The Problem of Social Order in Nested Group Structures
8.2 Theoretical Orientation
This section presents orienting ideas and elabo- rates the backdrop for this paper, starting with the concept of social order.
8.2.1 Concept of Social Order
Social orders are defi ned here in simple terms as repetitive, regular, or predictable patterns of behavior and interaction in groups, organiza- tions, communities, and the like (e.g., see Berger and Luckmann 1966 ; Collins 1981 ; Wrong 1995 ). Repetitive interactions in local settings congeal into regularities but also refl ect the impact of existing macro-level organizations and institutions. Repeated social interactions consti- tute the micro-foundation of macro social orders in the sense that order cannot exist or be sustained without affi rmation by individuals and their con- comitant social interaction processes. Macro structures and cultures likely frame social inter- actions at the micro level but those interactions represent independent, “agent like” forces that undergird the framing force of macro-level orga- nizational and institutional patterns. We argue that emotions drive this force (see also Turner 2007 , 2014 ).
This simple, micro-based concept of social order is founded on the notion that a semblance of social order is necessary for people to navigate their social worlds, deal with uncertainties in their lives, and produce collective goods, ser- vices, or other benefi ts to individuals. Yet, social orders can take many different forms, unexpect- edly change, and often are contested implicitly if not explicitly (Rawls 2010 ). People impose order and act to affi rm and reproduce it in order to make their lives predictable but it is a sociologi-
cal truism that any social order is tenuous and fragile. What is socially constructed can be socially unraveled or reconstructed in a new form. In fact, history is replete with instances of established orders, seemingly inviolate and per- manent, self-destructing unexpectedly and then being reconstructed or reconstituted in a different institutional form. The abrupt and unexpected demise of communism in Eastern Europe is a recent historical example.
Yet, while social orders are inherently fragile, they are not equally so. It is reasonable to suspect that some social orders have more potential than others to decline, self-destruct, or otherwise change radically in a short period of time. One might conceive of many historical and institu- tional reasons why order in some groups are highly resilient while others are incredibly frag- ile. We propose that the form of social tie between people (members) and their group units (organi- zation, community, or nation) is a key differenti- ating property of more resilient versus more fragile groups or organizations. Group ties are more fragile if based solely on instrumental (indi- vidual) benefi ts to members, which is the primary focus of Hobbes and social dilemma theorists.
With such ties, members commit to a group only as long as that fl ow of individual benefi ts con- tinue to outweigh those of alternatives.
Continuation of benefi t fl ow is never certain because it requires group level resources that may wax and wane, and groups of whatever scale exercise only limited control over their environ- ments. Thus, instrumentally-based person-to- group ties are likely to be brittle in the face of limited or varying resources. A second form of group tie is affective or emotional. An affective tie is a “gut level” positive feeling about the group or organization. The tie entails additional, larger meaning to people beyond the instrumental benefi ts they receive as members. The group affi liation itself is meaningful, intrinsically plea- surable, and often self-enhancing. Such affective- emotional group ties are non-instrumental in the sense that the group is an end in itself, not just a means to an end as is the case with an instrumen- tal tie.
8.2.2 Emotions and Social Order The overall implication is clear: Groups that gen- erate and sustain the commitment of members ( employees , citizens ) through instrumental incen- tives are more fragile and less stable than groups that generate and sustain the commitment of members through affective ties . Affective ties lead members to stay and support the group even if benefi ts decline signifi cantly because the intrinsic feelings about membership have com- pensatory effects. The contrast of instrumental and affective ties is probably as old as the disci- pline of sociology itself (e.g., see Weber 1968 ; Parsons 1947 ), and it is central to research on organizational commitments in business organi- zations (see Mathieu and Zajac 1990 ). However, the interrelationships of instrumental and affec- tive commitments, as well as the social- interaction foundations of these, have not received much attention (see Johnson et al. 2009 ).
Over the past two decades we have developed four complementary theories about the bases, interrelationships, and consequences of such commitments. The common focus is on how and when instrumental ties become affective or expressive over time in the context of repeated interactions around joint tasks. The four theories are: nested-group theory (Lawler 1992 ); rela- tional cohesion theory (Lawler and Yoon 1993 , 1996 , 1998 ; Thye et al. 2002 ); an affect theory of social exchange (Lawler 2001 ; Lawler et al.
2008 ); and the theory of social commitments (Lawler et al. 2009 ; Thye et al. 2015 ). The com- mon focus of these theories is to understand how emotional aspects of micro-level interactions can generate non-instrumental, affectively-imbued ties to a group, whether it is a small, local one or a broader more encompassing one. Here, we selectively draw upon elements of these theories to build a deeper more comprehensive under- standing of the nested-group problem.
Each of the four theories has a distinct empha- sis. Nested - group theory (Lawler 1992 ) fi rst pro- posed the proximal-group bias in attributions of emotions (positive and negative), indicating that people attribute positive emotions and experi-
ences to local (proximal) groups and negative emotions and experiences to the larger more encompassing (distal) groups. The main hypoth- esis is that people develop stronger affective ties to those groups that provide them a greater sense of effi cacy and control, and this is most com- monly the local group. Relational cohesion the- ory (Lawler and Yoon 1996 ; Lawler et al. 2000 ) specifi es an endogenous emotional process through which repeated (instrumental) exchanges produce affective commitments to a relational or group unit. The implication is that the proximal bias is grounded in the emotional byproducts of repeated interactions among actors in the local unit. The Affect Theory of Social Exchange (Lawler, 2001 ; Lawler et al. 2008 ) keys on the nature of the task or task structure in social exchange contexts. It indicates that the more joint a social exchange task, the more likely it is to fos- ter a sense of shared responsibility among those accomplishing it; a sense of shared responsibility, in turn, promotes social unit attributions of indi- vidual feelings from the task interaction.
Affective group commitments, therefore, are strongest to groups in which tasks are accom- plished jointly with others. Social Commitments Theory (Lawler et al. 2009 ) generalizes the above three theories into a broader explanation regard- ing the role of affective group commitments in the problem of social order. The proximal bias is weaker here because jointness and a sense of shared responsibility can be generated not only in the local, immediate unit, but also the larger more distal unit. The locus of shared responsibility is contingent on how jointly the task is structured, how collectively it is framed, and whether that framing is by leaders (managers) of the proximal or distal group.
8.2.3 Research Evidence
There is substantial empirical evidence on key principles of the four theories. Most of the evi- dence is from laboratory experiments in which subjects repeatedly engage in an exchange task with the same others over time (see Lawler and
Yoon 1996 ; Lawler et al. 2008 ). In this context, we measure the frequency of exchange, self- reported emotions (pleasure-satisfaction and interest/excitement), as well as perceptions of cohesion and behavioral commitments (see Lawler and Yoon 1996 for the experimental con- text and measures). Only one study set out to directly test the nested-group formulation (Mueller and Lawler 1999 ), but several bits of evidence from experimental research on the other theories can be interpreted in terms of the nested- group commitment problem. This cumulative empirical foundation sets the stage for our theo- retical analysis of the nested-group problem to follow. Four relevant points that can be extracted from the research.
1. The most direct evidence for the nested group theory comes from a survey study of work attitudes in a decentralized (school system) and centralized (military) organization, both with nested subunits: schools (proximal) in a school district (distal), and a medical center (proximal) in the air force (distal) (Mueller and Lawler 1999 ). The study indicates that commitments to the local unit were stronger in the decentralized than in the centralized organization. The locus of control and auton- omy over work conditions was associated with the locus of organizational commitments.
Work conditions controlled locally affect commitments to that local organizational unit, whereas those controlled by the larger unit shape commitments to that larger unit.
Importantly, the locus of commitment corre- sponds with the locus of control (Mueller and Lawler 1999 ).
2. Turning to our experimental research on dyads, networks, and small groups, when peo- ple repeatedly exchange things of value, they experience positive emotions and these feel- ings, in turn, generate commitment behaviors such as the propensity to ( i ) stay in the rela- tion, ( ii ) give unilateral benefi ts or gifts to oth- ers in the group, and ( iii ) cooperate with members in a social dilemma (Lawler and Yoon 1996 ; Lawler et al. 2000 ). Evidence
clearly indicates that positive emotions medi- ate the impact of repetitive exchange on rela- tional or group ties.
3. Relational ties with such an emotional foun- dation tend to fragment networks of exchange around “pockets of cohesion,” based on fre- quent exchanges and resulting positive emo- tions; ties are to the local proximal exchange relation not the larger more distal network (Lawler and Yoon 1998 ). Yet, if networks are high in density and consist primarily of equal power relations, this breakdown around pock- ets of cohesion does not occur. Under these conditions, networks are transformed into per- ceived group entities and thus there are group ties to both the relational and more encom- passing network unit (Thye et al. 2011 ).
4. When two or more people undertake joint tasks, they tend to perceive a shared responsi- bility and, when this occurs, positive feelings from the task interaction are attributed to the group in which the task is accomplished. The result of social unit attributions of individual emotion is affective ties to the group unit (Lawler et al. 2008 , 2009 ; Thye et al. 2015 ).
Tasks that generate greater sense of shared responsibility lead to stronger affective group ties. This research, however, dealt only with a single immediate group (the local or proximal unit). One might hypothesize that if a sense of shared responsibility is produced at a distal group level, as well as the proximal level, the result should be a positive relationship between commitments to the local and larger unit. An important question is when or under what conditions are commitments at the local level in competition with those at the larger level (i.e., a zero sum relation) or positively related (i.e., mutually supportive)?
As a whole, these theories suggest that in ana- lyzing nested-group contexts, three conditions warrant careful attention: ( i ) autonomy and con- trol at the local and larger group level; ( ii ) the frequency or density of interactions within and outside the local unit; ( iii ) the jointness of the task structure and locus of shared responsibility.
A fourth condition is added by theoretical work of Jon Turner ( 2007 ) on the proximal bias: ( iv ) the degree that the proximal group unit is embedded in the distal group unit. We introduce Turner’s notion here and then return to it later.
Jon Turner’s “sociological theory of emotion”
(Turner 2007 ) argues that emotions and emo- tional processes are the ultimate foundation for macro social orders. These emotions originate in micro level social “encounters.” The strength and resilience of a macro order is contingent on micro level encounters that produce positive emotions, and also the spread of those feelings to larger groups, organizations, or communities. The key obstacle is the proximal bias: people tend to attri- bute positive feelings from encounters to local, micro level units and attribute negative events and feelings to larger (meso or macro) social units. Turner argues that the social- embeddedness of local-unit encounters within the larger unit can counteract the proximal bias, by generating stronger interconnections between behavior in the local group and the larger, distal institutional or organizational grouping. Social embedded- ness, therefore, may determine whether emotion attributions stay local or spread to larger units.
This has important implications for the nested- group component of the Hobbesian problem of social order and we will compare our approach to Turner’s shortly.