SOCIOL 302: The Sociology of Organizations

Spring 2018
Monday/Wednesday 9:30-10:50, 555 Clark Street B03

Instructor Graduate Teaching Assistants

Craig M. Rawlings, Associate Professor of Instruction Anna Michelson
Office Hours: M/W 3:00-4:00; Mariana Oliver
And by appointment! Office Hours: TBA
craig.rawlings@northwestern.edu
Office: 1810 Chicago Ave., Rm. 228

Description: Organizations permeate our lives. Most of our waking hours are spent participating in
various types of formal organizations. We typically begin our lives in hospitals, and often end our days in
nursing homes; in between, we generally go to schools, and work, work, work. While we desperately
want to join some organizations (e.g. Northwestern – go Cats!), we also really hope to avoid others (e.g.
prison). And yet, we don’t often think about how organizations shape who we are. Instead, we tend to
become aware of organizations only when they seem to interfere with our lives (“What?! I have to go to
the DMV?!”).

Where do organizations come from? What accounts for organizational success and failure? How can we
make organizations better for individuals and society? This course will start to answer these questions by
getting you to think analytically about organizations. It is primarily a theory class. It is not a course on
practical leadership or managerial skills, and it probably won’t make you a great entrepreneur (but it
might help!). This is a course aimed at getting you to think like an organizational sociologist and,
consequently, to improve your critical thinking skills. Readings and lectures will present different
theoretical paradigms about how sociologists think about organizations, often with contrasting
assumptions and conclusions. We will be examining three main theoretical frameworks – sometimes
called the “rational,” “natural,” and “open” systems approaches – that present very different
understandings of organizations.

By the end of the quarter, you will be able to think analytically about organizations from these different
and sometimes competing perspectives. You should be able to analyze and diagnose problems in the same
organizations from each of the three theoretical perspectives and derive different strategies and
recommendations for improving organizational performance. This should enable you to think about how
you might better survive and thrive in our organizational world!

Readings: All readings will be available through Canvas as PDFs or links to websites.

Requirements: (1) Keep up with the reading and participate in active lectures – otherwise, you won’t
be able to make much sense of the readings in terms of the main course themes; (2) Demonstrate that you
have understood the theoretical frameworks and can apply them appropriately to make sense of
organizational phenomena.

Assessments: Requirement (1) will be assessed by a number of short written assignments done prior to
and during lectures, as well as your attendance and participation in active lectures. Once each week, you
will need to upload a brief of one of the starred readings from the popular press. Details of the brief
format will discussed in class. I will reserve a small amount of the participation points as a subjective
measure of your overall engagement in lectures to be used in the event that your final grade is on the
border of a higher grade – i.e. students who have been particularly engaged will be given up to a 1
percentage point bump based on exemplary participation. In addition, I will give two opportunities to gain
extra credit or make up for potential losses in participation points due to illness or conflicting obligations.

(2) In the first week or so, you will pick a specific work group/team in an organizational setting where
you have some personal experience and that you think is interesting or may be important to you
personally or professionally. Premed students might consider a hospital where they have worked or are a
volunteer. Athletes might choose their own team. Others might choose a campus student group, a
religious organization, a summer camp, a corporation, a non-profit organization. You will use this as the
basis of three case study write-ups that will be handed in with take-home exams.

Grades are computed as follows: Participation is 25%; Take-Home Midterm/Case Study #1 is 20%;
Take-Home Midterm/Case Study #2 is 25%; Take-Home Midterm/Case Study #3 is 30%.

A Note on Reading Academic Journal Articles: Some of the readings are from academic journals.
These often include detailed descriptions of data and methods, which you are not expected to understand
in any detail. Please feel free to skim over these, and to concentrate instead on the theoretical and
substantive conclusions.

Other things to keep in mind:

 Late assignments will not be accepted.

 All assignments should be double-spaced, with 12-point font, and 1-inch margins.
 All assignments are individually written. Feel free to study together; but all written work handed
in must be your own.
 The internet has changed the nature of academic misconduct and led to more “borderline cases.”
Suspected violations of academic integrity will be reported to the Dean’s Office. For more
information on Northwestern University’s academic integrity policies, please see
http://www.weinberg.northwestern.edu/handbook/integrity/index.html.

Additional Resources:

Any student requesting accommodations related to a disability or other condition is required to register
with AccessibleNU (accessiblenu@northwestern.edu; 847-467-5530) and provide professors with an
accommodation notification from AccessibleNU, preferably within the first two weeks of class. All
information will remain confidential.
 Topics and Readings (Subject to Change with Advance Notice):

I. Why Study Organizations? The Social Scientific Approach (Week 1)

Tolbert, Pamela and Richard Hall. 2009. Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (10th Ed.),
Chapter 1: “Thinking About Organizations”
Paul Du Gay, In Praise of Bureaucracy “The Anti-Bureaucrats: Critics of Management as Heirs of
Religion and Romance”
*New York Times, 2017. “What Happens When You Fight a ‘Deep State’ That Doesn’t Exist.”

II. Organizations as Rational Systems (Weeks 2-3)

A. An Introduction

Tolbert and Hall, Chapter 2: “Organizational Structure: Key Dimensions”

Perrow, Charles S. 1972. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ch. 1,
“Why Bureaucracy?”
*Moskowitz, Tobias and L. Jon Wertheim. 2012. “Are the Chicago Cubs Cursed?” in Scorecasting
*New York Times, 2016. “Cubs, Nerds, and ‘True Baseball’.”

B. The Rationalization Process

Tolbert and Hall, pp. 44-57

*Kuper, Simon, and Stefan Szmanski. 2009. “Why England Loses and Others Win” in Soccernomics
*Lewis, Michael. 2003. “The Science of Winning an Unfair Game” in Moneyball

C. The Limits of Rational Systems

March, James & Herbert Simon. “Bounded Rationality and Satisficing”

Leidner, Robin. Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life, selections.
*New York Times, 2016. “Doctors Unionize to Resist the Medical Machine”

III. Organizations as Natural Systems (Weeks 4-6)

A. An Introduction: Human Relations and the Discovery of Informal Structure

Tolbert and Hall, pp. 89-107

Burawoy, Michael. 1979. “The Labor Process as a Game.” In Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the
Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism.
*New York Times. “Need Better Morale in the Workplace? Simulate a Plane Crash”
*Berstein, Ross. 2006. “Forward by Tony Twist” and “Why Is There Fighting in Pro Hockey?” In The
Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL

B. Organizational Change and Adaptation

Tolbert and Hall, pp. 204-209

Gouldner, Alvin. 1954. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press. Ch. 4 & 5.
Zald, Mayer N. and Patricia Denton. 1963. "From Evangelism to General Service: The Transformation of
the YMCA." Administrative Science Quarterly 8:214-234.
*New York Times, 2016. “Wounded Warrior Project’s Board Fires Top Two Executives.”
C. Organizational Culture

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1968. “Commitment and Social Organization: A Study in Commitment
Mechanisms in Utopian Communities.” American Sociological Review 33: 499-517.
Fleming, Peter and Andrew Sturdy. 2009. “’Just Be Yourself!’: Towards Neo-Normative Control in
Organisations?” Empoloyee Relations 31:569-83.
*NPR. 2016. “Former Wells Fargo Employee Describes Toxic Sales Culture, Even at HQ.”
*New York Times. 2017. “‘It Was a Frat House’: Inside the Sex Scandal that Toppled SoFi’s C.E.O.”

IV. Organizations as Open Systems (Weeks 7-10)

A. Introduction

Tolbert and Hall Chapter 8: “Managing Organizational Environments: Conceptions of the Environment”
Peterson, Richard and David Berger. “Cycles in Symbol Production: The Case of Popular Music”
*The Globe and Mail. “Shifting NHL Culture Knocks Enforcers Down For the Count”
*New York Times, 2015. “Silicon Valley Tries to Alter Your Perception of Cannabis.”

B. Resource Dependency Theory

Tolbert and Hall Chapter 4: “Power and Power Outcomes”

*Vanity Fair. 2016. “How Theranos Won Over Arizona Republicans”
*New York Times. 2017. “Is It Last Call for Craft Beer?”

C. Organizational Ecology

Carroll, Glenn, and Michael T. Hannan. 2000. “Density-Dependent Processes I” In The Demography of
Corporations and Industries.
Carroll, Glenn and Anand Swaminathan. 2000. "Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational
Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the American Brewing Industry." American Journal of
Sociology 106:715-65.
*New York Times 2015. “Silicon Valley Tries to Alter Your Perception of Cannabis.”
*NPR. 2017. “Applebee’s Gives Up On Millenials After Failed Rebranding Efforts.”
*New York Times 2015. “Yoplait Learns to Manufacture Authenticity to Go With Its Yogurt.”

D. Neoinstitutional Theory

Tolbert and Hall, Pp. 58-67

Lom, Stacy. 2015. “Changing Rules, Changing Practices: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Tight
Coupling in Figure Skating” Organization Science
Bielby, William T., and Denis Bielby. 1994. “‘All Hits Are Flukes’: Institutionalized Decision Making
and the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program Development.” American Journal of Sociology
99: 1287-1313
*New York Times. 2018. “Success of Russia’s Female Figure Skaters Takes a Toll in Injuries and Stress”
*New York Times. 2018. “The Misguided Drive to Measure Learning Outcomes”
*New York Times. 2017. “To Be A Genius: Think Like A 94-Year-Old”
*New York Times, 2015. “Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity.”
 Schedule of lectures and readings (subject to change if we get behind or ahead):

Week Dates Topics Readings Due Dates

4/3 Welcome. Why Study Organizations? T&H: Ch. 1;
The Social Scientific Approach to Organizations Du Gay;
4/4 Rational Systems: An Introduction NTY – Deep State
T&H: Ch. 2;
1
Perrow;
Wertheim & Moskowitz;
NYT – Cubs

4/10 Rational Systems: The Rationalization Process T&H: 44-57;

4/12 Rational Systems: The Limits of Rational Systems Kuper & Szymanski;
Lewis; March & Simon;
2
Leidner;
NYT – Hospitalists

4/17 Natural Systems: An Introduction T&H: 89-107;

4/19 NYT – Better Morale;
3 Natural Systems: Informal Structures Burowoy; 4/23: 11:59 p.m.
Berstein Exam/Write-Up #1

4/24 Natural Systems: Survival, Adaptation & Change T&H: 204-209;

4/26 Gouldner;
4 Zald & Denton;
NYT – Wounded Warrior Project

4/31 Natural Systems: Organizational Culture Fleming & Sturdy;

Kanter;
5 5/2
NPR – Wells Fargo;
NYT – SoFi
5/7 Open Systems: Environments; T&H: Ch. 8;
5/9 Peterson & Berger;
6 Open Systems: Sociological Accounts Globe & Mail – Enforcers 5/12: 11:59 p.m.
Exam/Write-Up #2
5/14 Open Systems: Resource Dependency; T&H: Ch. 4;
5/16 Vanity Fair – Theranos;
NYT – Craft Beer

Open Systems: Population Ecology Carroll & Hannan;

7
Carroll & Swaminathan;
NYT—Cannabis;
NYT—Yogurt;
NPR—Applebee’s

5/21 Open Systems: Neoinstitutional Theory T&H: 58-67;

5/23 Bielby & Bielby;
8 Lom;
NYT – Learning Outcomes

5/28 Memorial Day (No Class)

9 5/30
Open Systems: Neoinstitutional Theory NYT – Genius and Age;
6/4 Course Wrap-Up NYT – Harvard Business School

10 6/11: 11:59 p.m.

Exam/Write-Up #3