– Patrick Edward O’Toole –

The industrial evolution of human organization: “The role of science in social environments”.  

I am researching the historical development of scientific organization by studying the historical development of Human Resource Management, documenting transitions from (social) theory to applied social science, to determine if science-based human management and organizational disciplines can be applied to the field of social theory.

Practical problem: no way to verify the social theories I’ve been introduced to.

Research problem: identify scientific research on human behavior and social organization?

Research solution: study a cross-selection of relevant academic subjects here at Cal Berkeley.

Practical solution: conduct research based on my formal course of study, using ISF methods.

What is my statement or Question?  How has the integration of scientific methods and research changed the way people are managed and organized?  Can this research (in human behavior and organizational dynamics) help to answer the big-picture questions posed by social theory about human nature, social organization, individual capacity, the role of structure and agency?

1.  Research problem: It has been 147 years since Marx published Das Kapital, 109 years since Weber published The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 91 years since Freud published The Ego and the Id.  In the same time period that science has launched the Hubble telescope 347 miles above the earth’s surface (capable of detecting light 1 billion times fainter than the human eye can see, the lense of which was constructed in zero atmosphere conditions to avoid warping in space and installed by people floating in space suits) leading to breakthroughs such as accurately determining the rate of expansion of the universe, DNA sequencing has traced organic evolution to its microbial beginnings 4 billion years ago and human beings are regularly having heart and lung transplants from harvested organs- results and techniques that are fundamentally agreed upon across all cultural, linguistic, ethnic and gender variation- there is no agreed upon consensus of why people behave as they do, how they should behave, if there’s an ideal environment humans are disposed to, or the proper social organizational structures.  In an environment of such methodological development and scientific progress, how can this be?

Social theories are frameworks used to study and interpret social phenomena.  They are tools used by social scientists to construct plausible explanations for human behavior and social conduct.  Social theories can be seen as large-scale Interpretations that identify and interpret the underlying causal factors in human social interactions.  Difficulty seems to arise arises in this theoretical phase.  It is always possible to assign meaning and causal properties.  One could spend an academic career reading Interpretations across time and culture of how various peoples have assigned meaning to reality, who suffered no obvious consequence regardless of how little these meanings correlate to reality.  The dilemma is that people inevitable attempt an extension beyond the scope of the situation.  This extension exists as a theory- a cherished and useful tool.  This attempt at extension is as dangerous and as dubious for the average person as it is for the trained social scientist.

The process is always the same; people draw conclusions/make Interpretations based on ideas formulated from some sort of experience and exposure.  The qualitative difference- what distinguishes a social scientist from someone with an opinion- is the quality of their process, involving testing, reading, examination, re-testing, collaboration, formal education, and the use of established methods and tools, to establish a knowledge-base foundation for their theory.  In this manner, social science is deliberate, organized, and documented- attempting to operate outside of bias and limitation.  It is an active process in which the observer tries to understand the observed as it is.  One observation is that, however scientifically derived data may be, the Interpretative process still applies, and with it the same considerations and concerns.  This is exemplified in social theory, as the accuracy of the interpretation need not have any basis in reality.  Phoenician sailors were able to accurately observe and analyze the motion of the stars and create highly specific navigation, and were concurrently able to interpret the celestial bodies using Greek and Egyptian mythology, without disaster or lack of accuracy.  The accurate assessment that something is and ability to predict what may happen does not preclude in any way a factual understanding of Why or How.  This is the breakdown and joy of theorizing, and the troubled waters a social-theory-based student has to consider when trying to conduct a social science project.

2.  Methodology:  Having no formal scientific training it would be difficult to assume capacity to conduct formal scientific inquiry.  As an interdisciplinary studies researcher, there is little available in the manner of formal descriptions, defined terms or established methods.  Internet searches of Interdisciplinary Research reveals a general consensus that it is an advanced procedure to be done in collaboration with other senior academics, to understand social phenomena which requires methods and analytic capabilities that spans traditional academic boundaries.  There is no established academic procedure that can be referenced and modeled; no pre-established methodologies to be borrowed from and used as guides and signals of how to conduct this kind of research.  ISF is thus better described not as interdisciplinary training but as non-disciplinary academic training with a unique opportunity to sample information from various sources.  The potential of this approach was powerfully illustrated in the reading of Essence of Decision, an example that can stand alone in demonstrating the power of examining phenomena with as many tools as possible.  This provided for me a very strong case for answering “why” regarding the importance of developing a “cross-disciplinary Research Program” approach.

It seems wise to consider Essence of Decision and the information provided in ISF 189 as a combined methodology for this research project.  Critical reflection of ISF 189 is that it has offered a very strategic set of tools to investigate, analyze and conduct social science research outside of any particular academic style or method.  I am operating under the assumption that my research will lead me to three information formats:  the literary paper, the experiment, and the statistical model.  I need proficiency in analysing these formats and in determining the quality and validity of the information presented- as possible source documents to use in constructing my research.  The below represents the tools and resources of my research.

• Critical Reading (Vallee):  as document analysis techniques.
• The Craft of Research (Booth):  as the structure and method for inquiry.
• Comparative Historical Methods (Lange):  as the methodology for comparative analysis.
• Essence of Decision (Allison):  as the template for cross-disciplinary analysis.
• Gilens & Page + Martin: as examples of deciphering research projects.
• Naked Statistics (Wheelan): as the guide for understanding statistical information.
• Writing for Sociology (Jones): as the resource manual for writing.

The various research documents provided in ISF 189 are seen as illustrating the extensive variety of possible research methods that can be employed.  From highly conceptual Sociology to hard-line analytics in Political Science, there are many valid approaches to investigating social phenomena and conducting research.  This research project will begin with populating the basic areas recommended by Booth (2008). 

Name the Topic: what you are writing about?   I am researching the historical development of scientific organization in the field of Human Resource Management

Ask the Indirect Question: what you don’t know about it?  to document transitions from social theory to applied social science

Answer the “So What” / Significance:  to help my reader determine if modern science-based human-management and organizational disciplines are providing insights and answers to social theory.

3.  Research Strategy:  I am compiling a list of research links, online resources, writing guides and potential source documents.  I have read the ISF 190 Thesis Guidelines http://live-isf.pantheon.berkeley.edu/isf-senior-thesis-guidelines and will use the online library resource  for ISF 190 to organize my research http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/course-guide/193-ISF190.  I have contacted various academics who are familiar with my research focus (Berkeley, S.F. State, Stanford, U.C.L.A.) and have been directed toward articles to begin my research process.  My Course of Study has made available several academic disciplines (Organizational Sociology and Industrial-Organizational Psychology) that are key to my research and I will be using both the information and (hopefully) the professors as resources.  I have no intention of conducting experiments but will be looking for definitive studies in academic journals.  This research project will be historical and comparative in nature.

4.  Hypothesis:  human social organization has witnessed countless iterations within the span of recorded history.  The past several thousand years have seen the development of guiding principles and theoretical frameworks that have been used to construct and justify social arrangements.  I assume a combination of traditions, cultural inertial, environmental conditions and biology to be the basic determinants of social organization in which continuity was provided by oral tradition and traditional role-modeling.  What is essential to my research is the assumption that social groups for the past 10-100 thousand years have been assigning meaning, making extensions, and creating elaborate theories to explain how and why they as societies (and people) do what it is they do.  The rational-cognitive mechanisms employed were based on some form of Socratic method and/or direct knowing (spiritual/religious) that did not change until the time period referred to as Modernity.  According the Weber (2009) although we recognize the existence of science (like capitalism) in various social environments for the past several thousand years, the deliberate and organized, rational use of science is quite recent, and its employment toward academic social issues even more so.  My argument is that human disposition (via evolutionary selection) is wide enough to encompass a variety of social arrangements and personal preferences that are mutually exclusive without being necessarily better suited to human nature which is why social theory can be so varied and contested.  My question is, has the application of scientific investigation helped to solve these theoretical dilemmas.

Rubric for Social Theory:  Social Theory is an attempt to understand the social transformations beginning around 1500, commonly referred to as Modernity. Social theory was produced not just to create an understanding of these changes and the problems they caused, but also to be used to propose how society ought to be structured. Classical thinkers (Marx, Weber, Durkheim) proposed how to analyze those changes, and in doing so created theories of society.  Modernity has been understood as the emergence of the bureaucratic state and development of the modern capitalist economy (ISF 100A/F), the decline of religious authority as the main arbiter of moral values and the rise of the self-interested purposive actor (ISF 100B), and the use of science to develop new technology (ISF 100G).

Theoretical considerations:  Evolution is based on the idea that variation and change (e.g difference) = survival.  There may be no ideal environmental/cultural/organizational situation for all human beings as that would imply a static homogeneous environment and the end of change which would limit the possibilities of our species.  Variation and difference are the essence of our survival strategy.  The strategic gift for humans is our unformated “empty space” which leaves humans capable of intragenerational learning that allows for cultural/environmental programming in a single generation, and the capability for dynamic transformation within a single lifespan.  Children receive thousands of years of cultural evolution in a decade. The “empty space” is the gap of possibility- and also of doubt and the unknown.  Normative behavior is the solution and the trap.  The trials and difficulties of modern social living go hand-in-hand with the massive developments of the past 150 years.  The creative space exists in the unknown.  This is the basic evolutionary human dilemma.  Changing what is know to work can be deadly, but as all things change, the same behavior will at some point be non-adaptive.  This “gap” is what gives humans the wide range of adaptive possibilities they possess and may also explain why it is so hard to pin-point causal factors for human behavior or determine specific ideal circumstances for social organization.  There may be no single answer but a wide range of possibilities available through our adaptive mechanisms that makes highly differentiated beliefs, organizational strategies, and structured relationships possible.

It is also probable that, as an evolving species, even the truths we discover about ourselves will, over time, no longer be applicable.  If evolution is indeed the mechanism, there will come a time when our descendants will no longer be human, no longer be homo sapien sapiens, no longer have similar brain structure, similar cognitive capabilities, similar predispositions, morals, beliefs, and social dynamics.  What this means is the topic for science fiction and not for this research paper, yet an important consideration for theorizing in a social science environment.  The ideal circumstance may be freedom to construct in an environment that requires ongoing construction (evolution), recognizing that people generally like stability and find change disturbing, and that the very social construct that makes new change (new construction) possible is also a limiting factor in impeding its development.

 – Patrick Edward O’Toole –

evolution is  based on the idea that variation and change: difference = survival……there may be no ideal situation for all beings b/c that would imply a static homogeneous environment and the end of evolution and change….which will not happen…or if it does, will begin to limit the possibilities of the human organism.  variation and difference is the essence of our survival strategy as a species.  the ultimate “gift” or strategy for humans is the “empty space” open for intragenerational and single generational learning that allows not only an entire cultural/environmental reprogramming in a Single generation, but the capability to learn within a single lifespan and have dynamic transformation.  We raise children and give them thousands of years of evolution in a few decades.  evolution strategy is to make things different….different enough to defy prediction?  the “empty space” is the gap of possibility…and also of doubt and fear and the unknown.  normative behavior is the solution and the trap.  the trials and difficulties of modern social living go and in hand with the massive developments of the past 250 years.  The creative space in the unknown.  this is the basic human/anthro-delima.  “maybe we should try some different berries and try a new path across the frozen lake this year = gonna die…but b/c of the natural changing process at some point the berry won’t be the same and the path won’t work anyway…disruption from the known is primarily dangerous and the opportunity of growth and change.

this “gap” is what helps make us so adaptive, what gives us the range that we possess, that lessens the governor other organisms have on determining their fate, and why it is so hard to pin-point exact human behavior or determin highly specific ideal circumstances for social organization….there may not be this option…but a wide range of possibilities.

 – Patrick Edward O’Toole –

A firm’s organization’s culture may provide a sustainable competitive advantage when it can create superior financial performance through a unique organization of internal resources (such as its organizational culture) that can not be copied by competitors.  Three conditions must be met for this to happen.  The culture must be (1) valuable: it’s activities lead to high sales and low costs.  (2) rare: there are characteristics uncommon to competitors.  (3) imperfectly inimitable:  attempts to imitate will create some sort of disadvantage to imitators.  This organizational culture will be comprised of unspoken, even undefinable patterns, agreements and expectations that “become part of the unspoken, unperceived common sense of the firm.” making it difficult to define and (hopefully) impossible to imitate.  Concurrently, a firm can modify its organization culture to gain a sustainable competitive advantage if it has valuable, rare, and imperfectly inimitable culture management skills to alter its organizational culture and create superior financial performance for the firm.

Sociologists seek to explain and predict behavior of large populations of firms and organizations, looking for trends and explanations diffused from the examination of multiple organizations.  Sociologists consider the social, historical and political influences in which an organization is formed and exists within, observing the impact of the socio-historical milieu upon the structure and behavior of firms.  Strategists are optimistic about a firm’s capacity to shapes its future according to plan and decision.  They focus on market factors with significantly less emphasis on historical, political, and social factors.  The overarching mission of strategists is to identify how firms gain efficiencies through strategy, creating prescriptive models used to make organizations more efficient.

DiMaggio and Powell argue that organizations tend toward homogeneity regardless of their intentions.  “Today, however, structural change in organizations seems less and less driven by competition or by the need for efficiency.”  They observed powerful tendencies toward organizational similarity that come from organizational needs (legitimacy; uncertainty) not necessarily rooted in strategy.  “Organizational change occurs as the result of processes that make organizations more similar without necessarily making them more efficient.”

According to DiMaggio and Powell, organizational form and structure are influenced by concerns of legality, uncertainty, and legitimacy that can trump organizational plans to differentiate from competitors.  This process occurs regardless of strategic intentions.  “Once a field becomes established, however, there is an inexorable push toward homogenization.”  DiMaggio and Powell identified this process as institutional isomorphism, an environmental dynamic that “constrains their (organizations) ability to change.”  DiMaggio and Powell do not refute the power or presence of strategic planning; they point out that firms are subject to constraints and pressures that shape organizational choices regardless of intention and planning.  Whether change by external forces (coercive), imitating other firms to manage uncertainty (mimetic), or changing to create legitimacy (normative), organizations trend toward similarity due to these social, political and historical forces that shape the society in which organizations exist.

As sociologists, DiMaggio and Powell would find Barney’s statement idealistic, failing to understand and account for the overarching influences of laws, social pressures, changes in institutional fields, and human reactions to uncertainty and desires for legitimacy that force and demand some quantity of unavoidable similarity.  “Organizational structures increasingly come to reflect rules institutionalized and legitimated by and within the state.”   DiMaggio and Powell would disagree with Barney’s statement in that it suggests it is possible to sustain highly specific organizational differentiation over time; i.e. possible to avoid imitation.

Further disagreements would revolve around the real need for organizations to adopt similar practices and forms to adapt to environmental challenges.  In effect, successful imitation is both unavoidable and necessary.  Similarities allow for the transfer of human assets across organizations, creating an interchangeability which is strategically important.  Failing to adopt industry standards could create legal issues as well as decreased public perceptions of legitimacy.  Having an organizational culture so different from other players could make integrating new agents and adaptation to new technologies very difficult over time and create uncertainty with consumers.  DiMaggio and Powell also point out that strategic differentiation might not be very possible due to a real lack of options “despite considerable search for diversity there is little variation to be selected from.”

Since organizational fields are subject to social and technological pressures and deeply influenced by public perception, successful imitation will be necessary to a sustained competitive advantage.  DiMaggio and Powell would thus disagree with Barney, asserting that

(1)  organizational imitation is unavoidable and inevitable.

(2)  organizational imitation is essential to survival.

Reference Page

1. Barney, Jay B. “Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?” The Academy of Management Review 11.3 (1986): 661
2. Dimaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48.2 (1983): 147
3. Dimaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48.2 (1983): 147
4. Dimaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48.2 (1983): 148
5. Dimaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48.2 (1983): 148
6. Dimaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48.2 (1983): 147
7. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83.2 (1977): 340
8. Dimaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48.2 (1983): 152