In a famous chapter in James G. March’s 1965 book, Handbook of Organizations, Arthur L. Stinchcombe laid out a case for expanding the study of organizations outward to include social structure bringing attention to innovation as well as imprinting and inertia. He posited that societies had significant effects on how organizations emerge and operate and that organizations, in turn, impact relations among groups in society. He would present his arguments in three parts. First, that social structures had an imprinting effect on the formation of new organizations, such that these initial forms often persisted despite efforts to change them. Thus, to the second point, each type of organization reflected the history of its creation both in terms of the organization and social structures that dominated in a historical context. Finally, organizations also influenced the social divisions in society, such as between the higher and lower classes. As with many ideas that formed during the 1960s, one might take such relationships between social structures and organizations for granted, but that was not the case when Stinchcombe advanced his argument.

One of the central ideas in the book is “The Liability of Newness” which subtitles the first major section. It suggests that new forms of organizations are liable to fail unless they overcome challenges around the way new structures within and around organizations are understood, shared, and enacted. Thus, many new forms of organizations fail, and those that succeed often forge new ways of organizing work that endure despite changes and competitive pressures.

After summarizing a wealth of supporting studies to justify this stance, he opens the next section with a simple question: “Why are organizational forms originated at different times different at the time of their formation?” His answers include the economic and technical conditions of the time, the availability of elites who control resources essential to the new organization’s success, and the new organization’s strong connections to the labor market. The variety of contexts within which a new organization forms is extensive, so this does not result in a deterministic model. Instead, these forms will emerge according to the ability to obtain resources needed to serve the organization’s purposes, such as the influences of labor markets.

Considerations on social stratification conclude the chapter in a discussion where Stinchcombe clarifies that he is departing from the classic concepts of “class relations.” Rather, his concern is about the distribution of prestige from superiors to inferiors and the dependencies that “superiors” may have on “inferiors” or the “independence” of inferiors from the organization. When subordinates gain independence—e.g., through job security or political organizing—organizations become more humane.

You may also download the audio files here:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Teaser

Read with us:

Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965) Social structure and organizations. In March, J.P. (ed.), Handbook of organizations, 142-193. Chicago: Rand McNally.

To Learn More:

Barley, S. R. (2007). Corporations, democracy, and the public good. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 201-215.

Davis, G. F. (2016). The vanishing American corporation: Navigating the hazards of a new economy, vol. 16. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 82(5), 929-964.

Johnson, V. (2007). What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera. American journal of sociology, 113(1), 97-127.

Other Talking About Organizations Podcast episodes referenced:

Episode 74. Emergence of Middle Management — Alfred Chandler

Episode 60. Contingency Theory — Joan Woodward