Talking About Organizations Podcast

In the conclusion of this episode on Meyer and Rowan’s “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony,” we review some of the studies that followed and how well the author’s arguments have stood the test of time. We explore contemporary examples that show how conformity to institutionalized rules is necessary for organizations to survive, yet, because they can detract from the organization’s purpose, organizations enact rituals to show that it is adhering to the “rules”, yet in practice they try to shield their core work processes from interruption or intervention.

Exploring institutionalized rules and formal structures, the podcast delves into Meyer & Rowan's article on organizational myths. Topics include the institutionalization of the work week, institutional theory in organizational behavior, interplay of values and structures, different perspectives on survival, and balancing agency with institutional expectations.

We explore John Meyer and Brian Rowan’s famous 1977 article “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.” Coming at a time when rational theories of organizing faced multiple challengers, Meyer and Rowan proposed that institutionalization of socially accepted (or demanded) norms played a significant role in driving formal structures. The article has led to significant and relevant research in institution theory that continues to this day.

We sit down with Woody Powell and Bob Gibbons who, since 2016, have been organizing the summer institute on Organizations and Their Effectiveness at the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) in Stanford, California. We ask them to reflect on the history of CASBS and the summer institute, the value of fostering interdisciplinary conversations on the study of organizations, and the way in which they design and conduct the summer institute to allow young scholars across economics, sociology, management, public policy, political science, information and communication studies, and other fields, to learn from one another.

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.