Professional Documents
Culture Documents
903
H. HALL
University of Colorado
University of Minnesota
NORMAN J. JOHNSON
University of Pittsburgh
The relationships between organizational size and several measures of complexity and formalizaiion are examined using data from 75 organizations. The findings suggest that there is at
best only a weak relationship between size and structural characteristics. It is suggested that
size should not be taken as an indicator of organizational structure. Size may be important,
however, as a factor in morale and in interorganizational relations.
904
ganizations, examines the relationships between the size factor and measures of organizational complexity and formalization.,^
SIZE
90S
COMPLEXITY
906
D. Spatial Dispersion
1. The degree to which physical facilities are spatially dispersed.
2. The location (distance from the organizational headquarters) of spatially dispersed facilities.
3. The degree to which personnel are
spatially disp)ersed.
4. The location of spatially dispersed
personnel.
No assumpiton is made about the priority
of these indicators. While Hage considers the
division of labor or specialization to be the
key factor, the other indicators also appear
to be central to the complexity concept.
The measurement of these indicators will
be discussed below.
FORMALIZATION
The concept of organizational formalization has been rather explicitly defined and
utilized. Hage, and later Aiken and Hage,
have suggested that formalization "is measured by the proportion of codified jobs and
the range of variation that is tolerated
within the rules defining the jobs. The
higher the proportion of codified jobs and
the less the range of variation allowed, the
more formalized the organization." ^^ Pugh,
Hickson, et al., note that "formalization or
standardization . . . includes statements of
procedures, rules, roles, and operation of
procedures which deal with (a) decision
seeking (applications for capital, employment, and so on), (b) conveying of decisions and instructions (plans, minutes, requisitions and so on), and (c) conveying
of information, including feedback." ^^
As in the case of complexity, a series of
indicators is used to measure the degree of
formalization in the organizations examined
following the broader meaning of the concept used by Pugh, Hickson, et al. Here
again, no priority among the indicators is
assumed. The indicators of formalization
used in this study are:
20 Hage, op. dt., p. 295, and Michael Aiken and
Jerald Hage, "Organizational Alienation: A Comparative Analysis," American Sodologicd
Revtew,
31 (August, 1966), p. 499.
21 Pugh, et al., op. dt., pp. 303-304.
907
The present research includes organizations ranging in size from six members to
over 9,000 members. The organizations represent a wide range of types, such as educational, commercial, military, governmental,
manufacturing, religious, and penal organizations.
The list in Table 1 represents a selection,
rather than a sample, from the organizational universe. Selection was based, to a
degree, on the fact that purposeful inclusion
of certain types of organizations was desired and that budgetary and time factors
were of some consequence. A more central
point is that there is no clearly defined organizational universe from which such a
sample could have been drawn. Organizational research sampling necessarily has to
be purposeful and non-random.
Data were gathered by tape recorded interviews in the 75 organizations. In addition, supporting materials in the form of all
printed matter relevant to each organization
were examined, and the process of categorizing each of the organizations on each of
Organizational Type
Manufacturing Plant
State Penal Institution
Delinquent Reformatory
Retail Store
State or Area Church
Trade or Lobbying Assn.
University
Bank
Labor Union
Govt. Regulative Agency
Marketing Organization
Hotel-Motel
Restaurant
Public School System
Private Welfare Agency
Farm Cooperative
State Hospital
Radal-Ethnic-Religious Assn.
Newspaper
Television Station
8
6
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Organizational Type (N of 1)
County Political Party
City Recreation Department
Post Office
Public Utility
Fund Raising Agency
Railroad
Trucking Firm
Law Enforcement Agency
Municipal Airport
Public Transit Firm
Insurance Company
Private School
Church Congregation
Parochial Schol System
Medical Association
School for Mentally Retarded
Private Hospital
Quarry
Military Command
Private Country Club
Religious Order
908
Size
A. Division of LaborGeneral
1. Number of Goals
1
2
3 or more
Kendall's Tau C=.08
2. Presence of Second Major Activity
No second activity
Second activity present
KendaU'sTauC=.O4
B.
Division of LaborSpecific
1. Number of Major Divisions
(Horizontal Differentiation)
1-4
5-6
7 or more
Kendall's Tau C=.O2
2. Divisions within Most Specialized
Single Department
1-3 subdivisions
46 subdivisions
7 or more subdivisions
KendaU'sTauC=.27
3. Mean Number of Subdivisions per
Department
1 or 2 subdivisions
3 subdivisions
4 or more subdivisions
Kendall's Tau C=.35
100-999
(N=35)
1,000 or more
(N=20)
30%
45%
25%
29%
46%
25%
20%
45%
35%
65%
35%
69%
31%
70%
30%
30%
20%
50%
20%
37%
43%
25%
25%
50%
55%
20%
25%
23%
26%
51%
5%
45%
50%
70%
20%
10%
29%
29%
42%
20%
25%
55%
909
TABLE 2.Continued
Size
C. Hierarchial Differentiation
1. Number of Levels in Deepest
Single Division
two or three levels
four levels
five or more levels
Kendall's Tau C=.35
2. Mean Number of Levels for Organization as a Whole (Vertical
Differentiation)
two or three
four or more
Kendall's Tau C=.31
D. Spatial Dispersion
1. Dispersion of Physical Facilities
All in one location
Mostly in one location, some in field
Mostly in field (dispersed)
KendaU'sTauC=.14
2. Location of Physical Facilities
1 location
within dty or county
state-national-international
KendaU'sTauC=.23
3. Degree of Dispersion of Personnel
All in one location
Mostly at one location, some in field
Mostly in field (dispersed)
Kendall's Tau C=.06
4. Location of Personnel
1 location
within dty or county
state-national-international
KendaU's Tau C=.24
100-999
(N=35)
1,000 or more
(N=20)
55%
35%
10%
14%
43%
43%
10%
40%
50%
90%
10%
60%
40%
50%
50%
45%
30%
25%
46%
37%
17%
25%
35%
40%
45%
35%
20%
46%
17%
37%
20%
20%
60%
35%
25%
40%
34%
34%
32%
16%
47%
37%
35%
40%
25%
34%
20%
46%
15%
15%
70%
910
Size
A.
Roles
1. Concreteness of Positional Descriptions
Low
Medium
High
KendaU'sTauC=.12
2. Presence of Written Job Descriptions
None
Present only at some levels
Present throughout organization
Kendall's TauC=.01
B. Authority Relations
1. Degree of Formalization of Authority
Structure
Low or medium
High
Kendall's TauC=.25
2. Codification of Authority Structure
in Writing
Not codified
Codified
KendaU'sTauC=.O8
C.
D.
E.
Communications
1. Degree of Emphasis on Written
Communications
Low
Medium
High
Kendall's TauC=.05
2. Emphasis on Using Established
Communications Channels
Low
Medium
High
Kendall's TauC=.13
Norms and Sanctions
1. Number of Written Rules and Policies
Less than 12
More than 12
Kendall's TauC=.08
2. Penalties for Rule Violation
Clearly Stipulated
No
Yes (for at least some members)
Kendall's TauC=.14
3. Stipulation of Penalties for Rule
Violation in Writing
No
Yes (for at least some members)
Kendall's TauC=.22
Procedures
1. Formalization of Orientation
Program for New Members
(Only Programs for All New Members
Included; N = 5 7 )
No Program or Low Formalization
High Formalization
Kendall's Tau C = ^ 6
100-^99
(N=35)
45%
35%
20%
17%
46%
37%
55%
35%
40%
25%
26%
23%
51%
20%
50%
30%
58%
42%
32%
68%
26%
74%
58%
42%
26%
74%
47%
53%
35%
55%
10%
17%
57%
26%
30%
55%
15%
35%
25%
40%
23%
37%
40%
15%
30%
55%
32%
68%
17%
83%
21%
79%
65%
35%
44%
56%
47%
53%
70%
30%
50%
50%
42%
58%
83%
17%
63%
37%
50%
20%
25%
rr\(yf
5O70
911
TABLE 3. Continued
Size
100-999
(N=35)
77%
47%
53%
50%
50%
23%
to be more formalized on the other indicators, even though the relationship is quite
weak.
The most immediate implication of these
findings is that neither complexity nor formalization can be implied from knowledge
of organizational size. A social scientist conducting research in a large organization
would do well to question the frequent assumption that the organization under study
is necessarily highly complex and formalized. If these two general factors are relevant
to the focus of his research, he will need to
examine empirically, for each organization,
the level of complexity and formalization
extant at the time. The ideal research procedure would be to have standardized measures of these phenomena to allow comparative research. At the minimum, the degrees
to which these phenomena are present should
be specified, at least nominally.
A second implication of these findings
lies in the area of sodal control. Increased
organizational formalization is a means of
controlling the behavior of the members of
the organization by limiting individual discretion. At least one aspect of complexity,
hierarchical differentiation, also is related to
social control in that multiple organizational
levels serve as a means of maintaining dose
supervision of subordinates. It seems rather
dear, on the basis of this evidence, that a
large organization does not necessarily have
to rely upon impersonal, formalized control
mechanisms. At the same time, the fact that
an organization is small cannot be taken as
evidence that a gemeinschafft sort of sodal
system is operating. An organization need
not turn to formalization if other control
''^* Joan Woodward, Management and Technology,
mechanisms are present. One such control
London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1958.
Z6 W
^
mecba,msm is the level of professionalizatioii
912
Cornell University
The relationship between wealth and adoption of agricultural innovations is usually reported
to be positive. A theory which predicts that wealth has a negative relationship to adoption
in sfMfte cases is developed and is modified to predict that the relationship will have curvilinear
and negative parts at different points in the wealth-rank continuum. Hypotheses derived
from the theory are tested with data from seven studies of agricultural innovation. The
"middle class" (second from the top wealth guartile) is found to be more conservative than
. would be predicted if the relationship were positive and linear, and the relationship is found
to differ in earlier and later stages of the the adoption process. The theory is stated in general
terms and is potentially applicable to any situation involving stratification and risk-taking.
* Much of the work on this paper was done during the tenure of a Postdoctoral Foreign Area Fellowship in Latin American Studies. My own data
on Zinacantan were gathered during the summer of
196S under a grant from the Morrison Fund of
Stanford University, Previous work on Zinacantan
was done under the Havard Chiapas Project (Evon
Z. Vogt, Director) which is sponsored by NIMH
Grant MH-2100, and under NIMH Predoctoral
Fellowship MPH-lV,7l9. For comments and criticism during the course of preparation of the paper
I am indebted to Michael Burton, George Collier,
Paul Kay, A, Kimball Romney, Stuart Plattner,
Paul Young, and especially to my wife, Francesca
Cancian.
^ Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations,
New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962, pp.
175-176.