Robert K. Merton: Bureaucratic Structure & Personality

Robert K. Merton

Complex Organizations


“With increasing bureaucratization, it becomes plain... [that we are] controlled by our social relations to the instruments of production. This can no longer seem only a tenet of Marxism, but a stubborn fact to be acknowledged by all... to work, one must have tools and equipment. And the tools and equipment are increasingly available only in bureaucracies, private or public.” - Robert K. Merton, SRCO

COMMENT:

Tonight we begin a short venture into the ideas of American sociologist Robert Merton, who coined numerous pop and business culture concepts such as "role model," "unintended consequences," and "self-fulfilling prophecy."

Above, he embarks on a discussion of the manner in which we derive meaning in and through bureaucracies. As the systems which provide, to a lesser or greater extent, the means by which we survive, bureaucracies also indirectly provide meaning.

Since the fruits of our labor are not only bread and wine but dignity, self-respect, and self reliance, understanding the most functional manner in which to relate to these organizational systems so that they contribute to (rather than diminish) our meaning structures is of vital concern.


“The efficacy of social structure depends ultimately upon infusing group participants with appropriate attitudes and sentiments.” - Robert K. Merton, SRCO

COMMENT:

We wanted to pause with Merton's opening statement (before he develops an important argument about confusing means with ends) because to stop and review here offers the opportunity to underscore an idea we consider crucial to the success of any group: without the proper attitudes regarding their org, constituents (and their community) will only succeed at failure.

In our work with groups, it has become increasingly clear that if group members don't share and ritually revive a common Idea, then the group perishes, if it ever indeed existed in the first place.

First and foremost must be a commitment to the Idea under which the group was formed, the Mission & Values Statement. Beyond that, however, and often more importantly, there must be a commitment to the nature in which group members will interact, what they will do when these interactions prove difficult, and how these commitments and processes serve the larger Mission.

Without these clear and continuously enacted commitments, group members will exist as disconnected, drifting spirits who occasionally bump against one another in an approximation of community.

However, understanding the Self in the Other (both the Other of the org and the Other of individual community members), and living *with and through* these Others as partners in self-fulfillment and actualization, a group will begin to approach realization as a united entity capable of pursuing and completing its Mission.

The first step, once folks have decided where they're headed, is to discover the unity in action and intention that will guide them along their path. Constructing cyclical opportunities to reinvigorate and re-experience this unity in and through the Mission and each Other is the next (and only other) step. Everything else? A cakewalk.



“Emphasis on appropriate attitudes can lead 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... an end-in-itself. There occurs the... *displacement of goals* whereby an ...instrumental value becomes a terminal value." - Robert K. Merton, SRCO

COMMENT:

When an Org rigidly delineates expectations about the proper method by which goals of the org are to be achieved, the beginnings of entropy and dissolution become present. The constituent becomes shackled to a particular way of doing things, and creativity and possibility take a back seat.

Even worse, in most cases the job description becomes the means by which the constituent is judged, and by which she judges herself. No longer are she (or the Org itself!) concerned with the original intended results, but merely with the measurable approach that has been agreed upon for arriving at these goals. The means have become an end.

We can all think of the coworker who completes their responsibilities adequately, who jumps through the required hoops satisfactorily, but who never seems to be able or willing to discover better ways to do so, or to be concerned with the ultimate goals of the Org. "Hey, I'm just doing my job," is the common refrain, "That's somebody else's department," or "They don't pay me to worry about that." In our schools, it is when a student asks, "How many paragraphs?" rather than "How can I improve on my knowledge or skills in the given area?"

Freeing both Org Leaders and constituents from the shackles of SOP is a start in avoiding these pitfalls. To be sure, clear goals should be set and communicated, and fallback guidelines as to how to arrive are important. But allowing constituents the power and freedom to choose their own path, to contribute *of themselves* to the success of the Org, is imperative. The work and the goals of the organization become their own, and not just a set of mechanized processes that almost anyone can do in return for their daily bread.


“The bureaucrat's official life is planned in terms of a graded career of promotion by seniority, pensions, & incremental salaries, all... designed to provide incentives for disciplined action and conformity to official regulations... these devices which increase conformance also lead to an overconcern w/ strict adherence to regulations which induces timidity, conservatism, and technicism.” - Robert K. Merton, SRCO

COMMENT:

Above, Merton continues his exploration of structural sources of overconformity, the kind of "trained incapacity" which can stifle an organization and its constituents. In explaining further, he writes:

"(1) An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and devotion to regulations. (2) Such devotion to rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes. (3) This interferes with ready adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules. (4) Thus, the very elements which conduce toward efficiency in general produce inefficiency in specific instances. Full realization of the inadequacy is seldom attained by members of the group who have not divorced themselves from the meanings which the rules have for them."

The Institute interprets Merton's thoughts as being indicative of some organizational considerations and approaches that we both embrace and advocate for:

(1) Constituents making suggestions or asking questions regarding the Process of the org should be given an opportunity to be heard, and given agency to effect change where these explorations bear fruit.

(2) Avenues by which to do so safely and openly should be scheduled regularly within each Org Hub, as well as *across* all Hubs.

(3) In order to facilitate this, Org Leaders should embrace an approach marked by openness and possibility.


“The impersonal treatment of affairs which are at times of great personal significance to the client gives rise to the charge of 'arrogance' and 'haughtiness' of the bureaucrat.” - Robert K. Merton, SRCO

COMMENT:

In other words, the customer isn't *always* right, but they should always be listened and responded to effectively, employing techniques from Conflict Resolution and Nonviolent Communication.



A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, edited by Amitai Etzioni