The Organizations as a Political System

8/8/2019 The Organizations as a Political System

1/13

University of Utah

Western Political Science Association

The Organization as a Political SystemAuthor(s): Robert B. DenhardtSource: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1971), pp. 675-686Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/447105

Accessed: 11/11/2010 02:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utah.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Utah and Western Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utahhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wpsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/447105?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utahhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utahhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/447105?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wpsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utah


2/13

THE ORGANIZATION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEMROBERTB. DENHARDT

Louisiana State UniversityHTHE NTENSE relationship between that which is organizational and thatwhich is political has proven an annoyinglyrecurringtheme in recent inquir-ies into human association. Annoying, that is, for despite the many skillfulattempts to unravel its complexities, the topic continues to present an abundanceof problems. For social analysts no less than for social actors, the increasing afflu-ence of the bureaucratic phenomenon has proven most deceptive - especially incollision with the new poverty of politics.1 Yet, curiously, while strong existentialfactors seem to tear organization and politics apart, in analytic terms, the two arebeing drawn closer and closer together and perhaps becoming more alike.The likelihood of division between the organizational and political is mostclear when one considers the relation of each sphere to the individual. First of all,both forms of association not only actively seek the services or contributions ofmodern man, but also compete for the individual's devotion and allegiance. Tobuild a base for such a commitment, attempts are made in each sphere to teachmembers and prospective members appropriate patterns of belief and acceptablestandards of behavior. Thus, just as students of political socialization have indi-cated the extent to which children develop early images of governmental figuresand institutions,2so are other social scientistsbeginning to document the same typeof learning process with respect to such bureaucraticnorms as the cultural trait ofhierarchy.3 Indeed, under special circumstances, it has now been demonstratedthat the instructive power of organization may even surpassthat of civic culture.4The resultingmultiplicity of associationalroles has at least the potential of creating

The rise of bureaucracy in this country has been described by Robert Presthus, The Organi-zational Society (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), esp. Chapter 3. The sublimationof politics which has occurred in response to extensions of bureaucracy is analyzed bySheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western PoliticalThought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960), Chapter 10.2Recent major works in the area of political socialization include Richard E. Dawson andKenneth Prewitt, Political Socialization (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969); David Eastonand Jack Dennis, Children in the Political System (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969);Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Tomey, The Development of Political Attitudes in Chil-dren (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967); an excellent survey of the studyof political socialization is contained in Jack Dennis, "Major Problems of PoliticalSocialization Research," Midwest Journal of Political Science, 12 (February 1968),85-114.3Herbert G. Wilcox, "The Cultural Trait of Hierarchy in Middle Class Children," PublicAdministration Review, 29 (May-June 1968), 222-35. See also Betty E. Cogswell,"Some Structural Properties Influencing Socialization," Administrative Science Quar-terly, 13 (December 1968), 417-40; Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Com-plex Organizations (Glencoe: Free Press, 1961), pp. 141-49; Edgar H. Schein, "Organi-zational Socialization and the Profession of Management," Industrial Management

Review, 9 (Winter 1968), 1-16.4Robert B. Denhardt, "Bureaucratic Socialization and Organizational Accommodation,"Administrative Science Quarterly, 13 (December 1968), 441-50. For a study of politi-cal socialization in the same cultural setting, see Dean Jaros, Herbert Hirsch, andFrederic J. Fleron, Jr., "The Malevolent Leader: Political Socialization in an AmericanSub-culture," American Political Science Review, 62 (June 1968), 564-75.675


3/13

THE WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLYsituations of intense psychological stress in which the individual may be torn be-tween divergent loyalties.5

But the opposition of organizationand politics in these areas suggestsa seriouspredicament: if citizenship is two-pronged-applicable to the member in hisrelations with both the organization and the body politic -the function of roleintegration typically associated with the perspective of citizenship cannot be ful-filled in either sphere as it acts independently of the other.6 Neither can provide acomprehensive frame for meaning in human association, and in turn neither canprovide an inclusive focus for the study of citizen behavior. From this standpoint,competition between the organizational and the political seems inherent andinevitable.

These developments tend to suggest an increasing cleavage between the twomodes of association, yet at the analytic level this has not proven to be the case.Indeed, the rise of bureaucracy,finally modified by a recognition of the pervasive-ness of human values in complex organizations, has led students of bureaucracyto broadened interest in subjectsonce solely the province of the political scientist.7Such traditional political questions as the relation of authority and obedience, thejuxtaposition of freedom and order, and the quest for the civic good are nowappearing in contexts highly organizational.8 The student of bureaucracy is nolonger concerned solely with the rational and efficient manipulation of socialpower.9 He is now compelled to talk also of ideas of order through participatoryadministrationand freedom through self-actualization;he is asked to comment onthe development of fraternity among workers and responsibilityamong managersas steps toward the bureaucratic"good life."'15See the comments on interrole conflict in Robert L. Kahn et al., OrganizationalStressStudies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: Wiley, 1964); See also Robert L.Kahn and Elise Boulding, ed., Power and Conflict in Organizations (New York: BasicBooks, 1964).'For a view of citizenshipas role integrationsee Wolin, op. cit., pp. 429-34. See also RobertJ. Pranger, Action, Symbolism and Order (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press,1968), pp. 13-14, 17-32; Robert J. Pranger,The Eclipse of Citizenship (New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968), Chapter 5; Joseph Tussman, Obligation and theBodyPolitic (New York: OxfordUniversity Press,1960), esp. Chapter2.7As just one example of this logic, we may note that Philip Selznick,having suggestedthatno organizationis completely free of institutionalization(value infusion), then speaksof the role of the leader in highly political terms. ". . . creativemen are needed ... whoknow how to transforma neutral body of men into a committedpolity. These men arecalled leaders; their professionis politics." See Selznick,Leadershipin Administration(New York: Harper and Row, 1957), p. 61. The implicationsof Selznick'sview aretraced by Robert J. Pranger, "The Clinical Approach to OrganizationTheory," Mid-west Journalof PoliticalScience,9 (August 1965), 215-34.8 Parallelsbetween organizationtheory and political theory are cited by Herbert Kaufman,"OrganizationTheory and Political Theory," American Political Science Review, 63(March 1964), 5-14. Many of the problems in this area were anticipated in earlierworks. See Dwight Waldo, "Developmentof Theory of Democratic Administration,"American Political Science Review, 46 (March 1952), 81-103.9While the focus of this article is the internal allocation of power in complex organizations,the power position of large bureaucracies n the total society should not be overlooked.See, for example,John Kenneth Galbraith,The New Industrial State (Boston: Hough-ton Mifflin, 1967); Edward S. Mason, The Corporation n ModernSociety (Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press, 1966)."A numberof these issues are covered in articlescontained in a "Symposiumon Alienation,Decentralization, and Participation," Public Administration Review, 29 (January-February 1969).

676


4/13

THE ORGANIZATION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEM

Obviously, by asking such questionsas these, organizational analysisis broughtcloser to its nearby sister discipline, political science. But this fact in turn meansthat the distinction between the two has become increasinglyconfused. The fieldof organization theory is purported to seek an explanation of the behavior of indi-viduals and groups within organizations, which are defined as systems having a"complex hierarchical structure, that operates in an amorphous environment withwhich it continually interacts."1 A political system, on the other hand, seeks toexplicate a system of behavior involving "those interactions through which valuesare authoritativelyallocated for a society."12The interchange of terms, the borrowingof ideas, and the transfer of conceptshave clouded disciplinary boundaries to such an extent that many persons havebegun to wonder if there is really any reason for maintaining the distinction. Somewritershave described the body politic simply as a special case of human organiza-tion, while others have chosen to characterizethe complex organization as a totalpolitical system.'3 This latter approach- the organizationas a political system-will provide the focus for this paper; it will be argued here that concepts organiza-tionally derived prove less than adequate when viewed as political terms. In otherwords, we will caution against the assumptionthat notions of associational behaviorcan be divorced from their disciplinary heritage. Finally, we will suggest that ananalysis of individual political interactions within the organizational setting mightprove valuable to both organizationalanalysisand political science.As Robert Dahl indicated some years ago, there are many ways to view thetheoretical relation between the organizational and the political.14 One familiarapproach to these questions views modem organizationsas political systemsof thefirst order, then seeks to apply the vocabularyof politics to the movement of theseassociations through time and space. The clarity and simplicity of this line ofreasoning has, of course, led to a proliferationof studies bound by their adherenceto a view of organizationsas governments.15An especiallylucid presentationof thisfocus is a recent and highly provocative inquiry by William Scott into severalvaluational issues posed by "Technology and Organization Government."16 Since" Richard M. Cyert and Kenneth R. MacCrimmon,"Organizations,"n Gardner Lindzeyand Ellist Aronson,Handbookof Social Psychology (2nd ed.; Reading, Massachusetts:Addison-Wesley),p. 568.1 David Easton, A SystemsAnalysisof Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965), p. 21.3For example, in a recent essay, Herbert Simon, drawingon his decision-makingapproachto organizational theory, concludes that decision-makingis not "some highly specialaspect of the political process, but... its central core." In the same volume AnatolRapoport comments,"... if political science is a scienceof organization, t will advancewhen general organizationtheory advances." See David Easton, ed., Varietiesof Politi-cal Theory (EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 15, 140-41.14Robert A. Dahl, "Businessand Politics: A Critical Appraisalof Political Science," Ameri-can PoliticalScience Review,53 (March 1959), 1-34.15For example, see RichardsEells, The Governmentof Corporations(New York: Free Pressof Glencoe, 1962); Walton Hamilton, The Politics of Industry (New York: Knopf,

1957); Grant McConnell,Private Power and AmericanDemocracy (New York: Knopf,1966), Chapter 5. For an early statement of this problem, see Charles E. Merriam,Public and Private Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944); a signifi-cantly differentbut related approach is that of James G. March, The BusinessFirm asa PoliticalCoalition,"Journalof Politics,24 (November 1962), 662-78.1 William G. Scott, "Technologyand OrganizationGovernment: A SpeculativeInquiryintothe Functionalityof ManagementCreeds,"Academy of ManagementJournal, 11 (Sep-

677


5/13

THE WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLYScott's article illustrates most vividly the problems arising from the conjunction oforganizational realities and political symbolisms,it provides an excellent point ofdeparture for a discussion of the applicability of the language of politics to therealm of the complex organization.For Scott, as well as for a long traditionof social and political scientistsbasingtheir work on Harold Lasswell's definition of politics as "who gets what, when,how," politics quite simply involves power, no more, no less.7 If politics is power,it is argued, then large and complex organizations must surely represent politicsin extreme. That is, if it is true that modern bureaucracies are vast and compre-hensive arrangementsfor the distribution of social power, a fact most difficult tocontradict, then such associations must be without question essentiallypolitical innature.'8 As complex organizationsserve not only in resource allocation, but alsoin the "authoritative allocation of values" for their membership, they developimportant political overtones.19They are, in brief, governmental systems.The logic is quite clear, yet there may be something lost in the quick transla-tion of organizationalsystemsinto political systems. True enough, politics involvespower relationships. Yet politics may also embrace much more, including forexample notions of order and community which cut across the entire range ofhuman interactions in ordered association. At the same time, however, the organi-zational has much to recommend itself; for this focus also embraces more thansimply power relationships,specifically centering on the execution of some type ofobject or product. If this is the case, organization implies action directed towarda specified object, while the political may be reservedfor those elements of actionwhich directly affect the nature of human association itself. In this way, just as theoften-sounded argument that political bodies are merely special forms of organiza-tion falls somewhat short, so the argument that organizationsare prima facie politi-cal systemsalso leaves somethingto be desired.All of this suggests that when we speak of complex organizationsas govern-mental systems,we are speakingneither of the whole range of political possibilitiesnor the entire span of organizational attributes. Rather we are focusing, foranalytic purposes alone, on a carefully limited number of special variables, thosecommon to both dimensions of inquiry. Thus, in the postulation of organizationsas governments, the eventual system is formed by the "selective perceptions" ofthe political eye as it views complex organization. This way of looking at the prob-lem of the organizationaland the political, however,means that subsidiarypoliticalconcepts, including notions such as "democracy"or "ideology" cannot be simply

tember 1968), 301-14. Scott's views are restatedwith some elaboration in William G.Scott, "OrganizationGovernment: The Prospects for a Truly Participative System,"Public AdministrationReview, 29 (January-February1969), 43-53."Harold D. Lasswell, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (New York: McGraw-Hill,1936).18 It must be remembered hat we are concentratinghere on bureaucraciesas political socie-ties rather than bureaucraciesn politicalsocieties. See footnote9 above.19David Easton, whose definition of politics is quoted here, has suggested the possibilityof"parapolitical"arrangements,similar but not identical to complete political systems.See David Easton, A Frameworkfor Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 50-56.

678


6/13

THE ORGANIZATION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEMassumed to take on the full and complete meaning in an organizationalframe thatthey might hold when used in more clearlypolitical contexts.As an illustration of possible difficulties which may arise here, we may followScott's lead in examining the question of organizational ideology. Given thetenuous analytical status of organizations as political systems, the question ofideology is first an empirical one, to be examined both in terms of its existence andits derivation. In the presentcase, the presenceof certain managerial ideologies, orat least managerial creeds,seemswell established.20Especiallyif ideology is broadlytaken to consist merely of statements of fact masking value, then the fact that thevarious mechanisms employed by management in its attempts to secure acts fromthe organization'smembers (the subjects) seem to derive from standard patternsof belief gives a strongindication of the existenceof ideology.2'

Scott's argument is of particular relevance at this point. Organizationalideologies, he suggests, have existed for many years, although they have rarelybeen recognized as such. The scientific management and human relations schoolsprovided two early but essentially similar approaches to organizational ideology,each resulting in a justificationof the management establishment. More recently,however, industrial humanism, a creed supposedly based on faith in the commonman (the worker) and aimed at an ultimate sharing of organizationalpower, hasbeen suggested as an alternative to the earlier schools. However, as Scott rightlypoints out, the promises of industrial humanism have proven greater than itsprograms and ultimately the new creed becomes a handmaiden to the technician-oriented management science and, in a larger sense, to the technical imperative,Ellul's La Technique.22The important and inescapable, yet usually neglected fact is that whatever thesubstance of these ideologies, they are necessarily imposed. That is to say, thesemanagerial creeds are neither developed nor accepted through the spontaneousparticipation of even a significant portion of the membership, much less the totalnumber. Instead, the various components of ideology are subtly taught the mem-bers by the managerial elite. (Significantly,a major portion of the ideology relatesto the matter of instruction; members are socialized into acceptable patterns ofbelief and action- and by acceptable one must mean manageriallyacceptable.23)But even the managerial elite is not fully responsiblefor the development of these0See Scott, "Technology and Organization Government," pp. 301-2. Following Scott'spractice, we will make no firm distinction between "creeds" and "ideologies." It shouldbe realized, however, that other circumstances might require greater precision. Variousmeanings of "ideology" are presented by Robert E. Lane, Political Ideology (New York:Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), pp. 13-16.2 A slightly different approach to the matter of organizational ideology is contained inAnthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), pp. 237-46. Seealso Charles Press and Alan Arian, eds., Empathy and Ideology: Aspects of Administra-tive Innovation (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966); Victor Thompson, Modern Organi-

zation (New York: Knopf, 1965), Chapter 6.Scott, "Technology and Organization Government," passim. See also Jacques Ellul, TheTechnological Society (New York: Knopf, 1965).2For the relation of learning theory to various theories of organization, see Robert B. Den-hardt, "Organizational Citizenship and Personal Freedom," Public Administration Re-view, 28 (January-February 1968), 48-52. See also the references in footnotes 3 and 4above.

679


7/13

THE WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLYcreeds; ideological schemes such as those reviewed by Scott are only rarely theproducts of effortsof active participantsin the administrativeprocess. More often,these patterns of belief are the result of social scientific inquiry within the terms ofa particular paradigm of science. The distinction is one quite similar to RobertLane's separationof "latent"and "forensic"ideologies: 24 while the manager rarelyconcentratesthe consciousconstructingof ideological systems,the analystof organi-zation puts forward highly articulate, well-structured ideas about life in organiza-tions.25

Now in terms of the persuasivenessof these types of ideologies, this conten-tion is one of seriousconsequence. For if one explores the various logical pathwaysinvolved in a view of organizationalideology as derived from social inquiry, it soonbecomes apparent that the "unnerving"conclusions reached by Scott and othersare merely symptomatic of a larger and more complex set of difficulties relateddirectly to the disciplinarystructure of organizational analysis. Iu turn, the conclu-sions of organization research- despite their profound impact on administrativebehavior--may prove less satisfactory when viewed as political ideologies oforganization governments.

IIIn The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Thomas Kuhn argues that for anyscience there exist universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time

provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners. Thesepatterns of thought, which Kuhn terms scientific "paradigms," provide modelsfrom which springparticulartraditions of scientific research.26While the paradigmserves an important function in limiting research, it may also lead to difficulties.For example, the contemporaryparadigm of organizational theory clearly restrictstheorists of organizational behavior in their consideration of certain highly value-laden topics related to organizational participation. Nowhere is this suggestionmore clearly demonstratedthan in connection with the various ideologies of man-agement. For to attempt to speak of managerial styles as political ideologies is todemand more than these constructsare intended to supply.Speaking more broadly, practically any speculation into political questionswhich begins with the paradigm of organizational analysisseemsquite limited fromthe outset. For in the beginning the subject of the inquiry is defined in such a wayas to preclude "democratic"types of conclusions. Organizationalbehavior is takento be that human behavior takingplace within the confinesof organization; organi-

24Lane, op. cit., p. 16.Some might argue here that, at least in theory, these important belief-sets are not directorsof action, as the term ideology implies, but simply reflectors of prior behavior. Inreality, however, this is not the case, as we shall see momentarily. For a comment on theinterplay of theory and ideology, see Thomas P. Jenkin, The Study of Political Theory(New York: Random House, 1963), pp. 10-11.2Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Phoenix Books, 1962),passim. For an application of Kuhn's ideas to the study of organization, see MartinLandau, "Sociology and the Study of Formal Organization," in Dwight Waldo andMartin Landau, The Study of Organizational Behavior: Status, Problems, and Trends,Papers in Comparative Administration, No. 8 (Washington: American Society forPublic Administration, 1966).

680


8/13

THE ORGANIZATION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEMzation is in turn defined in highly authoritarian terms, involving notions such assuperiordomination, hierarchicalpatterns of authority, and a view of organizationas a method or instrument. Obviously, assuming this basic orientation, it becomesextremely improbable if not in fact impossible for the theorist of organization todepart significantly from this pattern, for instance, in the direction of increasedorganizational "democracy." As Michels so rightly commented, organizationmeans oligarchy, the dominance of a small elite over a larger, but subordinate,mass.27 By limiting the focus of the discipline, the paradigm of organizationalanalysis automatically restricts the obtainable results to notions of highly struc-tured rule.

Clearly this argument should not be construed as a condemnation of currentefforts in organizational research. Quite to the contrary, the existence and guid-ance of a standardparadigm has proven invaluable in the development of the disci-pline; by suggesting problems and by focusing on important topics, the paradigmhas considerably aided the increase in our knowledge of organizational behavior.The point here is simply that the discipline is not equipped to handle certain typesof questions. This being the case, to say that the resulting theories are somewhatless than ideal when viewed as political ideologies and judged by the standardsofdemocratic theory is no more than we should expect. Research performed undera set of assumptions inherently justifying managerial domination could hardly beexpected to reach any other conclusion and should not be expected to match theevaluative requirementsof democracy. Ultimately, scientific management, humanrelations, industrial humanism, or a combination of these are essentiallyvariationson a single theme, a paradigm of social thought based on the power of the mana-gerial elite.While the argument presented here suggestsone explanation of this phenome-non, there are still several important pieces of the puzzle missing. First, we mustreturn to the frequent objection that students of organizational behavior are pri-marily concerned with the objective analysis of organizational behavior, that theydo not deal in prescription. This suggestion may be commented upon from severalstandpoints. First, concealed beneath the trappings of the scientific method, thereis without question a strong undercurrent of normative thought dealing withorganizational behavior. (We should note that the same argument has been usedwith reference to political scientistswho have discoveredpluralist power structuresin American cities.) A number of recent writershave commented on the "health"of various types of organizations.28Such a clinical approach to social inquiry is,of course, a most legitimate exercise in scientific analysis, yet it should be under-stood carefully before being either undertaken or condemned.29 Above all, thepotentialities of organizationmust not be confused in any sense with the realitiesofsuch association.27Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the OligarchicalTendencies ofModernDemocracy,rans.Edenand CedarPaul (Glencoe:FreePress,1915).28See, for example,WarrenG. Bennis,ChangingOrganizationsNewYork: McGraw-Hill,1966), Chapter3.29The clinical raditionn socialresearchs long-standing. ee EmileDurkheim,The Rulesof Sociological Method, trans. S. A. Solovay and J.J. Mueller, ed. G. E. G. Catlin(Glencoe:FreePress,1950), esp.Chapter II.

681


9/13

THE WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLYSecondly, while most students of organizationalbehavior attempt to maintainthe utmost objectivity in their research, they cannot control its use. The resultsof the research, it turns out, do react back upon organizational behavior, if onlyin the sense that practitioners (or applied scientists) make use of the derivativesof this knowledge.30 In other words, the results of scholarly research become animportant part of the intellectual environment within which management mustoperate. Whatever its successes or failures, the well-known application of Mac-Gregor's Theory Y in the Non-Linear Systems company provides an excellentillustration of the way organizationsadopt new "ideologies."1Finally, it is important to realize that in all these undertakings,there is a stronglimiting factor, the demands and assumptions of the disciplinary paradigm. Nodoubt industrial humanism, for example, is sincere in its desire for individual self-

actualization and personal development; yet again by the nature of the disciplinethis utopianism must have limits, the limits of increased profit, performance, ormanagerial discretion.32 Disregard for these organizational limits would implythe analyst's disavowal of the accepted paradigm. Of course, there is nothingnecessarilyinconsistent in this position; indeed it is essential in scientific advance.However, new advances in organizational analysis hardly seem to amount toKuhn's "scientificrevolutions."33III

The implications of this reasoning for political science are many. To suggestthat organizationalanalysisis somewhat limited in its considerationof the politicalside of man's involvement in complex organizations is in no way to negate theimportance of the effort, for the transfer of notions of political order to the realmof organization implies a much broader concern for the political nature of life inorganizations. There is in such attempts an implicit acknowledgementthat, withinthe setting of modem bureaucracy, there is much that transcends the organiza-tional effort and is basically political. Admittedly, most of what occurs here isrelated strictly to organization- rational achievement through cooperative effort-yet much also deals more broadly with politics- the associative ordering ofman's existence. To the extent that political as well as organizationalactivitiesmaybe extracted from the same institutional complex, the political and the organiza-tional viewpoints may be viewed as coequal dimensions of analysis, each focusingon those events which prove important to its own concerns, and each applying itsown relevant standardsof judgment.

Certainly the interplay of organizational goals and bureaucratic rationalityprovides an instructive commentary on this latter problem. In the view of con-30Scott's conclusions are of particular relevance here. Scott, "Technology and OrganizationGovernment," p. 314.' Arthur H. Kuriloff, "An Experiment in Management," Personnel, 40 (November 1963),8-17.82Strauss has criticized new schools of managerial thought for exceeding these limits. SeeGeorge Strauss, "Some Notes on Power Equalization," in Harold J. Leavitt, ed., TheSocial Science of Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 53-57.3Kuhn, op. cit., Chapter 9. These new forces may, on the other hand, indicate conditionsof anomaly.

682


10/13

THE ORGANIZATION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEMtemporary organization theory, man alone is viewed as essentially limited, posses-sing only "bounded rationality."34 Only through his participation in organizedendeavor can the individual approximate any sort of rational existence. Thus, the"rational individual is, and must be, an organized and institutionalized indi-vidual."35 Yet the rationality in which the member of organization participatesis neither that of the whole social order nor that of the individual's total lifeinvolvements. That is, this rationality is not that defined in terms of what reasonmay dictate for society, even assumingan ultimate value of technological progress.At the same time, this rationality is not extended to the member's other, non-organizational activies. The individual is made more rational only in his limitedabstract role as an organizationalmember.The rationality of bureaucracy is then internal to itself and is measured interms of efficiency, a relationship between that which is sought and that which isachieved. Because of this, a prerequisite of such rationality is a specified organi-zational goal, an end against which accomplishment may be measured. Again,there is no necessity that this goal or direction coincide with that of the politicalwhole; indeed, it may be in complete opposition to the existing political order.(As Lenin demonstrated so clearly, organization can serve the ends of revolutionas well as those of stability.36) Ultimately, as the study of organizationbecomes astudy of a self-containedrational efficiency,there is no need to considerthe broadereffects on either societyor the individual.Obviously, this type of restrictionis one under which political analysis cannotafford to operate, for this is a mode of thought offered as expanding to the wholeof the social order and to the full extent of the individual's associational involve-ments. Yet, just as organizationalanalysishas been restrainedby its own paradigmof thought from investigatingcertain aspects of personal participation in organizedlife, so has political science tended to neglect these same considerations thoughfor different reasons. The discipline has quite simply been unable to generalizebeyond the limiting focus of its own thinking.

Traditionally, the study of politics has been conceived as one related to actionwithin a particularinstitutionalsetting, typically that of the state. That is, politicalbehavior has been defined as that behavior taking place within the environmentprovided by public government. The ancient Greek conception of politics, forexample, was limited to those problemsof order involving the common interestsofall members of the society. Since these common interests were vested solely in theinstitution of the city-state, it was only in reference to that special conglomeratethat politics had meaning. Political action could only be defined through its situa-tional context and in the Greekworld, the only accepted context for political actionwas the city-state. In response to changing space-time necessities,however, politi-cal discourse was soon transformed n such a way as to include other environmentalframeworks, such as the empire or nation-state. Changing conditions and newpatternsof life made necessarynew conceptionsof that which was to be considered34Herbert Simon, Models of Man (New York: Wiley, 1957), p. 198.35Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (2nd ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1958), p. 102.'3This aspect of Levin's work is considered by Wolin, op. cit., pp. 421-29.

683


11/13

THE WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLYpolitical yet the change was not one of redefining politics, but rather one of relo-cating it.

Despite the assumption of varied environmental settings within which actionwould be designated as political, the orientation of nearly all political commenta-tors prior to the twentieth century was alike in the adoption of an institutionallybased aproach to the subject of political action. A significant corrollary to thisdemarcation of the political was, in most cases, the view that one and only oneinstitution, broadly defined as public government, could properly be consideredthe framework within which political action was to be operative. It is this latterqualification which modem political analysis has strikinglyviolated. In this con-text, David Easton has commented:Although in the past, political science was able to define an institutional area of interest dis-tinct from the other disciplines,it had difficultyin showingthat its understandingof politicalphenomena possesseda theoretical coherence as isolable as political interactionsthemselves.Moder theory has had to do preciselythat in order to establish its own validity and justifyits own existenceas an area of enquiry. In other words one of the major tasks of theoryhasbeen to identify a set of behaviors that is could describe as political, and, in the process,toconstruct an analytic systemor a theorythat would help to explain the behavioralreality."

In reorienting the disciplinary focus, contemporary political theorists havesought to develop definitional constructsbased on an understandingof "the politi-cal act," usually one performed in "power perspectives"or one associated with the"authoritative allocation of values."38 This suggests that it may now be possiblefor political science to focus its full analytical potential on the problems of man'sparticipation in organized groupings lying outside the realm of public government.No longer must political analysis be restricted to cases of organization directly con-nected with the state, i.e., public administrative bodies or legislative systems; it maynow extend as well to man's involvement in numerous other associations such ascorporate or voluntary organizations. In these contexts as well as in those morefamiliar to the political scientists, actions are performed with overtones of powerand relate to the allocation of values. Here also special modes of political activityarise and become appropriate subjects of inquiry for students of politics.

Recognizing that politics occurs in many settings, there seems much to begained from a political analysis of organizational involvement- just as muchhas already been gained from organizational studies of political structures.39 Bothas a theoretical concern and as a focus for behavioral research, this approach offersseveral potentially productive areas. Among these, aspects of politics in organiza-tions might be viewed with reference to the particular "civic culture" (i.e., theculture of organization) in which they reside.40 Certainly the organizational settingdescribed here and elsewhere presents a variety of distinct and distinctive culturalattributes which impinge on those aspects of associative behavior which may be3 David Easton, "Alternative Strategies in Theoretical Research," in Easton, Varieties of

Political Theory, p. 5.38See footnotes 17 and 19 above.39As just one of the many contributions in the latter direction, note the organizationalapproachto the studyof political partiesused by SamuelJ. Eldersveld,Political Parties:A Behavioral Analysis (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964).40Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1963).

684


12/13

THE ORGANIZATION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEMabstracted as political. For this reason,we would expect that such political actionswould be clearly related to the normativeand behavioral characterof bureaucracy.For example, it might be noted that exercises of personalpolitical power are highlydifferentiated in interpersonalexchanges taking place in the organizationalsetting.Or one might ask whether the values of creative citizenshipare fosteredor hinderedby man's involvement in rigorous and impersonalized institutional forms such asthat typically presented by bureaucracy? In any case, to determine in which waysthe organizational influences tend to mold the political processes in bureaucraticsettingsshould prove a revealing enterprise.Such an inquiry might, of course, be broadened to comment on the broadinteraction of organizational and political values, especially with respect to thelearning process. For example, socialization research relating to such matters aspolitical authority might well be extended to include some consideration of thelearning of organizational authority as well. A significant question might be theextent to which somewhat parallel socialization experiences tend to reinforce orcontradict one another. That is, we might ask whether a strengthenedorientationtoward bureaucraticauthoritymight carryover into a deepened respect for regimeauthority.41 In a similar vein, one might well ask whether the inculcation ofbureaucratic norms, especially those associated with elitism and hierarchy, acts tosubvert the learning of more democratic political forms. There is every indicationthat organizational involvement and political participation are closely related, yetthere has been little study of the personal factors capable of explaining thisrelationship.

Finally, assuming the relevance of organizational norms to those of politics,the political theorist must ask how notions such as pluralism or even democracyitself are affected by various types of nongovernmental institutional structures. Sofar this question has been approached by political scientists largely from the stand-point of specifying environmental influences on the governmental process. That is,this field has been dominated by such concerns as the impact of the group on thepolitical structure or the role of the large organization in shaping public policy.42What has been neglected has been the political status of the active individual inrelation to others, to relevant organizations, and eventually to the state. To exploresuch topics, it may be necessary to expand notions of political order and especiallydemocratic citizenship to nontraditional areas. That is, theories of democracy mayhave to be broadened in such a way as to include aspects of power and decision-making in organizations as well as in the state. In relation to their members, cor-porations and other large organizations might then be considered direct contribu-tors to the political process and therefore subject to critique on the grounds ofdemocratic theory as well as organizational efficiency.43 Only under these circum-41For an intriguing commentary on this problem, see Robert A. LeVine, "The Internatiza-

tion of Political Values in Stateless Societies," Human Organization, 19 (Summer1960), 51-58. See also Denhardt, "Bureaucratic Socialization," toc. cit.42 For example, see David A. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951)."3Peter Bachrach has written, "It would be ludicrous to argue that the highly complex,mammoth, industrial corporate structure should or could be organized with the soleobjective of conforming to democratic norms. It would be equally ludicrous to contendthat economic efficiency should be the sole criterion by which to judge the performance

685


13/13

THE WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLYstanceswould we be led to such evaluative questionsas whether a system containinga predominance of elitist institutionsin capable of complete democracyor how thecitizenship role may be expanded in light of changing institutional restrictions.Through all of this, however, we must realize that there are inherent differencesinthe perspectives provided by the organizational and the political, that each worksfrom the basisof its own special interest and is directed and limited by it adherenceto this pattern.

of a politico-economic institution." Peter Bachrach, "Corporate Authority and Demo-cratic Theory," in David Spitz, ed., Political Theory and Social Change (New York:Atherton Press, 1967), p. 269. See also Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic Elitism(Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), esp. pp. 101-6.

686

The Organizations as a Political System

Documents