Etiology of the Effect
Why do we expect this group-level hypothesized effect to hold? Stated differently, from an evolutionary theory perspective (Gould, 2002), does the effect make a difference in terms of the human condition and survival? We believe that this effect may matter because without it, or one similar to this effect, it seems unlikely that people would have cooperated with or bonded to one another. Specifically, when faced with the need to hunt or protect themselves, individuals are almost by definition interdependent with each other because they would likely be unable to eat or survive without one another. As a result, cooperation and cohesion serve as ways for human beings to compete successfully relative to other species. As a result, and in a somewhat interesting way, cooperation provides a way to compete with other species. Because those individuals who cooperate will likely survive, it is their capability for group-level cooperation and cohesion in response to interdependence that would be passed on in an evolutionary sense.
An additional issue regarding this effect is: How does change occur? Here, the point is that as the degree of interdependence faced by individuals increases, cooperation and cohesion increase among them. In other words, changes in the degree of cooperation and cohesion depend on changes in the degree of interdependence faced by individuals.
A THEORY OF COLLECTIVIZED PROCESSES
positions(or identities) and expectations, which provide information about forms, condition of occurrence, causes, and effects of roles (see Biddle, 1979). The notions of position and expectations (e.g., rights and duties) are common themes included in most definitions of roles (see Alutto, 1968;
Biddle, 1979;Dansereau et al., 1984).
In general, only expectations that are shared by a number of individuals are considered to be relevant to roles. Likewise, the notion of position implies an individual’s rank or status, which is presumably shared by individuals in similar positions. Moreover, these aspects of roles have been described as applicable to multiple levels of analysis. For example, the concept of ‘‘role’’
has been characterized as an interdisciplinary concept of interest in psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology (see Alutto, 1968;Biddle, 1979;Katz & Kahn, 1978), with individuals in each discipline focusing on different levels of analysis. Following this tradition,Katz and Kahn (1978)have suggested that sociological concepts can be translated to lower levels of analysis. This interdisciplinary focus and associated assumptions of multi-level effects leads us to conclude that any formulation of roles should hold across levels rather than being level-specific in nature.
At the person level of analysis, individuals are frequently viewed as actors playing a role, which suggests that individual personalities do not determine the nature of a role. Instead, factors external to an individual (at higher levels of analysis) specify how an individual is to play a role. For example, Blau (1974)notes a fundamental difference between the social processes external to individual personalities that are responsible for playing a role and the internal psychological processes that are not responsible for playing a role.
Likewise, at the dyad and group levels of analysis, Katz and Kahn (1978) have proposed a role-taking model. Their model implies that the relationship between two individuals is rather impersonal, in that each actor behaves or is socialized to behave in a way compatible with a role rather than with the per-sonal preferences of the individuals taken either separately or together.
In contrast,Miller (1978)has asserted that roles and social systems are com-posed of human beings and should not be viewed as independent of them.
For us, roles do not exist independent of people. If human beings did not exist, roles as we know them could not exist. In other words, roles can be viewed as human contrivances. However, this assertion in no way suggests that one individual or human being will find it very easy to change roles.
Indeed, from the perspective of a role-player, roles may appear to be nonmalleable – a perception that may arise from the entities that underlie roles. Nevertheless, this focus on roles as embedded in the social fabric of human existence provides the basis for a theoretical formulation of roles.
At the collectivity level of analysis, individuals are expected to view themselves as ‘‘small’’ compared to the collectivity and as dependent on a large number of indirect connections with other actors. Collectivities are based on hierarchical or other types of impersonal and indirect linkages rather than on personal, face-to-face interactions. In a collectivity, an individual should, in a sense, be able to view himself or herself as simply a cog in a large gear. Moreover, the greater number of connections with other individuals at the collectivity level of analysis (as opposed to the group, dyad, and person levels of analysis) may enhance the feeling that roles are not easily changed. With whole collectivities, the connections between indivi-duals can be viewed as impersonal and not based on group or team processes inside a collectivity.
Given these assumptions, variables associated with whole collectivities should be homogeneous within collectivities and different between collectivities. Next, we consider two variables – titles and expectations – and their relationship as key for understanding collectivized processes.
Titles constitute a labeling process residing within human beings who occupy physical space. (In contrast, the term ‘‘position’’ can be taken to mean a location in some type of social and perhaps nonphysical space.) We define titles as categories or labels that are properties of collectivities and that reside in human beings. This definition is compatible with prior work on roles (Alutto, 1968; Biddle, 1979). Expectations have typically been defined as having an anticipatory and normative quality and as referring to activities or behaviors (Katz & Kahn, 1978). We define expectations as beliefs about what should or will be done by oneself or by others.
Our key assertion – that titles are related to expectations – can be examined in a number of ways. For example, a change in a title may be followed in time by a change in expectations. Alternatively, a change in expectations may result in a change in title over time. Another part of this assertion is that titles and expectations are properties of collectivities.
Therefore, collectivities are predicted to differ in terms of their titles and expectations, and these differences are hypothesized to be related.
Suppose human beings could associate titles and expectations only at a person level and not at a collectivity level of analysis. In this scenario, each individual would construct titles and expectations independent of other human beings. A similar formulation would result if groups or dyads based on face-to-face interactions were viewed as forming titles and expectations.
Therefore, as a cross-level formulation, we suggest that titles and expectations are based on large-scale social movements (seeWeber, 1924/1947); persons, dyads, and groups remain important but are viewed differently.
Specifically, in this formulation, face-to-face interactions in groups or dyads are viewed as reflecting the titles and expectations associated with the collectivities within which these other entities are embedded. Likewise, differences between persons are viewed as simply reflecting the different collectivities within which different persons are embedded. When an individual takes a new job and title, for example, his or her expectations are hypothesized to be drawn in line with the titles and expectations associated with a new collectivity. This cross-level view of persons, dyads, and groups is compatible with previous work (see Alutto, 1968; Biddle, 1979,Katz & Kahn, 1978).
From a reductionist perspective, our cross-level formulation means that collectivities are dependent on an alignment of persons, dyads, and groups within each collectivity. Titles and expectations are viewed as somewhat fragile because their maintenance depends on a large number of individuals sharing a similar set of titles and expectations. In contrast, titles and expectations can seem quite powerful when viewed from the perspective of an individual, because a large number of persons, dyads, and groups share similar titles and expectations for themselves and for others in similar roles.
If human beings were unable to associate titles and expectations at a collectivity level of analysis, the use of titles (e.g., professor, nurse, doctor, production superintendent) would not trigger any expectations about what an individual with such a title would or should do. Moreover, a collectivity-level formulation implies that a number of individuals recognize such titles and that the titles are not the result of each person’s idiosyncratic ideas or face-to-face interactions with others. Therefore, in formal cross-level terminology, titles and expectations are expected to be associated based on differences between whole collectivities, whole groups, whole dyads, and whole persons.
Specific Formulation
One way to define titles in a more specific fashion is in terms of their function in society (Weber, 1924/1947; Katz & Kahn, 1978). From this perspective, considering shared (collectivized) individual preferences (values) for producing outputs, the earliest titles may well have been production titles, which focused on the production of goods and services.
As people attempted to produce goods and services, the law of entropy (which, in oversimplified form, means that things tend to fall apart) likely influenced organizing processes. This tendency may then have been
overcome by activities that involved the maintenance of the production function (maintenance titles). Another method of keeping an organization from decomposing and helping it to survive is to control inputs and outputs.
As a result, a new set of titles, support titles, may have evolved. An additional way to overcome entropy is by making changes inside an organization and helping it to evolve or adapt based on adaptive titles.
These four functional categories have been suggested by numerous theorists (seeKatz & Kahn, 1978) and provide one method for systematically categorizing titles. For example, titles such as production superintendent, foreman, general foreman, and the like are viewed as production titles. Titles such as maintenance engineer, mechanical engineer, and personnel super-visor are viewed as maintenance titles because their function is to provide service to production titles. Production control, quality control, and purchasing can be viewed as support titles because their focus is on controlling inputs and outputs. Titles such as research engineer and chemist can be viewed as adaptive titles because of their focus on change or research and development.
In work settings, titles also are linked within a hierarchy in which upper-level titlesinvolve integrating various functions, and lower-level titles focus mainly on the performance of a function. Therefore, eight types of functional titlescan be asserted as having theoretical meaning: upper- and lower-level production, maintenance, support, and adaptive titles.
Titles can also be categorized in terms of degree of professionalism. The concept of professionalism has been tied to a general (collectivity-level) shift in individuals’ preferences (values) for providing goods and services to society at large. For example, Kornhauser (1962) identified a mutual dependence between organizations and professionals. From this perspective, organizations are viewed as having evolved from small, family-centered economic units, and the criterion for filling jobs became functional knowledge rather than inherited status. In this way, professional associa-tions can be thought of as providing certification or a title, which indicates that an individual has a certain degree of functional knowledge. Because professionalism involves an association or organization of individuals, the collectivity level again seems appropriate for understanding titles.
Although conflicts may arise for individuals who are members of both a profession and a work organization, this type of conflict is not inevitable.
In work settings, professional titles may complement functional titles. For example, adaptive or research and development titles in a work setting may require greater professionalism on the part of individuals who hold such titles. In contrast, production titles may rely on the specifics of the particular
situation, rather than on professional titles and expectations. Essentially, collectivities in work settings are hypothesized to have different titles and degrees of professionalism.
Different titles may trigger various specific expectations about how much freedom from constraints should be given to an individual. For example, some titles (such as ‘‘production’’) may trigger an expectation of greater attention to rules and regulations, greater interaction with a superior, and greater use of machines, equipment, and technology. Other titles (such as ‘‘adaptive’’) may trigger less attention to rules and regulations, less interaction with superiors, and less reliance on machines, equipment, and technology. Expectations of greater freedom from various constraints might be expected in upper-level adaptive collectivities than in lower-level production collectivities.
These specific definitions of expectations are of particular interest because expectations that are shared across levels imply that, within work settings, the behavioral latitude expected of or given to an individual may vary with his or her title. One individual may have greater control over his or her job-related behaviors, whereas another may possess less freedom. Perhaps due to a variety of social and personal values, titles that imply a lack of freedom from constraints are often viewed as objectionable.
As a solution to this problem, it is occasionally suggested that collectivities should be enriched to incorporate greater freedom from various constraints, thereby granting increased latitude to all members regardless of title. An individual who holds a title implying a great deal of latitude can experience at least as many problems as one who holds a title signifying little freedom from constraints. The titles and expectations are viewed as determined by collectivity-level processes and not just by individual preferences. Thus diffe-rences between whole persons, whole dyads, and whole groups are expected to be cross-level manifestations of membership in different collectivities.
In summary, these notions result in the following specific testable formulation:
Functional and professional titles are positively related to expectations about freedom from constraints (such as from machines, equipment, technology, or superiors) at the whole collectivity (department, business unit, or organization), whole workgroup (or team), whole superior–subordinate dyad, and whole employee levels of analysis.
Etiology of the Effect
Why do we expect this collectivity-level hypothesized effect to hold? Stated differently, from an evolutionary theory perspective (Gould, 2002), does the
effect make a difference in terms of the human condition and survival? We believe that this effect may matter because without it, or a similar effect, it seems unlikely that language would have developed. Language provides a way to learn from the knowledge of the past about how things occur. Thus the ability to title an event and use this title in the future provides an advantage in the competition of a species for survival. Obviously, without language, each event and approach to it would have to be rediscovered by each generation. With the learning of words (titles) and their meaning (expectations), it becomes possible to use the successes of the past to cope with the present. As such, this capability increases the likelihood of human survival and so would be passed on in an evolutionary sense.
An additional issue is: How does change occur in this effect? In this scenario, different titles may be used to label new situations in an attempt to more effectively deal with those situations. Moreover, new situations may occur that are somewhat widespread and may generate new titles and new expectations. Indeed, dictionaries are updated periodically as new words evolve to capture new situations.