46                 MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
of the personnel. The limiting case of noncoo^eration is declining to continue employment in the organization, a case of fay no means negligible importance where a free labor market exists. But short of this, relative to the goals of the organization, it is reasonable to postulate an inherent centrifugal tendency of subunits of the organization, a tendency reflecting pulls deriving from the personalities of the participants, from the special adaptive exigencies of their particular job situations, and possibly from other sources.
In this situation the management of the organization must, to some degree, take or be ready to take measures to counteract the centrifugal pull, to keep employment turnover at least down to tolerable levels, and internally to bring the performances of subunits and individuals more closely into line with the requirements of the organization than would otherwise be the case. These measures can take any one or a combination of three fundamental forms: (1) coercion—in that penalties for nončo-operation ace set, (2) inducement—in that rewards for valued performance
are instituted; and (3) ^therapy"—in that by a complex and judicious
combination of measures the motivational ^obstacles to satisfactory cooperation are dealt with on a level which "goes behind" the overt ostensible reasons given for the difficulty by the persons involved.0 .
9 The famous phenomenon of restriction of production in the informal group as reported by F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson (Management and the Worker [Cambridge, Mass., 1939], pt. iv) is a case of relative failure of integration and hence, from one point of view, of failure of management in the function of coordination. It could be handled, from the present point of view, neither by policy decisions (e.g., not to hire "uncooperative workers") nor by aliocative decisions (e.g., to hold the shop boss strictly responsible for meeting high production quotas), but only by decisions of coordination, presumably including "therapeutic" measures.
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND PERSONALITY
KUREATJCRATIC STRUCTURE AIND PERSONALITY
Robert K. Merton
A formal, rationally organized social structure involves clearly defined patterns of activity in which, ideally, every series of actions is functionally related to the purposes of the organization.1 In such an organization there is integrated a series of offices, of hierarchized statuses, in which inhere a number of obligations and privileges closely defined by limited and specific rules. Each of these offices contains an area of imputed competence and responsibility. Authority, the power of control which derives from an acknowledged status, inheres in the office and not in the particular person who performs the official role. Official action ordinarily occurs within the framework of pre-existing rules of the organization. The system of prescribed relations between the various offices involves a considerable degree of formality and clearly defined social distance between the occupants of these positions. Formality is manifested by means of a more or less complicated social ritual which symbolizes and supports the pecking order of the various offices. Such formality, which is integrated with the distribution of authority within the system, serves to minimise friction by largely restricting (official) contact to modes which are previously defined by the rules of the organization. Ready calculability of others' behavior and a stable set of mutual expectations is thus built up. Moreover, formality facilitates the interaction of the occupants of offices despite their (possibly hostile) private attitudes toward one another. In this way, the subordinate is protected from the arbitrary action of his superior, since
Reprinted with permission of The Macmitlan Company from Social Theory and Social Structure by Robert K. Merton, rev. ed., pp. 195-206. Copyright 1957 by The Free Press, a Corporation; Copyright 1949 by The Free Press. *För a deVeiöpmont öf tfe« ootioopf «f "rntional ornaniaation," see Karl Mannheim, Mensch und Gesellschaft im Zeitalter des Umbaus (Leiden: A. W. Sijtnoff, 1935), esp. 28 ff.
48                MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
the actions of both are constrained by a mutually recognized set of rules. Specific procedural devices foster objectivity and restrain the "quick passage of impulse into action."2
THE STRUCTURE OF BUREAUCRACY
The ideal type of such formal organization is bureaucracy and, in many respects, the classical analysis of bureaucracy is that by Max Weber.3 As Weber indicates, bureaucracy involves a clear-cut division of integrated activities which are regarded as duties inherent in the office, A system of differentiated controls and sanctions is stated in the regulations. The assignment of roles occurs on the basis of technical qualifications which are ascertained through formalized, impersonal procedures (e.g., examinations). Within the structure of hierarchically arranged authority, the activities of "trained and salaried experts" are governed by general, abstract, and clearly defined rules which preclude the necessity for the issuance of specific instructions for each specific case. The generality of the rules requires the constant use of categorization, whereby individual problems and cases are classified on the basis of designated criteria and are treated
accordingly.   The  pure   type  of bureaucratic  official  is   appointed,   either
by a superior or through the exercise of impersonal competition; he is not elected. A measure of flexibility in the bureaucracy is attained by electing higher functionaries who presumably express the will of the electorate (e.g., a body of citizens or a board of directors). The election of higher officials is designed to affect the purposes of the organization, but the technical procedures for attaining these ends are carried out by continuing bureaucratic personnel.4
Most bureaucratic offices involve the expectation of life-long tenure, in the absence of disturbing factors which may decrease the size of the organization. Bureaucracy maximizes vocational security.15 The function of security of tenure, pensions, incremental salaries and regularized procedures for promotion is to ensure the devoted performance of official
SH. D. Lasswell, Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936), 120-121.
3 Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922), Pt. Ill, chap. 6; 650-678. For a brief summary of Weber's discussion, see Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Sochi Action, esp. 506 if. For a description, which is not a caricature, of the bureaucrat as a personality type, see C. Rabany, "Les types sociaux: Ie fonctionnaire," Revue generale ď administration, 1907, 88, 5-28.
4 Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia (New York: Harcourt, 1936), 18n., 105 if. See also Ramsay Muir, Peers and Bureaucrats (London:   Constable,  1910),  12-13.
5 E. G. Cnhen-Salvador suggests that the personnel of bureaucracies is largely constituted by those who value security above all else. See his "La situation materielle et morale des fonctionnaires," Revue politique et parlementaire (1926), 319.

m
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND PERSONALITY                49
duties, without regard for extraneous pressures." The chief merit of bureaucracy is its technical efficiency, with a premium placed on precision, speed, expert control, continuity, discretion, and optimal returns on input. The structure is one which approaches the complete elimination of personalized relationships and nonrational considerations (hostility, anxiety, affectual involvements, etc.)
With increasing bureaucratization, it becomes plain to all who would j»,    see that man is to a very important degree controlled by his social rela-H    tions to the instruments of production. This can no longer seem only a tenet of Marxism, but a stubborn fact to be acknowledged by all, quite apart from their ideological persuasion. Bureaucratization makes readily visible what was previously dim and obscure. More and more people discover that to work, they must be employed. For to work, one must have tools and equipment. And the tools and equipment are increasingly available only in bureaucracies, private or public. Consequently, one must e~    be employed by the bureaucracies in order to have access to tools in If    order to work in order to live. It is in this sense that bureaucratization H_   entails separation of individuals from the instruments of production, as in modern capitalistic enterprise or in state communistic enterprise (of the midcentury variety), just as in the post-feudal army, bureaucratization entailed complete separation from the instruments of destruction. Typically, the worker no longer owns his tools nor the soldier, his weapons. And in this special sense, more and more people become workers, either blue collar or white collar or stiff shirt. So develops, for example, the new type of scientific worker, as the scientist is "separated" from his technical equipment—after all, the physicist does not ordinarily own his cyclotron. To work at his research, he must be employed by a bureaucracy with
laboratory resources.
Bureaucracy is administration which almost completely avoids public discussion of its techniques, although there may occur public discussion of its policies.7 This secrecy is confined neither to public nor to private bureaucracies. It is held to be necessary to keep valuable information from private economic competitors or from foreign and potentially hostile political groups. And though it is not often so called, espionage among competitors is perhaps as common, if not as intricately organized, in systems of private economic enterprise as in systems of national states. Cost figures, lists of clients, new technical processes, plans for production
eH. J. Laski, "Bureaucracy," Encyclopedia of the  Social Sciences.  This  article  is written primarily from the standpoint of the political scientist rather than that of the
sociologist.
' Weber, op. cit., 671.
50               MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
—all these are typically regarded as essential secrets of private economic bureaucracies which might be revealed if the bases of all decisions and policies had to be publicly defended,
THE DYSFUNCTIONS OF BUREAUCRACY
In these bold outlines, the positive attainments and functions of bureaucratic organization are emphasized and the internal stresses and strains of such structures are almost wholly neglected. The community at large, however, evidently emphasizes (he imperfections of bureaucracy, as is suggested by the fact that the "horrid hybrid," bureaucrat, has become an epithet, a Schimpfwort.
The transition to a study of the negative aspects of bureaucracy is afforded by the application of Veblen's concept of "trained incapacity," Dewey's notion of "occupational psychosis" or Warnotte's view of "professional tdeformation." Trained incapacity refers to that state of affairs in which 'one's abilities function as inadequacies or blind spots. Actions based upon training and skills which have jbeen successfully applied in the past may result in inappropriate responses under changed conditions. An inadequate flexibility in the application of skills, will, in a changing milieu, result in more or less serious maladjustments.8 Thus, to adopt a barnyard illustration used in this connection by Burke, chickens may be readily conditioned to interpret the sound of a bell as a signal for food. The same bell may now be used to summon the trained chickens to their doom as they are assembled to suffer decapitation. In general, otie adopts measures in keeping with one's past training and, under new conditions which are not recognized as significantly different, the very soundness of this training may lead to the adoption of the wrong procedures. Again, in Burke's almost echolalic phrase, "people may be unfitted by being fit in an unfit fitness"; their training may become an incapacity.
Dewey's concept of occupational psychosis rests upon much the same observations. As a result of their day to day; routines, people develop special preferences, antipathies, discriminations and emphases." (The term psychosis is used by Dewey to denote a "pronounced character of the mind.") These psychoses develop through demands put upon the individual by the particular organization of his occupational role.
The concepts of both Veblen and Dewey refer to a fundamental
s For a stimulating discussion and application of these concepts, see Kenneth Burke, Permanence  and  Change   (New  York:   New Republic,   1935),  pp.   50  ff.;  Daniel Warnotte, "Bureaucratie et Fonctionnarisme," Revue de ['Institut de Sociologie, 1937, 17, 245. 9 Ibid., 58-59.
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND PERSONALITY               51
ambivalence. Any action can be considered in terms of what it attains or what it fails to attain. "A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing— a focus upon object A involves a neglect of object B."10 In his discussion, Weber is almost exclusively concerned with what the bureaucratic structure attains: precision, reliability, efficiency. This same structure may be examined from another perspective provided by the ambivalence. What are the limitations of the organizations designed to attain these goals?
For reasons which we have already noted, the bureaucratic structure exerts a constant pressure upon the official to be "methodical, prudent, disciplined." Tf the bureaucracy is to operate successfully, it must attain a high degree of reliability of behavior, an unusual degree of conformity with prescribed patterns of action. Hence, the fundamental importance of discipline which may be as highly developed in a religious or economic bureaucracy as in the army. Discipline can be effective only if the ideal patterns are buttressed by strong sentiments which entail devotion to one's duties, a keen sense of the limitation of one's authority and competence, and methodical performance of routine activities. The efficacy of social structure depends ultimately upon infusing group participants with appropriate attitudes and sentiments. As we shall see, there are definite arrangements in the bureaucracy for inculcating and reinforcing these sentiments.
At the moment, it suffices to observe that in order to ensure dis-
- cipline (the necessary reliability of response), these sentiments .are often more intense than is technically necessary. There is a margin of safety, so to speak, iti the pressure exerted by these sentiments upon the bureau-
" erat to conform to his patterned obligations, in much the same sense that added allowances (precautionary overestimations) are made by the engi-
' neer in designing the supports for a bridge. But this very emphasis leads to a transference of the sentiments from the aims of the organization onto the particular details of behavior required by the rules. Adherence to the rules, originally conceived as a means, becomes transformed into an end-in-itself; there occurs the familiar process of displacement of goals whereby "an instrumental value becomes a terminal value."11 Discipline,
w Ibid., 70. . "This process has often been observed in various connections. Wundt's heterogony 1 of ends is a case in point; Max Weber's Paradoxic der Folgen is another. See also '<- Maclver's observations on the transformation of civilization into culture and Lasswell's *, remark that "the human animal distinguishes himself by his infinite capacity for - making ends of his means." See Merton, "The unanticipated consequences of pur-%posive social action," American Sociological Review, 1936, 1, 894-904. In terms of * the psychological mechanisms involved, this process has been analyzed most fully by Gordon W. Allport, in his discussion of what he calls "the functional autonomy of motives." Allport emends the earlier formulations of Woodworth, Tolman, and William Stern, and arrives at a statement of the process from the  standpoint of
52               MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
readily interpreted as conformance with regulations, whatever the situation, is seen not as a measure designed for specific purposes but, becomes an immediate value in the life-organization of the bureaucrat. This emphasis, resulting from the displacement of the original goals, develops into rigidities iuid an inability to adjust readily. Formalism, even ritualism, ensues with an unchallenged insistence upon punctilious adherence to formalized procedures.12 This may be exaggerated to the point where primary concern with conformity to the rules interferes with the achievement of the purposes of the organization, in which case we have the familiar phenomenon of the technicism or red tape of the official. An extreme product of this process of displacement of goals is the bureaucratic virtuoso, who never forgets a single rule binding his action and hence is unable to assist many of his clients.13 A case in point, where strict recognition of the limits of authority and literal adherence to rules produced this result, is the pathetic plight of Bernt Balchen, Admiral Byrd's pilot in the flight over $e( South Pole.
According to a ruling of the department of labor Bernt Balchen . . . cannot receive bis citizenship papers. Balchen, a native of Norway, declared his intention in 1927. It is held that he has failed to meet the condition of five years' continuous residence in the United States. The Byrd antarctic voyage took him out of the country, although he was on a ship carrying the American flag, was an invaluable member of the American expedition, and in a region to which there is an American claim because of the exploration and occupation of it by Americans, this region being Little America.
The bureau of naturalization explains that it cannot proceed on the assumption that Little America is American soil. That would be trespass on intcmutionti! questions where il lias no sanction. So far as the bureau is concerned, Balchen was out of the country and technically has not complied with the law of naturalization.14
individual motivation. He does not consider those phases of the social structure which conduce toward the "transformation of motives." The formulation adopted in this paper is thus complementary to Allport's analysis; the one stressing the psychological mechanisms involved, the other considering the constraints of the social structure. The convergence of psychology and sociology toward this central concept suggests that it may weli constitute one of the conceptual bridges between the two disciplines. See Gordon W. Allport, Personality (New York: Holt, Rmehart and Winston, Inc., 1937), chap. 7.
12 See E. C. Hughes, "Institutional office and the person," American Journal of Sociology, 1937, 43, 404-413; E'. T. Hiller, "Social structure in relation to the person," Social Forces, 1937, 16, 34-43.
13 Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, 106.
11 Quoted from the Chicago Tribune (June 24, 1931, p. 10) by Thurman Arnold, The Symbols of Oovernmeni (Mew Haven, Conn.! Yale University Press, 19ŠS), zOi—
202. (My italics.)
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND PERSONALITY               53
STRUCTURAL SOURCES OF OVERCONFORMITY
Such inadequacies in orientation which involve trained incapacity clearly
derive from structural sources. The process may be briefly recapitulated.
(1) An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict
ievotion to regulations. (2)  Such devotion to the rules leads to their
ransformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to
set of purposes. (3) This interferes with ready adaptation under special
onditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules.
4) Thus, the very elements which conduce toward efficiency in general
iroduce inefficiency in specific instances. Full realization of the inade-
uacy is seldom attained by members of the group who have not divorced
i hemselves from the meanings which the rules have for them. These
i ules in time become symbolic in cast, rather than strictly utilitarian.
Thus far, we have treated the ingrained sentiments making for igorous discipline simply as data, as given. However, definite features f the bureaucratic structure may be seen to conduce to these sentiments. he bureaucrat's official life is planned for him in terms of a graded areer, through the organizational devices of promotion by Seniority, ensions, incremental salaries, etc., all of which are designed to provide mcentives for disciplined action and conformity to the official regulations.15 i Tie official is tacitly expected to and largely does adapt his thoughts, elings and actions to the prospect of this career. But these very devices 'hich increase the probability of conformance also lead to an over-oncern with strict adherence to regulations which induces timidity, con-:rvatism, and technicism. Displacement of sentiments from goals onto leans is fostered by the tremendous symbolic significance of the means
' rules).      :
Another feature of the bureaucratic structure tends to produce much ie same result. Functionaries have the sense of a common destiny for [1 those who work together. They share the same interests, especially nee there is relatively little competition in so far as promotion is in rms of seniority. In-group aggression is thus minimized and this arrange-lent is therefore conceived to be positively functional for the bureaucracy, [owever, the esprit de corps and informal social organization which 'pically develops in such situations often leads the personnel to defend lieir entrenched interests rather than to assist their clientele and elected igher officials. As President Lowell reports, if the bureaucrats believe tat their status  is not  adequately recognized by  an incoming  elected
MBHnhaim, Men»nn ittief a^eitantmti, aa<*a3. Mhnnt»»im stresses the imoortance 0f * "Lobenspinn" nnd the "Amtskarriere." See the comments by Hughes, op. cit,, 413.
54                 MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
official, detailed information will be withheld from him, leading him to errors for which he is held responsible. Or, if he seeks to dominate fully, and thus violates the sentiment of self-integrity of the bureaucrats, he may have documents brought to him in such numbers that he cannot manage to sign them all, let alone read them.10 This illustrates the defensive informal organization which tends to arise whenever there is an apparent threat to the integrity of the group.17
It would be much too facile and partly erroneous to attribute such resistance by burcaucrals simply to vested interests. Vested interests oppose any new order which cither eliminates or at least makes uncertain their differential advantage deriving from the current arrangements. This is undoubtedly involved in part in bureaucratic resistance to change, but
another process is perhaps more significant. As we have seen, bureaucratic officials affectively identify themselves with their way of life. They have a pride of craft which leads them to resist change in established routines; at least, ffiose changes which are felt to be imposed by others. This non-logical pride of craft is a familiar pattern found even, to judge from Sutherland's Professional Thief, among pickpockets who, despite the risk, delight in mastering the prestige-bearing feat of "beating a left breech" (picking the left front trousers pocket).
In a stimulating paper, Hughes has applied the concepts of "secular" and "sacred" to various types of division of labor; "the sacredness" of caste and Stände prerogatives contrasts sharply with the increasing secularism of occupational differentiation in our society.18 However, as our discussion suggests, there may ensue, in particular vocations and in particular types of organization, the process of sanctification (viewed as the counterpart of the process of secularization). This is to say that through sentiment-formation, emotional dependence upon bureaucratic symbols and status, and affective involvement in spheres of competence and authority, there develop prerogatives involving attitudes of moral legitimacy which are established as values in their own right, and are.'no longer viewed as merely technical means for expediting administration. One may note a tendency for certain bureaucratic norms, originally introduced for technical reasons, to become rigidified and sacred, although, as Durkheim would say,
'" A. L. Lowell, The Government of England (New York, 1908), I, 189 ff.
17 For an instructive description of the development of such a defensive organization in a group of workers, see F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Boston: Harvard School of Business Administration, 1934).
18 E. C. Hughes, "Personality types and the division of labor," American Journal of Sociology, 1928, 33, 754-768. Much the same distinction is drawn by Leopold von Wiese and Howard Becker, Systematic Sociology (New York: Wiley, 1932), 222-225 et passim.
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND PERSONALITY                 55
lliey are laique en apparence.1* Durkheim has touched on this general process in his description of tlJe attitudes and values which persist in the f> game solidarity of a highly differentiated society.
PRIMARY VERSUS SECONDARY RELATIONS
Another feature of the bureaucratic structure, the stress on depersonalization of relationships, also plays its part in the bureaucrat's trained in-i pacity. The personality pattern of the bureaucrat is nucleated about lliis norm of impersonality. Both this and the categorizing tendency, which d velops from the dominant role of general, abstract rules, tend to produce conflict in the bureaucrat's contacts with the public or clientele, ^nce functionaries minimize personal relations arid resort to Categorization, the peculiarities of individual cases are often ignored. But the client wlio, quite understandably, is convinced of the special features of his own problem often objects to such categorical treatment. Stereotyped behavior i-, not adapted to the exigencies of individual problems. The impersonal 1 «.atment of affairs which are at times of great personal significance to the (. ent gives rise to the charge of "arrogance" and "haughtiness" of the bureaucrat. Thus, at the Greenwich Employment Exchange, the unemployed worker who is securing his insurance payment resents what he deems to be "the impersonality and, at times, the apparent abruptness i id even harshness of his treatment by the clerks. . . . Some men com-,"' lín of the superior attitude which the clerks have,"20
Still another source  of conflict with  the public  derives  from  the
1 Hughes i recognizes one phase of this process of sanctification when he writes that pi i ifessional training "carries with it as a by-product assimilation of the candidate to set of professional attitudes and controls, a professional conscience and solidarity. The profession claims and aims to become a moral unit." Hughes, op. cit., 762 (italics n erted). In this same connection, Sumner's concept of pathos, as the halo of sentiment which protects a social value from criticism, is particularly relevant, inasmuch us it affords a clue to the mechanism involved in the process of sanctification. See his Folkways,  180-181.
*    "They treat you like a lump of dirt they do. I see a navvy reach across the counter arid shake one of them by the collar the other day. The rest of us felt like cheering. Of course he lost his benefit over it. . . . But the clerk deserved it foAhis sassy way.' " (K. W. Bakke, The Unemployed Man, 79-80). Note that the domineering attitude
ft 1 imputed by the unemployed client who is in a state of tension due to his loss of
*    us aud self-esteem in a society where the ideology is still current that an "able niiin" can always find a job. That the imputation of arrogance stems largely from the tli nts state of mind is seen from Bakke's own observation that "the clerks were lushed, and had no time for pleasantries, but there was little sign of harshness or a superiority feeling in their treatment of the men." In so far as there is an objective fciisis for the imputation of arrogant behavior to bureaucrats, it may possibly be ex-p!:iined by the following juxtaposed statements. "Auch der moderne, sei es öffentliche, v es private, Beamte erstrebt immer und geniesst meist den Beherrschten gegenüber eine spezifisch gehobene, 'ständische' soziale Schätzung." (Weber, op. cit., 652.)  "In
56               MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
bureaucratic structure. The bureaucrat, in p^irt irrespective of his position with/« the hierarchy, acts as a representative of the power and prestige of the entire structure. In his official role he is vested with definite authority. This often leads to an actually or apparently domineering attitude, which may only be exaggerated by a discrepancy between his position within the hierarchy and .his position with reference to the public.21 Protest and recourse to other officials on the part of the client are often ineffective or largely precluded by the previously mentioned esprit de corps which joins the officials into a more or less solidary in-group. This source of conflict may be minimized in private enterprise since the client can register an effective protest by transferring Ms trade to another organization within the competitive system. But with the monopolistic nature of the public organization, no such alternative is possible. Moreover, in this case, tension is increased because of a discrepancy between ideology and fact: the governmental personnel .are held to be "servants of
the peop^,V but in fact they are often superordinate} and release of tension
can seldom be afforded by turning to other agencies for the necessary service.22 This tension is in part attributable to the confusion of the status of bureaucrat and client; the client may consider himself socially superior to the official who is at the moment dominant.23
Thus, with respect to the relations between officials and clientele, one structural source of conflict is the pressure for formal and impersonal treatment when  individual, personalized consideration is desired by the
persons in whom the craving for prestige is uppermost, hostility usually takes the form of a desire to humiliate others." K. Homey, The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, 178-379.
21 In this connection, note the relevance of Koffka's comments on certain features of the pecking-order of birds. "If one compares the behavior of the bird at the top of the pecking list, the despot, with that of one very far down, the second or third from the last, then one finds the latter much more cruel to the few others over whom he lords it than the former in his treatment of all members. As soon as one removes from the group all members above the penultimate, his behavior'becomes milder and may even become very friendly. ... It is not difficult to find" analogies to this in human societies, and therefore one side of such behavior must be primarily the effects of the social groupings, and not of individual characteristics." K. Koffka, Principles of . Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt, 1935), 668-669.
~- At this point the political machine often becomes functionally significant. As Steffens and others have shown, highly personalized relations and the abrogation of formal rules (red tape) by the machine often satisfy the needs of individual "clients" more fully than the formalized mechanism of governmental bureaucracy. -^ As one of the unemployed men remarked about the clerks at the Greenwich Emplpymcnt Rxchnnae: " 'And iha Woody blokeg wouldn't have their jobs if it wasn't for us men out of. a job either. That's what gets me about their holding their noses up.'" Eakke, op. cit., 80. See also H. D. .Lasswell and G. Almond, "Aggressive behavior by clients towards public relief administrators," American Political Science Review, 1934, 28, 643-655.
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND PERSONALITY              57
client. The conflict may be viewed, then, as deriving from the introduction of inappropriate attitudes and relationships. Conflict within the bureaucratic structure arises from the converse situation, namely, when personalized relationships are substituted for the structurally required impersonal relationships, This type of conflict may be characterized as follows.
The bureaucracy, as we have seen, is organized as a secondary, formal group. The normal responses involved in this organized network of social expectations are supported by affective attitudes of members of the group. Since the group is oriented toward secondary norms of impersonality, any failure to conform to these norms will arouse antagonism from those who have identified themselves with the legitimacy of these rules. Hence, the substitution of personal for impersonal treatment within the structure is met with widespread disapproval and is characterized by such epithets as graft, favoritism, nepotism, apple-polishing, etc. These epithets are clearly manifestations of injured sentiments.24 The function of such virtually automatic resentment can be clearly seen in terms of the requirements of bureaucratic structure.
Bureaucracy is a secondary group structure designed to carry on certain activities which cannot be satisfactorily performed on the basis of primary group criteria.25 Hence behavior which runs counter to these formalized norms becomes the object of emotionalized disapproval. This constitutes a functionally significant defence set up against tendencies which jeopardize the performance of socially necessary activities. To be sure, these reactions arc not rationally determined practices explicitly designed for the fulfillment of this function. Rather, viewed in terms of the individual's interpretation of the situation, such resentment is simply an immediate response opposing the "dishonesty" of those who violate the rules of the game. However, this subjective frame of reference notwithstanding, these reactions serve the latent function of maintaining the essential structural elements of bureaucracy by reaffirming the necessity for formalized, secondary relations and by helping to prevent the disintegration of the bureaucratic structure which would occur should these be
" The diagnostic significance of such linguistic indices as epithets has scarcely been explored by the sociologist. Sumner properly observes that epithets produce "summary criticisms" and definitions of social situations. Dollard also notes that "epithets frequently define the central issues in a society," and Sapir has rightly emphasized the importance of context of situations in appraising the significance of epithets. Of , equal relevance is Linton's observation that "in case histories the way in which the ' community  felt  about a particular episode is,  if anything,  more  important  to our ■tudy   |han   tliö   boiuttl   liatiu v lor.   ..."   A   Haulü1t>Bionl   »tu d y   of   "voanbiilnries   of - encomium and opprobrium" should lead to valuable findings. "Cf   Ellsworth Faris, The Nature of Human Nature  (New York:   McGraw-Hill, i9j7), 41 ft.
58               MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
supplanted by personalized relations. This typei of conflict may be gen-erically described as the intrusion of primary group attitudes when secondary group attitudes are institutionally demanded, just as the bureaucrat-client conflict often derives from interaction on impersonal terms when personal treatment is individually demanded.20
PROHLKMS  FOR  KKSHAKCII
The trend towards increasing bureaucratization in Western Society, which Weber had long since foreseen, is not the sole reason for sociologists to turn their attention to this field. Empirical studies of the interaction of bureaucracy and personality should especially increase our understanding of social structure. A large number of specific questions invite our attention. To what extent are particular personality types selected and modified by the various bureaucracies (private enterprise, public service, the quasi-legal political machine, religious orders)? Inasmuch as ascendancy and. submission are held to be traits of personality, despite their variability in different stimulus-situations, dq-bureaucracies select personalities of particularly submissive or ascendant tendencies? And since various studies have shown that these traits can be modified, does participation in bureaucratic office tend to increase ascendant tendencies? Do various systems of recruitment {e.g., patronage, open competition involving specialized knowledge or general mental capacity, practical experience) select different personality types?27 Does promotion through seniority lessen competitive anxieties and enhance administrative efficiency? A detailed examination of mechanisms for imbuing the bureaucratic codes with affect would be instructive both sociologically and psychologically. Does the general anonymity of civil service decisions tend to restrict the area of prestige-symbols to a narrowly defined inner circle? Is there a tendency for differential association to be especially marked among bureaucrats?
2li Community disapproval of many forms of behavior may be analyzed in terms of One or the other of these patterns of substitution of culturally inappropriate types of relationship. Thus, prostitution constitutes a type-case where coitus, a form of intimacy which is institutionally defined as symbolic of the most "sacred" primary group relationship, is placed within a contractual context, symbolized by the exchange of that most impersonal of all symbols, money. See Kingsley Davis, "The sociology of prostitution," American Sociological Review, 1937, 2, 744-755.
21 Among recent studies of recruitment to bureaucracy are: Reinhard Bendix, Higher Civil Servants in American Society (Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado Press, 1949); Dwaine Marvick, Career Perspectives in a Bureaucratic Setting (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1954); R. K. Kelsall, Higher Civil Servants in Britain (London: Routledge, 1955); W. L. Warner and J. C. Abegglen, Occupational M ability in American Business and industry (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1955).
ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS                59
The range of theoretically significant and practically important ques-ms would seem to be limited only by the accessibility of the concrete ita. Studies of religious, educational, military, economic, and political ireaucracies dealing with the interdependence of social organization and Tsonality formation should constitute an avenue for fruitful research. ' ti that avenue, the functional analysis of concrete structures may yet lild a Solomon's House for sociologists.
V BASIS FOR COMPARATIVE VNALYSIS OF COMPLEX < )RGANIZATIONS
Axxxitai Etzioni
A DEFINITION OF COMPLIANCE
Compliance is universal, existing in all social units. It is a major element of the relationship between those who have power and those over whom they exercise it.1 Despite its universality, it has been chosen as a base for this comparative study because it is a central element of organizational structure. The emphasis on compliance within the organization differentiates the latter from other types of social units. Characteristics of organizations such as their specificity, size, complexity and effectiveness each enhances the need for compliance. And in turn, compliance is systematically related to many central organizational variables.
Compliance refers both to a relation in which an actor behaves in accordance with a directive supported by another actor's power, and to the orientation of the subordinated actor to the power applied.2
Reprinted with permission of The Macmillan Company from A Comparative Analysts of Complex Organizations, by Amitai Etzioni. Copyright © The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961, pp. 3-21.
i G Simmel, "Superiority and subordination as subject matter of sociology," Amer. J Socio!., 1896, 2, 167-189, 392-415.
'For other usages of the term see R. Bendix, "Bureaucracy: The problem and its setting," Amer. social. Rev., 1947, 12, 502-507, and H. L. Zetterberg, "Compliant actions," Acta Sociologica, 1957, 2, 179-201.