between cosmopolitan and local roles are also discussed, shedding light on the impact of manifest roles on latent roles in organizations.

We will discuss a two-part article by Alvin Gouldner titled “Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles.” Before 1957, studies on work roles focused solely on manifest roles that emerged directly from the positions held. The hidden or unstated work roles had not been studies. Gouldner’s article argued that this was a major research gap and proposed six latent roles exhibited among workers in a university to kickstart the research agenda.

We conclude our discussion of Arthur L. Stinchcombe’s book chapter, “Social Structure and Organizations,” by looking at the present-day impacts. As a foundational text, Stinchcombe’s work has influenced numerous subsequent studies and has been cited tens of thousands of times. In this second part, we discuss how while Stinchcombe’s primary focus was on how societies influenced organizations, social and technological changes are raising questions on how organizations influence societies through new ideologies, employment relations, and work structures.

In a famous chapter in James G. March’s 1965 book, Handbook of Organizations, Arthur L. Stinchcombe laid out a case for expanding the study of organizations outward to include social structure bringing attention to innovation as well as imprinting and inertia. He posited that societies had significant effects on how organizations emerge and operate and that organizations, in turn, impact relations among groups in society. He presented his arguments in three parts. First, that social structures had an imprinting effect on the formation of new organizations, such that these initial forms often persisted despite efforts to change them. Thus, to the second point, each type of organization reflected the history of its creation both in terms of the organization and social structures that dominated at the time. Finally, organizations also reflect the social divisions in society, such as between higher and lower classes.

We will discuss the 1965 pathbreaking essay “Social Structure and Organizations” by Arthur L. Stinchcombe, where he articulated how societies had significant effects on organizations and that organizations in turn had effects on society. Listen to this discussion on a foundational text in organization studies.

We conclude our discussion of Barley & Kunda’s article in Organization Science titled “Bringing Work Back In.” We ask ourselves to what extent are the author’s argument still valid (in short, they certainly are) and how much more urgency there is to understand the work context given the rapid shifts in technology and the reweaving of the social fabric that has changed the meaning of work-life balance. Also, which scholars are trying to lead the way with new studies on work?

In their 2001 Organization Science article “Bringing Work Back In,” Steven Barley and Gideon Kunda lamented how the study of work, its organization, and its performance shifted after the 1950s. Work was the center of attention among the classic era of organization studies beginning with Frederic Taylor, but afterward, the focus shifted to post-bureaucratic concepts such as boundaryless organizations and networks. Barley and Kunda argues that these new ideas are not grounded in rigorous studies of how people perform work in such new organizations.

Coming soon! We will discuss Steven Barley and Gideon Kunda’s critique about how the study of work, its organization, and its performance were no longer the focus of organization studies and call for a renewed focus on work in current research.

We conclude our discussion of Alfred Sloan’s “My Years at General Motors” with a look at the post-war automotive boom to the present day and the introductions of electric cars, foreign manufacturers establishing operations within the US, and the future of transportation. We also discuss how newer emerging technologies and lean manufacturing initiatives have changed the ways that corporations operate nowadays.