Weberian Model Research Articles

Weberian model of social stratification - a viewpoint

The PDF of this file is 1,571 kbytes in size and therefore will take a long time to download if you click on the PDF link below. If you would like the file to be sent to you by email, please send a request to info@nepjol.info. Please include the citation below in your request. DOI: 10.3126/opsa.v7i0.1108Occasional Papers in Sociology and Anthropology Vol.7 2001 p.14-25

Some Reflections on the Variability of Development and Organizational Structures

Most of the papers seem to center around several common basic theoretical themes or problems. One is the extent to which the classical Weberian model of bureaucracy is appropriate for understanding the great variety of forms of organization in societies in general and in developing societies in particular. Second is the degree to which organizations built according to the Weberian model are most conducive to bringing about developmental change, modernization, or development-however these terms may be conceived or defined. These two concerns or problems tend to converge around a common analytical focus; namely, how the structure of development organizations can best be understood in terms of their interaction with their broader environment. Both the problems and the analytical focus are not new; they represent a continuation of some of the topics which have been dominant for some time in the theory of organizations. Thus in the analysis of the applicability of the pure Weberian model for the understanding of various organizations, they follow the works of Stinchombe, Udy, and Etzioni. These workers have shown that the extent to which a formal organization develops

Functions of Ignorance in Introducing Automation

Since Weber, most sociologists who have studied formal organizations have been concerned with their rational and/or legal dimensions. To be sure, analyses of latent consequences, bureaucratic pathology, informal structures, staff-line conflicts, and so on have broadened the scope of the Weberian model. Yet, the basis of the model of bureaucracy, the rational/ legal system, is still the major focus.' Bureaucracies are generally conceived as structures of differential amounts of knowledge and expertise coordinated for the production of a good or service. However, all positions in a formal organization are limited to the knowledge specified by the formal duties, rights, responsibilities, and rewards implicated in each position. The division of labor implies not only knowledge but also notions about what people need not know and are not supposed to know. Thus, formal organizations can be seen as models of differential amounts of ignorance, or better yet, as structures of both knowledge and ignorance. Yet, ignorance as an explicit area of empirical concern is relatively dormant in sociology.2 We are concerned in this paper with some ways by which people deliberately attempt to keep others ignorant and how ignorance functions to protect existing statuses.3 Our focus is on the installation of an electronic

Personal-Impersonal Dimension in Organizational Behavior: A Variation of the Weberian Model

Personal-Impersonal Dimension in Organizational Behavior: A Variation of the Weberian Model

Personal-Impersonal Dimension in Organizational Behavior: A Variation of the Weberian Model

Personal-Impersonal Dimension in Organizational Behavior: A Variation of the Weberian Model

A Note on the Origins of Religious Differences

A T least three different models could be used to describe the relationship between religion as a sub-cultural system1 and society. In the Weberian model religion influences the personality variables of its members and the members in their turn, acting under the influence of their religious values, influence the organization of the social system.2 A second model, which might trace its origin to the positivist followers of Marx or the functionalist disciples of Durkheim, would view the influence flowing in the opposite direction: the social system would create certain in the personalities of its participants, which need dispositions would in their turn lead to certain kinds of religious activity and belief. In the first model religion is the independent variable, in the second it becomes an epiphenomenon-a dependent variable. A third model would view religion as neither necessarily an independent variable nor necessarily a dependent variable; rather it would see religion as a correlate, as a predictor variable which is perhaps independent and perhaps dependent; but whose precise causal influence must be determined in each correlation and not as a matter of general

Weberian v. Welfare Bureaucracy in Traditional Society

On the basis of an analysis of the Turkish coal industry, some limitations of the Weberian model of for analyzing organizations in underdeveloped societies are suggested. The concept of bureaucracy is used to emphasize certain basic differences in objectives, values, and behavior between the western Weberian model and the typical state-owned enterprise in an underdeveloped society. While in both societies exhibits both Weberian and welfare claims, in traditional society the claims and conditions of welfare, such as political control, full employment, central planning, and status and class bases of authority as opposed to those of skill, tend to dominate. Such disparities reflect essential differences in time, motivation, economic incentive, and educational values between western and traditional society. Robert V. Presthus is professor of public administration and editor of the Administrative Science Quarterly, Cornell University.