RAWN FROM mom
KELUE GARDNER }

The is for the Degree of Pb D.
MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY -

NOVELS 0F ORWELL, HUXLEY, CAMUS AND

ORGAMZAnoNAL THEORY AS b

 

 

.. .. A
. >. .
_ .V. .._ . _
.A Z ..
I . .. . V
, . .
.. . ,
. _ .
_ . _ .

1972

 

 

 

llllllllllflllfllllflllfllllmflll : b mun

1293 01060 3474

Michigan Sum

University

I ’ ' < This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AS
DRAWN FROM SELECTED
NOVELS OF ORWELL,
HUBEY, CAMUS AND KAFKA

presented by

 

Kellie Gardner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in Educational
Administration
Q
5; ' Major professor
May 5, 1972

Date

 

@3314)

QAVMV‘)
”Pl 8 l W
”16% Q2994

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY
AS DRAWN FROM SELECTED NOVELS

or onwELL, HUXLEY, CAMUS AND KAFKA

By

Kellie Gardner

The author's intent was to derive prOpertiee of organizations

and theorema of organizational behavior from the data, stated

and implied, in 12§4 of George Orwell, Ergvg Neg World of
Aldous Huxley, In; Elagug of Albert Camus and Ihg [rial of

Franz Kafka.

The methodological requirements called for a preliminary.
replicable acreen for data extraction and a non-replicable
psychological ecreen for the development and linkage of the

material.

Kellie Gardner

The results of the study suggested the following points.

1. The reference frame currently and generally employed in
organizational theory, although valid, is a limited or
local-space reference frame. It is management centered, and
such orientation permits only particular typologies and

restricted analyses of organizational properties.

2. The foregoing centering of the frame is reflected in the
basic definition of an organization 3 A social unit delibe-
rately constructed and reconstructed in order to achieve
specific goals. An equally valid view would consider an
organization to be 3 A set of unified systems for controlling

the behavior of a group of individuals called the membership.

3. Hithin a new reference frame concepts are also changed.
Goals become relatively meaningless. and their functions
within theory are replaced by the more general concept of

products-effects.

4. Organizations tend to distort under four major forces
emanating from x The Suprasystem, Structural Relations.

Products-Effects and Internal Human Element Drives.

Kellie Gardner

5. The above forces are countered, in varying degrees, by
organizational systems delineated as Stabilizing, Innovating
and Attitudinal, with the first noted carrying most of the

counter force.

6. Of the basic elements of an organization, the structure
and the human being, the human element is determinant in
organizational evolution; and, one of the primary motivators
of human behavior - the most neglected or obscured in current

works on theory - is the sex drive.

7. In spite of the above, certain constructs reach a stable
state in evolution, and the human element is eliminated as

a factor in further evolution.

8. Necessary to the stable state is a domination of the
communications subsystem by the Stabilizing system of an

organization.

In general, the study is heuristic and with the flaws

implicit in any such work. It is not a study which leads
to comprehension through a review of preliminaries and a
summary. It demands new definitions and a non-replicable

screen. On the other hand, if the study has a virtue, it

Kellie Gardner

is in that one is moved to consider a field from a new
point of view and to speak of that field in a variant

language.

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY
AS DRAHN FROM SELECTED NOVELS

OF ORHELL, HUXLEY, CAMUS AND KAFKA

By

L .Kellie Gardner

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One wishes that a minor study could give credit beyond
its magnitude and be worthy of those who inspired more

than was written.

Samuel A. Moore, Richard Featherstone, Keith Groty,
Cole Brambeck, Robert Iannuzzelli, Richard Strickland,
Vandal Johnson, Arlette Gardner 3 You are the ones to

whom I owe the many debts.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intent of the Study . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Considerations . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . .
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Extraction of Data . . . . . . . .
Ordering of Data . . . . . . . . .
Linkage of Models . . . . . . . .
General . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure and Presentation . . . . .
Definitions and Assumptions . . . . .

Review of the Related Literature . .

THE NOBEL OF ORHELL . . . . . . . . . .
The Suprasystem . . . . . . . . . . .
The superorganization . . . . . . . .

‘Goels . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Formal Structure . . . . . . . . .
The Human Control System . . . . .

Conditioning Strategies and
Assumptions concerning the Individual

Miscellaneous Commentary . . . . . .
Task Satisfaction . . . . . . . .
Production . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effectiveness and Efficiency . . .

Page

NNH

15
18
18
19
22
22
27

36
37
39
40
44
47

SB
66
66
66
71

Chapter

Preliminary Summary of the Section .
Particular Features of the Model .

General Notes Drawn from the Model
.nd Ralated Material e e e e a e a

THE MODEL OF HUXLEY . . . . . . . . . .
The Suprasystem . . . . . . . . . . .
The Superorganization . . . . . . . .

General Notes . . . . . . . . . .
Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Formal Structure . . . . . . . . .
The Human Control System . . . . . .
Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Communications . . . . . . . . . .

surveillance e a a e a e e e e e e

The Human Elements and the Value System

Innovative and Stabilizing Mechanisms
Organizational Evolution . . . . . .
Preliminary Summary of the Section .
Particular Features of the Model .
General Notes Drawn from the Model
and Related Material . . . . . . .
THE MODEL OF CAMUS . . . . . . . . . . .
The Suprasystem . . . . . . . . . . .
The Superorganization . . . . . . . .
Formal Structure . . . . . . . . .
Incidental Organizations . . . . .
The Human Element . . . . . . . . . .
Organizational Morality . . . . . . .
Preliminary Summary of the Section .
Particular Features of the Model .

General Notes Drawn From the Model
and related Material . . . . . . .

iv

Page

73
73

75

BO
81
82
82
86
89
91
92
93
98
99
102
105
107
107

110

115
116
117
117
120
121
126
131
131

132

Chapter Page

THE MODEL OF KAFKA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Preliminary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
The Suprasystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
The Formal Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Reality System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Court System 3 Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Court System 2 Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Court System : Part III . . . . . . . . . . . 155
The Human Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Preliminary Summary of the Section . . . . . . . 173
Particular Features of the Model . . . . . . . 173
General Notes Drawn from the Model
and Related Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

MODELS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Preliminary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Definition of an Organization . . . . . . . . 178
Products-Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Reference Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Distortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
The Human Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
BIBLIOGRAPHV . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O 216

APPENDIX 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 O 219

INTRODUCTION

INTENT :

The intent of this dissertation is to derive properties of
organizations and theorems of organizational behavior from
the data, stated and implied, in 1284 of George Orwell,

Brave New flgzld of Aldous Huxley, The Trial of Franz Kafka
and The Plague of Albert Camus.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 8

There exists a vast literature on organizations, their
components, their functioning and their effects on some
total ecology. That information is banked in monographs,
dissertations, treatises and texts as well as in less stric-
tured forms such as the novel. For, if one accepts even an
elementary definition of an organization, a social unit

1 be a con uct d nd econ t uc ed to e k 'fi
£2£l111

upon the elements of that definition should be of concern to

then it follows that any art form with commentary
the student of organizations.

For the above reason, the drawings of Hogarthz or Picasso's
single "Guernica,"3 Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound,“ Milton's

”Pradise Lost," certain music, particular dances, political

cartoons and a number of comic books are all proper sources

of data for theorists of organizational behavior.

The depth of one's concern with the content of these
different forms has varied from age to age. It has been
determined by the individual researcher's inclinations, the
state of the art or science under consideration, societal

values, and the particular methodology in vogue.

Thus, one researcher may seek his "facts" from whatever is
observable reality while another chooses "facts" from primary
source work written in the field. One researcher considers
his field so advanced conceptually that he seeks further
knowledge of it gglx within the field, while another views

it so fractured at its foundations that he seeks new concepts
from outside of the field. One researcher sees theoretical
forms as ends in themselves while the other demands utility
according to a particular society's definition of the term.
One researcher is based in scholasticism and the other in

empiricism.

Contemporary concern with organizational behavior might
appear to be centered in empiricism and locked to the scien-
tific method. The canons of this attitude, however, do not

permit one to pass a priori judgment on the value, validity

or accuracy of data stored in art forms and reprocessed by

some c lo ic.

Let one consider the matter from a somewhat different point

of view.

Prior to a Gauss, Bolyai and Lobachevsky4 the axioms of
Euclidean Geometry were generally considered to be "truths”
about the nature of space. The derived or discovered theorems
of that structure became clarified or detailed explanations
of the “reality." A major exercise of geometricians was to
expand the given system by discovering further theorems

within the structure.

By taking a new axiomatic base, one which contradicted empi-
rical measurements, the non-Euclidean geometries were framed.
Over one half a century passed before experimentalists disco-
vered that modified Elliptic Geometry (non-Euclidean) appea-
red to be a relatively more accurate model for space than the

Euclidean model.

That is to say, if one draws models solely from an empirical
basis, then one may well be restricting the growth and under-

standing of a discipline.

The same parallel may be made in the field of abstract alge-
hrs in which form or structure have preceded the discovery

of matching “reality” structures.

These general considerations need not be limited to logical
models. A simple change of frames of reference - engendered
by any number of idea sources - may be healthy for a science;
or, in the same manner, a re-examination of assumptions -
stimulated by concepts from any field - may forward a disci-

pline.

To this point, then, one has noted that a source of data on
organizational behavior exists by definition in divers art
forms: that‘gynxénzi Judgments on data validity are them-
selves, in current logic, invalid; that the throwing off of
abstract forms and the shifting of reference frames may for-
ward a discipline: and, that some discoveries have been made

despite empiricism rather then because of it.

In the above spirit one is led to the particular problem

considered in this dissertation.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM :

This section will be presented in two parts 2 An explicit
statement of the general problem; and, a discursive conside-

ration of the major elements within it.

mu. %

In the history of organizational theory and management
thought one is well aware of the shift in emphasis between
Scientific Management, Human Relations and Structuralist
schools. It may be agreed Upon that each shift - in spite of
some overamphasis - contributed to the advancement of the
art or science. One may question, however, the value of per-
mitting a single reference frame to dominate study in a
field. The frame of reference dominating all of the schools
has included and emphasized these factors : a management
oriented attitude, a quantitative approach, and an empirical

data base under a single methodology.

But it is axiomatic that for a field to grow or to rejuvenate
itself there must be occasional changes in reference, metho-
dologies and data sources. The problem is usually benign:
and, it is one which is aggravated generally upon the occa-

sion of a crucial experiment. When there is an absence of

such crucial experiments, the growth and strengthening of a
discipline demands a problem-creating mechanism; and, one
such device might be a critical, exploratory study of one's

concern through divers fields and with variant methodologies.

The general problem, then, is one of develOping problem-
creating mechanisms for the field of organizational behavior.
Related to it, and not inferior, is the need to examine the
axiom which demands methodological, reference frame, and
data-source changes for disciplines. The specific problem is
one of orienting students of organizational behavior to the
above concerns: and, the intent of this dissertation is yet

a subheading, in that one would discover organizational theo-
ry, however fragmented, within specific works of the given

novelists.

Pgrt I] :

Novelists have observed reality - whatever it may be - and,
presumably, scientists have observed that same reality. Or,
as Ackermann states 8 ”Artistic practice is as dependent as
scientific practice on any external reality that may be ad-
mitted, and yet we do not normally regard artistic practice

as objective."5

Clearly, the novelist has filtered his observations through
his individual psycho-logic; the scientists have filtered
their observations through a somewhat standard logic. Or,

the measuring instruments, the procedure and the methodology
of each novelist is different from that of the other; and,
any given experiment with reality can not be repeated. Scien-
tists - with varying degrees of brilliance - use standard
tools, methods, and so on : Experiments on reality may be
repeated. This brings one to the question of £533 consti-
tutes theory: for, there is even a question as to whether or
not ’21 organizational theory exists at this time. One may
note the comments of March and Simon in Organizgtigng : "The
literature leaves one with the impression that after all not
a great deal has been said about organizations...there is...
a great disparity between hypotheses and evidence. Much of
what we know or believe about organizations is distilled from
common sense and from the practical experience of executives.
The great bulk of this wisdom and lore has never been sub-

jected to the rigorous scrutiny of scientific method."6

Ackermsnn gives a less despairing view : "...theories were
generally taken to be collections of laws along with other
statements of a more general nature which were used to ex-
plain a variety of experimental results and observations...

what might be called a theory in one branch of a science

might seem rather impoverished by comparison to a theory
which explains a comparatively broad range of experimental

7

data in some other branch.”

It is further observed that : "The absence of general laws
and theories becomes more pronounced as we move from physics
to biology, biology to psychology, and from psychology to

sociology."B

Theory may be, in sympathy with Humpty Dumpty, precisely what
one wishes it to be - no more and no less. This, however,
violates the conservation (and utility) of definition, and

one might do well to seek some common definition of it.

In Lillian Lieber's 'n tein Theo of elativi one
finds criteria for "good" theory in physics.9 Dr. Lieber
maintains that theory must first explain known ”facts” of a
discipline, that it must then be able to account for new
facts within its framework as they arise, and that it finally
must permit one to predict phenomena - either yet to be dis-
covered or hitherto unexplained within the standard frame of

reference.

Thus, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is an example of "good"

theory: for, on the basis of minimal and "rational"

10

assumptions it accounts for a wide range of phenomena of
classical physics: it explains the "fact" or "conspiracy"
arising from the crucial Michelson-Morley experiment; and,
it incidentally accounts for the previously unexplained

lag of Mercury in its orbit.

The above criteria for "good" theory are, perhaps, too strin-
gent fOr the social sciences. The atom is relatively well-
behaved. On the other hand, the analysis of human behavior
might be analogous to the playing of an infinitely complex
game of chase in which occasionally, while the player is not
looking, a pawn, knight and bishop get up on their own and

quietly, surreptitiously move to another square.

Thus, ”...the logician is fond of pointing out that an

infinite number of hypotheses can always be fitted to any

available data.'10

Or, as Stinchcombe states : "A student who has difficulty

thinking of at least three sensible explanations for any

correlation...should probably choose another profession.‘ll

And, again 2 ”...although it may reflect my dim view of the
state of the discipline, I think the only way to get theories

of many important phenomena is to make them up oneself."12

11

And, finally, returning to Ackermann : "Scientific theories
cannot therefore be seen as abstractions from available evi-
dence, but are often free constructions of human intelligence

which are as creative as any human activity could be.”13

The evolution of the definition of theory for the sociolo-
gist, the organizational theorist and so on, is implicit in
the statement from Blau and Scott's Forms 0r anization :

"If the early sociologists were primarily concerned with

broad problems of social organization, and neglected ques-
tions of scientific evidence, later ones became preoccupied
with refining methods for testing hypotheses, and were willing
to sacrifice the sociological focus on organized social rela-

tions for neatness of research design."14

Or, one may consider McGregor's statement 3 "Every managerial
act rests on assumptions, generalizations, and hypotheses -
that is to say, on theory.".15 And this rather "loose” - if
still acceptable - notion of theory is reflected in McGregor's

sets of assumptions for "Theory X and Theory Y."

Clearly, in the social sciences and organizational behavior

in particular there is no consensus on the definition of

theory.

12

For every Jerald Hage with "An Axiomatic Theory of Organi-
zations"16 one may point to a generalist believing the state
of the contributing sciences too weak for meaningful deve-
lopment of models structured along classical or formalist
mathematical lines - assuming the mathematical form should

be taken at all.

For the purpose of this dissertation, theory will be consi-
dered in the more loose sense of McGregor. Theory for orga-
nizational behavior will be any set of consciously framed
assumptions connected with generalizations and hypotheses
through which one attempts to account for known facts and to

predict new phenomena of organizational behavior.

If the lack of precision of the 2g figg_definition is unset-
tling, it at least demands a systematizing of observations
and sufficient analysis to connect assumptions and generali-
zations. The brief consideration of what constitutes theory
in organizational behavior may have clarified the intent of
this dissertation; however, by defining theory as a loose
construct of axioms, theorems and hypotheses, one runs the
risk of having a study dismissed before its conception.
Indeed, this is related to the general problem. For, to this

point, one has develOped the following argument 3

l3

1. In im'na on ide tion one observed that by
the definition of organizations and the nature of
the novel, novels formed valid data sources for the
theorist of organizational behavior.

2. Theory, as defined loosely, may well have a genera-
tive or predictive value: however, even a flimsy
construction of axioms, theorems and hypotheses
qualifies as satisfying the Intent.

3. It would, in fact, be next to impossible 225 to

find ”theory" in novels.

The question naturally arises as to the "quality" of the
theory. One may ask whether it is ”good” or "bad" in the
sense noted by Lieber. One may not, however, assume that it
is ”bargain basement conceptuallyz"l7 nor may one judge it
after the fact as such, merely because it agrees or disagrees
with theorists writing in such an early period as the 1950's.
The former question is beyond the scope of this dissertation.
The latter judgment must take the following note into consi-

deration.

With the exception of Weber, all of the theorists noted in
conjunction with the four novelists - for comparisons will
be made - completed their work well after that of the nove-

lists. n u h a h o ies match - and there is no not d

14

precursor in organizational theory - some credit must be
given to the noveligtg. In that they do not match. one has

ggtgblished an area with hypotheses tg be testgg.

Some thought was given to the general qualifications of nove-
lists. These notes may be summarized briefly. In as much as
organization theory must deal with human beings, then nove-
lists are, at least, qualitative experts in the field. Psy-
chologists, reviewing the literature of their own field, will
attest to that. This does not mean to say that Dostoyevsky
and Inglis'Fletcher18 are equivalent; but one would not
equate Einstein with a laboratory technician or McGregor with

the local manager of the supermarket.

One has deliberately chosen novelists with a world-wide repu-
tation for analysis of the human condition rather than those
concerned with immediate sales in a pandering to contemporary
tastes. (These latter, however, might make for an interesting
study in themselves.)

As Griffiths may elaborate on what theory is 291,19 one may
conclude from the foregoing that the discussion has been on
what the sub-problem is not. Rather, one has spoken of theory,
the general design, the major problem of the study, and the

credentials of novelists.

15

But these were necessary elements; for, admittedly, the
major problem was framed before the sub-problem. Further,

notes on the sub-problem become a proper part of Methodology
and a Rgvigg of the Related Literature.

ETHO IBLO GY :

The general method requires one to : 1. Extract raw data on
organizations from the novels by use of a preliminary repli-
cable screen; 2. Order the data and draw implications by a
psychological screen; 3. Link the models into a general

framework by a final psychological screen.

E c ' n f ta :

In order to keep assumptions about organizational behavior
at a minimum and to permit each reader to extract approxi-
mately the same basic data from the novels, a first screen
for the total novel data permits one to know 3
1. An organization is a social unit deliberately cons-
tructed and reconstructed to seek specific goals.
2. Organizations may have both a formal and an informal
structure.

Of course, variations on point one might have been chosen.

16

Thus, one might have limited the argument to administrative

organizations and considered them decision-making structures

as does Simon,20 and utilized the apprOpriate definition. Or,

one might have noted Parson's concept that : "...all social
21

systems must solve four basic problems...” And, from the

foregoing screened out for further examination all material

on agaggation, goal achigvement, integration and latency.

The latter type of screen, however, appears too selective,

and would relate to a particular question such as : What have
the writers under consideration have to contribute to Simon's
decision-making concept or to Parson's fundamental statement

on the problem of social systems.

Two problems arise with this general screen. If one has, to
some extent, equalized various "researchers'" prior knowledge
about organizational behavior, one has not done the same for
one's prior knowledge about the novelists and their works.
For example, a thorough reading of all of Orwell’s works and
his critics Eiflhl permit a literary-minded student to know
that the pyramidal structures of Orwell's Ministries were
hierarchical symbols. The organization-minded student would,
of course, recognize the symbol but would screen it out; for,
he would know that it i; a symbol in his organizational theo-

ry, but he would have no way of imputing such knowledge to

17

Orwell. For this reason, a third point was added to the
screen.
3. Symbolic material must be clear from the single text

of the author under consideration.

The second problem arising from the screen is that of the

definition of a goal (for organizations) and a §ocial unit.

For the 3221 one must add Etzioni's definition 3
4. 'An organization goal is a desired state of affairs
which the organization attempts to realize.”22
This has an anthrOpomorphic ring, and will bring about data
differences - for who, what group i; the organization. (In

any case, discrepancies in raw data may lead to a reexamina-

tion of the definition.)

The gogial gnit poses a different problem. Again, Etzioni

23 .
However, one 15

equates gogial unitg to human grougingg.
not much better off than with the first expression. Etzioni
continues his discussion with examples of specific social

units to the point that one is willing to treat gocial unit
as the undefined term of the argument. That is, its defini-
tion reduces to ”pointing," and one finishes with a concep-

tual knowledge of the social unit in much the same way that

one comprehends the undefined elements of point, line and

18

plane in Geometry.

W =

Already one has reached the second psychological filter -
the first having been that of the individual novelist on

whatever is observable reality.

The only required categories which this writer imposed upon
himself were 3 The Suprasystem and Formal Structure of the

SUperorganization or organizations.

The reason for the above was simply to give some mutual point
of departure for various readers using similar data. Catego-
ries beyond the basic two depended upon the force of novelist

Upon this reader.

Linkagg of Modelg :

Regardless of the ordering of the material, it is assumed
that the data drawn from the novels by different readers will
be somewhat similar. Ordering, however, gggg give emphasis.
In the same way, one returns to Ackermann's comment : "...an
infinite number of hypotheses can always be fitted to any

available data."24

19

To this writer's knowledge there is no way of assuring - if
such is desirable - that a model drawn from the extracted
data will in any way represent an Orwell's, Huxley's, Camus'
or Kafka's views. Perhaps the best that one can say is that
the novelists' views have formed the factual basis and sti-
mulation for the created or partially derived models. The

novels themselves have become observable reality.

The resultant structures or models may be called ideals. The
comparison of these ideals with the reality models of current
theorists will have value in that the models differ rather

than agree.

The above, then, is a generating system permitting non-spe-
cialists in organization theory to contribute to the field
through hypotheses construction - without the disadvantage

of an organizational "school" set.

nggral :

Schematically, to this point, one has considered observable
reality (A) as screened psychologically by a given author (51);
then as screened by use of the four points in "Extraction of
Material" (52); then as again screened and organized by the

individual ”researcher" (S3); and, finally, as linked by the

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

researcher.
' l I
l ' '
I I D1
I ' '
| I l
l I l
| l l
I C D
l l . 2
' l I
: l l
I
s1 s2 53I D
Observable Novelist's Researcher's n
Reality Perception Ordering
of Data of Data
Researcher's
Linkage

Perhaps the foregoing appears to be no more than an exercise
which Stinchcombe would demand of his students : ”...Choose
any relation between two or more variables which you are
interested in; invent at least three theories...which might
explain these relations..."25 This is, however, "theory” with
a minimum of elements and interactions. In scientific prac-
tice observable reality is screened for ”fact” of a particu-

lar, measurable, even enculturated nature. That is, the

screens 51 and 52 are replaced by the general screen of

21

§ci§ntifig methodfignd scientific importance. The distortion

 

of (B) reality is avoided. One jumps from an (A) observable
reality to the (C) set of relatively agreed upon facts. The
screen 53 remains the same.

Clearly, if (B) - the Huxley, Orwell, Camus or Kafka worlds -
lggg observable reality, then the moving from that area to
ideals is equivalent to the method of the social scientist

in developing theory or ideals - with only slight changes in
the 52 screen.

The only major difference in the preposed method for crea-
ting ideals and that used in standard practice is the use of
the S1 psychological screen of the novelist. The screen may
distort, but in doing so it emphasizes one or another aspect
of organizational behavior - perhaps of essence, depending
upon the given novelist's perspicuity. That aspect could well
have been overlooked in the necessary detail-work of theorem
development, particularly when the social scientist is imbued
with a single, current, normative view of his discipline.
Again, by analogy, one would match this scientist with a pre-
relativistic physicist devoted to the development of the

superstructure of physics while, in fact, the foundations

were in need of replacement.

22

PROCEDURE AND PRESENTATION :

Each novel text will be considered separately with prelimi-

nary notes made according to the screen S or, the four point

2
criteria noted in methodology. (These first notes have not
been included in this study.) The resultant material will
then be ordered and summarized in individual sections. There

will follow a more formalized extension and summary of the

various concepts.

gErFINITIONS mg ASSUMPTIONS :

In general, one will use Etzioni's definition as framed in
Modggn Ogganizationg. If, in comparing constructs with those
of other theorists, there are serious differences concerning
definitions, those differences will be noted on the occasion
of usage. In the case of the novelists, if there are new or
variant concepts, the necessary definitions will be framed in

the final chapter of this dissertation.

23

Screen S Definitions :

3

 

 

Organizations 8
Social units (or human groupings) deliberately cons-
tructed and reconstructed to seek specific 90818.26
nf rma 0 ani ation :
The social relations that develop among the staff or
workers above and beyond the formal one determined by
the organization, and/or the actual organizational rela-
tions as they evolved as a consequence of the inter-

action between the organizational design and the pres-

sures of the interpersonal relations among the partici-

pants.27
Egalg :
Organizational goals are desired states of affairs

which the organization attempts to realize.28

Reg; Egalg :
Those future states toward which a majority of the
organization's means and the major organizational

commitments of the participants are directed.29

 

The total ecological pressures capable of exerting

force on a given organization or subsystem.

24

Formal Stguctuge (Formal Organization) :

The organizational pattern designed by management.30

 

ff t' nes :

Effectiveness is (measured by) the degree to which an
organization realizes its goals.31
f’c nc :

Efficiency is (measured by) the amount of resources
used to produce a unit of output.32
ni of t u z
The unit of output is a measurable quantity of whatever
the organization may be producing.
ngggugrgtig fitrggture :

The Ideal as described by Weber. (Variations, as Weber

has been interpreted, will be noted.)

One will employ the above definitions with the understanding
and reservation that although they are "accepted” defini-
tions, they still admit to various interpretations and lack
the precision which one would expect to find in more quanti-

fiable disciplines.

25

As for assumptions, those drawn from the various novelists'

work will form a portion of the final chapter.

The major research assumption is that novelists do have
substantial contributions to make to organizational theory.
Of course, this must remain an assumption rather than an
hypothesis to be or not to be rejected. In so much as the
present study fails to give credence to this axiom in
reality, one may point to the limited sample size and the
particular choice of authors: and, in that the study estab-
lishes the axiom's place within the discipline, one may
object that another axiom, that of scientific induction,

is hardly satisfied.

A second major assumption is that no single methodology or
approach - for example, the scientific method - is sufficient
for the full develOpment of a discipline. The reasonableness
of this assumption is based, to some extent, upon Godel's

33

Theorem as well as the knowledge of schisms within many

disciplines between formalists and intuitionists.

Operationally, one accepts the standard laws of logic.

Assumptions for inferences in this literary rather than

mathematical context have not been codified and are rarely

26

noted if only because the field does not yet exist, unless
one accepts nearly all critical "methods" and disjointed
”flashes” of intuition through analogy, background of reader,

and so on.

Finally, it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the
major works of the organizational theorists used for compa-
rison, and that one has more than a casual knowledge of the

novels under consideration.

27

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE :

Eyeliminary :

The review of related literature for this particular study

hinges first on a set of negatives.

By definition of the methodology, no study exists which
employs the precise elements of the screens 52 and 53 if
only because an individual's judgment and experience is a
part of those screens. Or, taking a slightly broader view :
To the writer’s knowledge, no study exists for any combina-
tion of the four novels which utilizes the four points under
52 alone.

The above is not intended to emphasize the trivial, but
rather to lead to the notion that portions of the screens
have been employed by any student of organizations who has
read any of the novels under consideration. Strengthening
the notion, one states : It is impossible to read without
employing some form of personal screen. That is 593 to say
that transfer from one's specialized knowledge is automatic.

Indeed, it occurs less than one might wish; for, one adjusts

the screen. One reads toward particular objectives with a

28

"set" more or less determined by one's early learned view of
a field's potential. Thus, the Specialist in literature may
read a treatise on economics : and, style, plot, structure,
symbolism and so on, become of little consequence to him. Of
course, there is a ”seepage" even in one's readings in dis-
parate fields: there is a vague transfer. Thus, too, a spe-
cialist in organizations may read a novel; and, elements of
theory - human elements - become characterg. Plot, tension,
symbolism - these are points of concern; for, in spite of
his special knowledge, he has been trained by teachers of
literature to read literature. He has developed a screen.
Occasionally, he drops the screen consciously or subcons-

ciously, and the result is transfer.

An empirical proof of the foregoing statements is beyond the
scope of this dissertation. The statements, however, are not
basic to whatever may be discovered in this study; rather,
they are intended to serve as an introduction for one's

approach to the review of the related literature.

To summarize : The garticglar study of this dissertation has
not been previously undertaken; and, the general methodology

has been used by every student.

29

But then, have novelists been studied by organizational
theorists ? And here, "study" implies a search for ideas

on organizational theory.

A review of the bibliographies of the theorists noted in this
dissertation shows that only C. Wright Mills made use of
novels as a data source. Etzioni, Katz, Kahn, Likert, Simon,
McGregor, March, Griffiths, Hage and the others made no refe-

rence to novelists other than in passing - and that was rare.

The related literature, then, should perhaps involve the
literary critical writings on Kafka, Orwell, Camus and
Huxley. (A commentary Upon the organizational theorists

referred to in this study will be found in Appendix A.)

In so much as one is aware that these same critics have set
a screen which may well involve "ideas," but which probably
neglects the foundations of organizational theory, one may

then turn to those critics as a source.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that a full review of
the critical studies of the works with which one is here
concerned is impossible. What follows is, hopefully, an

unbiased sampling of critical work.

3O

" 'My friend...told me that Oswald Spengler had taken the
doctrine of Ihe Degline of thg West from Goethe's £§g§1.'
'That is perfectly possible.’ said Franz Kafka. 'Many so-
called scientists transfer the world of the post to another,

scientific, plane, and so achieve fame and importance.‘ '34

The above may not be in accordance with the scientists' views
of poets; however, Jaffe notes 3 ”There is dearth neither of
general criticism of Kafka nor of particular points of view,
and almost anybody can find something to his taste. Among the
...critical attitudes are those of theology...(but) Kafka's
work (has also been interpreted) from the points of view of

sociology, economics, and psychology,"35

The foregoing is understandable if one considers Politzer’s
quote from ngagggt Father. In it Kafka writes : ”The crows

maintain that a single crow could destroy the heavens. There
is no doubt of this, but it proves nothing against the hea-

vens, for heavens simply mean 2 the impossibility of crows."3

Parables are not quantitatives. Perhaps it is better to know

that ”...Kafka obtained his Doctorate in Jurisprudence...end

proceeded to work for the required period...in the courts...”37

31

This gives direction to a study, as does "Kafka himself at
one time thought of The Igial as a parable of the individual

and responsability."38

With yet more direction x "As the title indicates, The [rial
is not focused on the fate of the bank clerk Joseph K. but
on the proceedings to which he is subjected."39
But these are ideas in passing. They generally remain unde-
ve10ped, and when - on rare occasions - they are expanded,
the idea is often set in a reference frame of doubtful con-
sequence to the organizational theorist. Thus, "At many
points in the ensuing narrative (The [gial), a healthy man
would have been able to extricate and to free himself. A
healthy man would not have complied with his persecutors,
would not have questioned himself. But then these things
would never have happened to a healthy man."40 One does not
press for a definition of healthy; and, after reading the
above statement, one might consider a reading of the critic

a belittling of the author.

One might eXpect that the more didactic and "organizatio-
nally oriented" Orwell would receive a critical analysis

more within the needs of the theorist of organizations.

32

Lisf in figmaqe to Oceania praises Orwell's political insight,
his knowledge of society, and to make her own set clear,
notes : "He (Orwell) had no genius either for living or for
artistic creation."4l But analysis stays at a level such as :
”Because Orwell believed it was natural for human beings to
love each other rather than causes, he was the implacable

enemy of ideologies which supplanted human loyalties."42

Lee notes that "Orwell's force as a political commentator
has been so pervasive that his art has suffered...The novels
are usually disdained."43 He, in turn, quoted Voorhees as
saying that Lag; "...is not really a novel at all. It is a
combination of tale of terror and political treatise."44
Hyndham Lewis, similarly, says 2 "The book as a whole is a
first rate political document."45 The analyses, however, are
neither sharply political - objectively speaking - nor do
they bear with any intensity on the problem of organizational
theory. One arrives at such generalities as : "He (Orwell)
knew that the empiricism of science is the enemy of all such
nonsense as the 'biology' of the Nazis, the 'ethics' of the
Communists, and the 'metaphysics' of Oceania."46 Voorhees,

as so many, has screened with tacit assumptions - 1284 repre-

sents only a Communist or Nazi world.

33

Huxley receives better treatment by Meckier who notes that
the perversion of language is dysfunctional for Huxley's
utopia.47 Although one may disagree with him, depending on
one's choice of reference frames for the establishment of
dysfunctionality, the observation relates to organizational

theory and can be tested from textual evidence.

Unfortunately, literary critics have a tendency to belabor
”how” a thing is said rather than "what” is said. For every

Meckier there are at least a score of Jog's with "...(Brave

 

flgg_!g;lg is) a penetrating analysis of our civilization. It
contains a message and a warning...wit and satire are at per-
petual play."48 Or, there are Atkins' with : "The Opposition
between body and spirit naturally finds its clearest expres-

sion in the field of sex."49 But a full chapter on ”Romantic

Passion and Physical Sexuality" in his work on Huxley does

not mention figsyg Ng! flgglg.

Calder in ghgoniglgg of Conscience has a commendable work on

Orwell and Koestler in which she notes Orwell's questioning

of Huxley's characters' motivation to keep the hollow grave

Mg! yoglg functioning.SD

When one turns to the multitude of critics of Camus, one

might expect among other things an incisive study of the

34

system man has created for man. Again, however, the greatest
depth reached would be by Thody when he states : ”His
(Camus') aim is to equate the plague with the bureaucratic
tyranny of a modern dictatorship, and he does it by descri-
bing the plague as manifesting itself in the same way and

having the very same effects as bureaucracy."51

Such direction toward reading lessens with Haggis : "For
Camus believed that the writer cannot ignore the social,
political and philosOphical problems of his day...”52 Or,
'Tarrou, Castel, Grand and Madame Rieux all express different
aspects of this attitude of 'revolt' against the conditions

of existence that the universe imposes Upon man."53

Further, one notes the countering, although vague comments
such as 3 "Other critics...considered that the book (12$
Elagug) showed man as the innocent victim of a purely exter-
nal evil for which he was in no way responsible."54 These and
similar commentaries may be found 2; infinitum, and will mi-
tigate the slight effects of : "The average reader does not
need to have heard of Heidegger or Kafka to see in this
account of an outbreak of plague in Oran the image and

symbol of the human condition..."55

35

Pursuing this matter, one notes : "Into the fabric of

La Eegte he (Camus) seems to have woven both the struggle
against temptation to nihilism and despair brought by the
events of his time and his increasing awareness of their
horror, and his nostalgia for the hard, yet simpler and less
anguished, world in which he grew up."56 Or, ”...(The book)
reveals the author's compassion for humanity, it portrays
noble attitudes of courage, endurance, and co-operation,

and it emphasizes the links that bind men to one another

and the extent to which they depend on one another.”57
Could not one say the foregoing about any "classic" work ?
One would prefer the author on himself : "I prOpose to
express through the plague the sense of suffocation which
all of us have experienced and the atmosphere of threat and

exile in which all of us have lived."58

Perhaps it is not the critic's task to pursue novelists'
ideas in depth through divers disciplines. Certainly, a
selected review of their works - and here one has noted only
the more pertinent studies - shows a lack of idea develOp-

ment in the realm of organizational theory.

One may ask if a particular set, a screen made precisely for
development of organizational theory will produce more satis-

fa Ctory results.

THE MODEL OF ORWELL

36

37

THE SUPRASYSTEM :

The model envisages a world system consisting of three
superorganizations or superstates which are alike in goals,

philOSOphy, structure and functioning.

The three superorganizations are in a permanent power ba-
lance. One cannot overwhelm another even in combination or
reach any position of dominance.154 Certainly, there are
minor fluctuations in the control of labor pools and raw
materials as the superorganizations alternately conquer,
lose and reconquer areas and slave populations through per-
petual war : "But if they (slave p0pulations) did not exist,
the structure of world society, and the process by which it

maintains itself, would not be essentially different."155

The process through which this balance is achieved parallels
the process by which each SUperorganization maintains inter-
nal stability. (Internal control mechanisms will be discussed
in later section.) The essential at this point is to note
that exogenous factors which would normally be disruptive to
the superorganization are matched or balanced by equal force
of arms. With these factors balanced, the superorganization

further assures itself of closure by providing that "...there

38

should be no contact with foreigners except, to a limit ex-
tent, with war prisoners and colored slaves...the average
citizen of (a superorganization)...is forbidden the knowledge

of foreign languages."162

Closure then permits the SUperorganization to create an arti-
ficial exterior environment with imaginary forces which
serve, nevertheless, as psychological controls upon the indi-

vidual members of the sUperorganization.

It should be emphasized that both closure and war are neces-
sary to the model. Peace is an unstable state in which po—
tential exterior forces are unknown, unpredictable and,
hence, a threat to another superorganization's stability.
Thus, although one could conceive of closure in a state of
peace while "war” was only simulated through destruction of
goods and a time-to-time execution of masses of people, the

real exogenous factors would still remain unpredictable.

This form of closure does not make a single superorganization
a system in itself. It remains a subsystem of the world model
in so much as it must determine itself and structure in order
to control external factors. Orwell notes that the three
superorganizations '...prop one another up, like three

sheaves of corn."162

39

There are tacit agreements between the superorganizations.
"...the territory which forms the heartland of each SUper-
state always remains inviolatez"155 and, cultural integrity

is always maintained. These agreements, however, are matters

of convenience rather than necessity for stability.

A dynamic system implies the possibility of change in struc-
ture of the total system; the growth of major components,
the creation of new components or their disintegration. It
will be shown that the three superorganizations cannot be
changed in structure from within; and, since the external
factors have already been controlled, one is considering,

therefore, a system which has reached a stable state.A

The force vectors of the superorganizations on one another
are equal: internal deveIOpment of each superorganization is
at the same rate and in the same and fixed direction, and

"153

I'The cyclical movement of history... is frozen.

THE SUPERORGANIZATION 2

 

For convenience one will refer only to the superorganization

of Oceania, bearing in mind that ”...the conditions of life

in all three superstates are very much the same."162

dO

Goalg :

It is common practice, though not necessarily rational, to
speak of the goals of an organization. One shall continue
with that practice in the introductory portion of this sec-

tion on Goals.

From ”The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism"
one discovers that the goals of the organizations are :
"...to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extin-
guish once and for all the possibility of independent

159

thought.” One might pose this in terms of organizational

problem solving. 'One is how to discover, against his will,

what another person is thinking, and the other is how to kill

several hundred million people in a few seconds without gi-

.159

ving warning beforehand. Again, according to the same

"treatise" the goal of the organization is the perpetuation

of itself.173

To the above, one may add a contradictory goal or objective
"And, as usual, the ruling groups of all three powers are
simultaneously aware and unaware of what they are doing.
Their lives are dedicated to world conquest, but they also
know that it is necessary that the war should last everlas-

tingly and without victory."162

41

The major goal of the organizationB as stated by Outer Party
members to Inner Party members is to improve the general lot
of all Party Members. The Proles are excepted : ”Proles and

animals are free."62

The goal of the organization according to O'Brien of the
Inner Party - and one assumes him to be the Everyman of The
Inner Party - is 3 To seek power. ”...we are interested sole-
ly in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness :

217

only power, pure power." Amplifying upon this statement :

217

'Power is not a means; it is an end." And, more clearly :

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of tor-

ture is torture. The object of power is power."217

According to Julie the goal of the organization is to stOp
one from doing what one wants to do. In that fashion, the
perceived goals of the organization might be extended to co»

ver the views of each individual character.

Let one phrase the goal problem in another manner. Within the
organization there are "public relations" stated goals by or-
ganization members - goals which differ for and from class to
class. There are unstated goals - normative for each class.

There are individual goals and perceptions of these many sta-

ted and unstated goals. (Etzioni notes the goal "problem" in

42

some detail;c however, his partial solution involves a - pos-
sibly - unjustified anthrOpomorphic view of organizations.)
How, then, shall one determine the primary goal or goals of

an organization ?

For the Orwellian model let one consider the following. At
the creation of the organization - whether for some Specific
goals or not - a construct of human elements was designed or
evolved to function in specific ways, in channels determined
by some control system. (As for goals, one might note 3 "But
the purpose of all of...(these new movements) was to arrest

progress and freeze history at a chosen moment.")167

Upon functioning, the construct created predicted and non-

predicted products and by-products.

Now, let one ignore for the moment the goals and the func-

tional or dysfunctional aspects of the construct. Let one

gimply ptgtg shat a number of products gere generated by the

fungtipning ponstgucg. These included materials, ideas, human

interactions, and so on. They affected some total ecology.
They satisfied and dissatisfied to varying degrees the needs

of the individuals within and affected by the construct.

43

The construct itself had no goals, no more than would a
printing press. It functioned Upon energy input and it

produced.

The important consideration, then, - unless one is organ-
ization mechanicD - is not what various individuals intend

for the construct to achieve, but what it does achieve.

That is to say : There are no such things as organizational
goals for the Orwellian model. There are only human goals:
and, these goals are more or less met by the functioning

of some construct called an organization.

In the Orwellian model, then, the absence of any criteria
for establishing "real” organization goals, forces one at
this point to note only general effects of the organization.
For example 3 Consumption of human and material energy is

an effect of the organization. Physical destruction and
mental distortion of the human being; need satisfaction and
dissatisfaction of human elements are all such effects.
These will be considered in detail in the section on

Production.

44

Fogpal Sigucture :

Oceania is a flat hierarchy with only four basic levels in
its overall structure. It is headed by a single leader (Big
Brother) and descends through the Inner Party, the Outer

Party and the Proletariate (Proles).

"Big Brother is infallible and all powerful...we may be
reasonably sure that he will never die, and there is already
considerable uncertainty as to when he was born. Big Brother
is the guise in which the Party (Organization) chooses to

exhibit itself to the world."171

Whether Big Brother had ever existed is moot; and, this
doubt is further emphasized by references to Oligarchical
Collectivism. Be that as it may, even the imagined existence
of a Big Brother serves the construct with a charismatic

leader by the Weberian definition.E

Backing Big Brother is a modified Weberian Bureaucratic
structure.'...the Inner Party (some 6,000,000 members) is
described as the brain of the State, (and the Outer Party)

may be justly likened to the hand8.n172

The Inner Party
represents approximately 2 % of the pupulation; The Outer

Party accounts for 13 36 and the Proletariate for the

45

remaining 85 % of the p0pulation.
Concerning this bureaucraticF variation 3172
l. Although there is class stratification, membership
is not hereditary but adaptive,
2. Admission is by examination,
3. There is no racial discrimination,
4. Administrators of an area are drawn from inhabitants
of the area,
5. Leaders are held together by adherence to a common

doctrine.

Clearly, positions are a career; however, of most interest
in this social system - organization, "...nothing was ille-
gal, since there were no longer any laws..."9 Or, again,
'...his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly
formulated code of behavior.”l74 Further, "Apart from very
short notes, it was usual to dictate everything into the

1” And, above all, the written or printed

Speakwrite...”
records of organizational history were continually revised
and Updated to fit current purposes of the hierarchy. All
other material of a contradictory nature or potentially con-
tradictory nature was theoretically burned by drOpping the

material into a "memory hole” - an opening into a vast system

0” tubes which led, presumably, to a furnace.

46

Thus, record keeping was essential to the organization (that
is, it was built into the constructs) however, the records
in no way were intended to reflect the past. They were con-
ceptions of the present for present needs rather than for

realistic predictions.

If one accepts the characteristics of a bureaucratic adminis-
trative staff as interpreted from Weber by Blau and Scott,E
the major variations appear in "A formally established system
of rules and regulations governs official decisions and ac-

tions,” and in "The positions of offices are organized into

a hierarchical authority structure.”

The first case is clear from what has been said already about
records. The second case involves the complex, overlapping
control system of the Orwellian model, one in which eath
member of a given class is simultaneously invested with the
potential power to destroy any other member of his class -
and possibly below and above his class - and is, in the same

manner a subordinate of all others within the system.

Of course, the flat hierarchy as described still admits of
various levels of positions within the three major classes.
Orwell does not dwell Upon these. Only in passing is one

informed that, for example, Winston Smith "...had been

4T

appointed to a sub-committee of a sub-committee which had
sprouted from one of the innumerable committees dealing with

minor difficulties that arose from..."242

Formal structure, as here employed, does not deny the possi-
bility of informal groups. Orwell does not address himself
to the informal group in any positive fashion; indeed, his
emphasis is on the very isolation of the individual within

the structure.

The Human Contgol Sygtem :

The major emphasis of the Orwellian model is Upon the human
control subsystem of the superorganization. Control elements
are stressed from the Opening ”Big Brother is watching you,"5
to the close of the work "...with an armed guard behind his

bBCk. a O "245

In fact, viewed dispassionately, 1284 might be
called a T ati e n Human ontrol were it not for its novel

form and characteristics.

This emphasis may, at first consideration, appear to set the
model apart from organizations of today's reality. On the
other hand, the force of Orwell's argument may generate a
paint of view such that all organizations are basically human

control systems - even those falling in Likert's

48

”participatory" category.H Thus, the status system of today's
organization is no more than a subsystem of the basic human
control system. The staffing process with its concomitants

of recruiting.and selection are a part of the control system.
Compensation and appraisal, the internal public relations
department along with the subsystem of distributive justice
are all a part of the pervasive human control system. But
that is not all. Integral and necessary to the functioning
and continuance of all "legal" organizations - though rarely
seen on process charts - are tax financed police, local Mili-
tia and National Guard, the Court and the Penal system. And
still one has not considered further forms or subsystems

- call them MarcusianI control systems - which are a part of

every organization's human control system.

Heading the Orwellian control system is the group of Thought
Police. It may be reasonably assumed that the control system
for which they are responsible is turned Upon the Thought
Police themselves; however, one's primary concern here is

control over the Outer Party members.

The pugvgillance gubpyptem involves all members of the SUper-

organization. An individual is monitored nearly constantly by
talevision or audio devices. Beyond this, children's groups

have been formed which train the children to spy on their

49

parents' behavior. More effective still, each citizen of the
superorganization is expected to observe all individuals with
whom he comes into contact and to report any deviant beha-
vior. Thus, although surveillance is common to all organiza-
tions, it is basically gipgrete ggrveillancp while the
Orwellian model demands cgntinuoug purveillance. Perhaps the
nearest one approximates continuous surveillance in today's
organizations involves assembly line work; however, this
extends for only six to eight hour periods. (One might argue,
perhaps, that any member of modern society undergoes some-
thing approximating continuous surveillance by noting the
plethora of government agencies observations of an individual,
plus that of his "company," of private organizations, of
neighbors for normative behavior and so on. Again, however,
the surveillance is not yet centralized and is not complete

in that certain aspects of behavior are ignored.)

The effect of continuous surveillance COUpled with the threat
of punishment - usually torture and than death - may affect
each individual differently; but, the result is that "He has

no freedom of choice in any direction whatever.”174

And, as
Winston Smith recognized : "Your worst enemy...was your own
nervous system. At any moment the tension inside of you was

liable to translate itself into some visible symptom."56

Further, speaking of a man he had seen in the street :

SO

"...the man's face was suddenly contorted by a sort of
Spasm...It happened again...it was only a twitch...but ob-
viously habitual...that poor devil is done for...The most

deadly danger of all was talking in your sleep."56

Continuous surveillance backed by immediate punishment is,
of course, not sufficient as a control mechanism. Orwell's

model demands a particular communications system and a con-

ditioning system.

Communications aboug the superorganization flow downward
only. There is no upward or lateral channel. Communications

on technical work g3: the superorganization may flow in all

di rections.

A downward flow would normally imply some new genesis of
ctDiscepts concerning the superorganization according to the
will or whim of a Big Brother or the normative idea of the
I finer Party. The continuous surveillance system precludes

any change in organizational direction. It may be argued that
1‘ “ her Party members do have "freedom“ since an O'Brien can

t ‘3 to off the telescreen.140 But O'Brien notes : "It is unwise
a
Van for members of the Inner Party to turn off the tele-

§

Q~teen for more than half an hour."142 And, one must assume

h}.
set there is still mutual surveillance between O'Brien and

his

51

his ”servant” Martin.

The structuring of the communication channels serves to
isolate the individual and to prevent deviants or potential

deviants from forming a counterorganization of any size.

While communications 5222; the superorganization are highly
restricted and downward, there is a relatively free flow of
technical information; for, it is technical information which
will eventually strengthen the control structure. Thus,
Winston Smith's task is to falsify all records of the past
Uhicts might cast any doubt on party philOSOphy, objectives
or achievement. This very act strengthens party control on
Smith- In a sense, he builds his own scaffold for his hang-
infiz its distorts his own sense of reality, and reality
becomes whatever the party dictates. In the same manner,
P'raons encourages his children to spy for the party until
“'93! turn on him and denounce Parsons himself to the Thought
P°1ice. Julia worked in the Fiction Department, contributing
indirectly to the pacifying of the Proles - those who,

s‘ith felt, were the only hope for salvation if they were

3 ufficiently aroused.

1"; is essential to the Orwellian model that one does not con-

as~t‘ler simply the communication channels which exist but the

52

type of information which may be passed through the channels.
Further, relative to the general control system, one must
appreciate that in most cases the subsystems of Surveillance,

Punishment, Communications and Production are mutually depen-

dent.

A functioning construct of human beings which basically pro-
Cesses human beings might be eXpected to distort over time.
(Robert Michaela as others has detailed the phenomenon of
goal. displacement; although, here the emphasis is on cons-
trucrt distortion for reasons which will become clear.)J There
are laumerous reasons to eXpect such distortion, and among
them are 8 Changes in external pressures as in an open system
with evolving mores: standard dysfunctional aspects of an
increased demand for control: readjustment of power lines
wittnirt the construct as roles eXpand and contract according
‘hD tV‘e personnalities of new occupants; planned directional
adj Us tments from change agents or innovative substructures
which have been deliberately built into the construct or
organization; and, human interaction among construct members

."d the human beings who are processed.

ELF ‘Course, this list could be expanded; however, the above

TDOssibly - forms major categories.

53

The Orwellian model, through its control system, is pro-
tected from such distortion. The construct, once functioning,
moves rapidly toward a stable state. At this point, indi—
viduals are powerless to alter the machinery created and,

hence, the direction of the organization.

The system is closed through the power balance of the sUper-
organizations. New organizational or social forms are not
Permitted to come in contact with the given construct. (This

Ossumes that such new forms exist. At best, they are only

Blight variations on the society of Oceania.)

Dysfunctional aspects of demand for control - causes of dis-
tortion - such as those noted by Selznick, Gouldner and
Merton create imbalance in modern organizations.K In the
Orwellian model the communication of minimum standard behav-
101‘. if not capricious, is at least varying. The past is
'ltered in all records and there is no communication between
"orkers of what was actually the past. There can be no call
t° Precedent. And, finally, elimination of an unsatisfactory
”Orkmr is automatic. Group work norms are thereby of no im-
pt'l‘tance. Rigidity of behavior leading to difficulty with
“Liam; is, naturally, of no concern to a monopoly. In fact,

tiQidity of behavior is a built-in functional aspect of the

organization. As for a bifurcation of interests stemming

54

from demand for control and subsequent delegation of autho-
rity, any such delegation is linked with continuous sur-

veillance. Deviation from the construct toward individual

goals is immediately punished.

Role expansion according to the personnality of the occUpant
will be negligible in the Orwellian model. "...ambitious mem-
bers of the Outer Party are made harmless by allowing them

to rise."172 As for ambitious Proles, they "...are simply

172

marked down by the Thought Police and eliminated.” Role

”(pension may imply deviation. The direction of eXpansion
must be in perfect accordance with the construct. Both

Outer and Inner Party Members are regularly marked down for

disgrace.

There are no substructures designed to make structural
changes within the superorganization. It is true that 33-
‘ h an d o m n are fostered within the direction of
inell-‘eeasing control over internal and external environments.
Suggestions which deviate from that course or which could
conceivably change the Party construct would be marked as
W. As with the communications system, technical
improvements - though conceivably dangerous to the origina-

tul‘ - flow back and forth between Inner and Outer Party

members.

55

Leadership in current organizations implies among other
things the power and ability to make structural changes, and

therefore leaders are often expected to be change agents.

 

There is, however, no need for a leader to act as a change
agent when the exterior environment is perfectly controlled
and the system functions. In fact, Orwell's system prevents
the leader from functioning as a change agent and directs
his energies toward increasing the efficiency of control.
Were he not to play this role, the surveillance system would
trap him and eliminate him, and the many Winston Smiths

would erase him from history.

Whereas many organizational writers find the ever increasing
demand for control dysfunctional,L the Orwellian model makes
it fiar1ctional. Equal pressure is placed on the entire orga-
nization, compressing it without imbalance or distortion;
and. human interaction leading to construct distortion re-
sults in immediate elimination of the offending human ele-

ments - a desired objective.

Si“I=u all human elements of the superorganization are being
plIatteesed to one degree or another, one might expect some
ifiteraction within and between members of various classes as
they tighten the system against one another. But, sympathetic

a"lotions which may be felt are dissembled for self protection,

56

and a further control subsystem to be described assures one
that what seem present horrors committed within the system
will eventually appear to be joys. O'Brien says : "If you
want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a

human face - forever."220

It is merely a matter of substitu-
ting one human pleasure for another or emphasizing one human
capability in emotions over others. This is a matter of con-
ditioning. Thus Winston Smith writes : I'Last night to the
flicks. All war films. One very good one of a ship being
bombed somewhere in the Mediterranean...Audience much amused

by shots of a great huge fat man trying to swim away...then
he was full of holes...audience shouting with laughter...
then there was a wonderful shot of a childs arm going up up

UP :1 ght up into the air..."11 The present becomes normality,

becomes the acceptable 3 The past is rewritten, the future

unthinkable.

0" course, in reality, a non-Orwellian reality, that which
is homal and acceptable lies in the recent past or almost
prefient. The control system of 1.2.33 is more pervasive and
e"fifitncious. It forces an almost instantaneous change of
°Dinion, and the present becomes normality with all else

b ejJ‘ig deviant.

57

The pgagus system is minor in Orwell's model. It is a part

of the control system as is Compensation. Although a Julia

would say of the Inner Party members 3 "There's nothing those

swine don't have, nothing..."117 there remains the testament

on Oligarchical collectivism which states : "...they (the

Inner Party members) were less avaricious, less tempted by

luxury, hungrier for pure power..."169

This power "...is in
inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human
minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes
of‘your own choosing...In our world there will be no emotions

except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement."220

The real coin of compensation is this power. Status exists
Hit?! 'the class differences and symbols such as black overalls
for Inner Party members. One is given little information on

status differences within a particular class.

,ThB selection subsystem is also a part of the control struc-
ture. From the formal structure one knows that in principle
tj‘e! selection for Party positions is adoptive rather than
hereditary and that admission is by examination. In fact,
h0'flaver,Proles are generally eliminated by the Thought Po-
lice rather than advanced in the society. One is not appri-
led of the nature of these tests. One does know that the se-

lectors themselves were formerly "...bureaucrats, scientists,

SB

technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts,
sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional poli-
ticians...people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle

class and the upper grades of the working Class..."169

However the selection process is managed, one does know that
"The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but
with perpetuating itself. Whg wields power is not important,

provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the

8.M°a"l73

.QNDI TIONINE STRATEGIES :

ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE INDIVIDUAL.

 

A8 P4::Gregor noted two different sets of assumptions by mana-
gement concerning the human elements of an organization,

the Orwell model also has its assumptions.

1° Uman b in me be r u h divided 'nto t o broad

‘ at mbe e an o t ion.

A8 for Proletarians, ”Left to themselves, they will continue
frbm generation to generation...working, breeding, and dying

">.without any impulse to rebel...They can be granted

S9

intellectual liberty because they have no intellect."173 And

further, with a minimum gratification of their physiological
needs and their psychological drives, they can be duped and

controlled.

As for Party Member Types, they are endowed with an intellect.
They are capable of maintaining or breaking the construct if
left to themselves. Hence, ”...not even the smallest devia-
tion of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tole-

173

rated." And, as noted, a complex control system has been

built into the construct to prevent this deviation.

2. Eagty Membegs needs and drives are infinite in vapiegy

n a the ourc of aviation from fixed roles in he

merrier.

3. Ihpgp app. hgpever, only ghgee basip need-driveg :
Eaipypngg, Egyer and ng.

4- F0; thp conptgucg to function githout change :
a. The phygiological need must be minimally met,
b. Ihe power ggive mugt be controlled, and

c. he ex riv mu t be re ressed and its ene be

channeled togard stengthening thg construct.

6O

5. All human beings can be conditioned to react in a
pgedetegpined manner goward somp stimuli.

Thus, under the fifth assumption even Winston Smith finally
gazes at the portrait of Big Brother : "Two ginger scented
tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all

right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished.

He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.'245

There are, of course, a number of minor assumptions made
throughout Orwell's work. For example, education could be a
factor in liberating the Proles. "They could only become dan-

gerous if the advance of industrial technique made it neces-

.173

sary to educate them more highly... And, that increased

technical knowledge will cause or permit one to doubt general
non-conflicting party lies. 'The Party claimed...to have
liberated the proles from bondage."61 And in the past :

W...every capitalist had the right to sleep with any woman

63

working in one of his factories.” And Julia 8 ”...did not

foul the abyss Opening beneath her feet at the thought of

.123 "She believed, for instance. having

127

11 es becoming truths.

lfinrnt it at school, that the Party had invented airplanes.”

There are multiple conditioning strategies and machineries

e“Haloyed to form the human being into a functional working

61

part of the construct. One notes : The Antisex League, The
Hate, The Spies, divers activities of the four ministries

(Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, Miniplenty) and Newspeak.

"The sex impulse was dangerous to the Party, and the Party
had turned it to account. They had played a similar trick
with the instinct of parenthood. The family could not actual-
ly be abolished...(but) the children...were systematically

turned '91n5t their Parents and taught to spy on them..."111

"With Julia, everything came back to her own sexuality...
Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the
Party's sexual puritanism...the sex instinct created a world
of its own which was outside the Party's control...What was
more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria,
which was desirable because it could be transformed into war
fever and leader worship."110 And Julia said : ”When you make
lrsve you're using up energy: and afterwards you feel happy
Grid don't give a damn for anything...All this marching up and
down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour.
If’ you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited

3b out Big Brother. . .‘l"110

TI‘e Antisex League, the general schooling, make sex "dirty"

a"id the Party makes pexcgime punishable by death.

62

"...(sexcrime) covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality
and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse

practiced for its own sake.”251

And finally, "For how could
the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity which the
Party needed in its members be kept at the right pitch
except by bottling down some powerful instinct and using it

as a driving force ?”111

The pmphagip on pex ag dpiving foyceI a motivatorI a polgn-
tially funcllonal and dysfunctional agpept in any conptgugt

'nvo 'n human em nt is f ca dina im ortanc n
Qggell'g model.

The Hate burns off excess, unchanneled sexual energy. And,

it instills vague and specific fears of the "enemy" - however
unfounded - through its normative orienting; and, it binds
the Party members together through this common fear. It is,
of course, in harmony with the construct direction which
grinds mechanically toward the elimination of all emotions
other than those of '...fear, rage, triumph, and self aba-

sement."220

As already noted, the Orwellian model takes into account the
fact that certain vestigal "institutions" can not be entirely

Eliminated in the first stage Of the construct's functioning.

63

The family is one such institution. The Spies, children orga-
nized to report deviant behavior in their parents, was the
Party's weapon for control and eventual destruction of the
family. Often a ”...'child hero'...(of the Spies) had over-
heard some compromising remark and denounced his parents to
the Thought Poiioe.~24 And, ”...(in Spite of their vicious
training, the children) adored the Party...The songs, the
processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with

dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big
Brother...All their ferocity was turned outwards...against

foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought criminals.”24

Although the communications system was noted earlier, the
Newspeak medium of expression is both a control and condi-
tioning device. ”The purpose of Newspeak was not only to
provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental
habits proper to...(the construct) but to make all other

modes of thought impossible."246 And, "Newspeak was designed

not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."247
"In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical

thought further than the prescription that it peg heretical;
beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent."252

Newspeak is a language of steadily decreasing vocabulary -

("We which decreases as the system tightens controls. The

64

grammar and the words left in the final vocabulary were
designed ”...to make speech...as nearly as possible indepen-

.253

dent of consciousness. "Ultimately it was hOped to make

articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving

the higher brain centers at all.”254

The basic assumption behind Newspeak is that language begets
ideas and ideas are the prelude to change. Thus, language
must be develOped for the construct in such a way that it
expresses only thoughts in harmony with construct machinery

and precludes all other thought.N

More will be said of language in the develOpment of the gene-
ral Orwellian model; however, one must nOte - without overdue
emphasis on the present - Orwell's observation 3 ”It was per-
ceived that in...sbbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly
altered its meaning...The words Communigt lntppnatignal, for
instance, call up a composite picture of universal human
brotherhood, red flags, barricades, Karl Marx, and the Paris
Commune. The word Comintern...suggests merely a tightly knit
organization and a well-defined body of doctrine...Comintern

is a word that can be uttered almost without taking thought,

whereas Communipy lntegnational is a phrase over which one

is obliged to linger..."252

65

Linked with all the strategies and machinery for conditioning
is the pattern of group norms. One is now Speaking of formal
work groups, task forces within the organization, which might
be expected to set a norm level well below their maximum ca-
pability in production. But this sort of tacit, informal
group is impossible in Orwell's model. Each individual has
the power to denounce another in secrecy. With only techni-
cal communications moving laterally, there is no way to

trust him. The norm jg; a group then becomes a "sum” of
maximum individual efforts. n if , a crime, or oynyopk is
therefore undesirable from an Inner.Party view and is dys-
functional in the sense that it could lead to a change in

the construct. In addition, the individual is conditioned

- or driven - to maximum effort by the group standard, a
standard which the worker himself continually raises. This,
of course, is the same resonance effect which one finds in
the general control system with control begetting control

and the result being functional for construct stability.

66

ElSCELLANEOUS COMMENTARY :

Tagk Satigfactlon :

It has been noted that the tasks of the Party Members in the
organization are such that successful completion of the task
increases the power of the organization over that very indi-

vidual and further stabilizes the construct.

If a prime motivator for doing a task is the fear of torture
and death, there is a secondary motivator - the enjoyment in

doing a given work.

Julia '...enjoyed her work, which consisted chiefly in run-
ning and servicing...(an) electric motor...she was fond of

using her hands and felt at home with machinery."108

As for Winston Smith, ”...(his) greatest pleasure in life was
his work. Most of it was tedious routine...but there were
also jobs so difficult...that you could lose yourself in
them."39 Winston was also "...good at this kind of thing."39
Syme is fascinated with his task of word-destruction; Ample-
fOrth finds his major joy in juggling rhymes necessary for

his rewrite book. Parsons, O'Brien, Charrington - each enjoys

his work.

67

Whether recruitment, selection, or the mere absence of other
opportunities for self expression - or a combination of the
above and other reasons - has determined that these humans
will find task satisfaction is not Specifically noted. One
may observe, however, in Smith's case that the job gives
little or no satisfaction once he has met and fallen in love
with Julia.0 In addition, since there appears to be no machi-
nery or system constructed to please the individual unless it
be that for generating power and control, one might assume
that job satisfaction is merely an accidental product of the
construct in the majority of cases. Since it is not dysfunc-
tional relative to the continuance of the organization, it

is not controlled to any degree.

An organization may produce any number of goods. Generally
these are thought of as being materials, ideas or services.
To understand the Orwellian model it is simpler to state that
an organization may produce any number of effects on a total

ecology.

This is similar to the approach taken in the section on Goals.
To speak of intended products or production is to Speak in a

‘fOunder's terms or that of individuals : the organization or

68

construct has no intentions. Once functioning, it changes an
environment in divers ways - be they depletion of resources,
polluting an ocean, placing stress on a political system,
conditioning human beings, breaking or establishing human
relationships or distorting its own original structure. All
of this is in addition to the ordinary "production" of cars,

bootlaces, books, bombs and so on, as well as technology

and services.

Material goods production beyond the minimal for human
survival is of little consequence in the model. "All one
know was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots
were produced on paper, while perhaps half the pOpulation

0f Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of

recorded fact, great or small.'37

I ‘3 might be of interest to note the total products-effects
0" the Orwellian model; however, many of these have already

-1 luded to x the fact of continual war, the blasted human

1relationships, and need for consumption. It may be more

D rofitable to observe that ghetgvg; products—effects result

from a construct, these products-effects are determined in

§'32:” stages of organizational evolution by x

1. Human element desires (paper goals) and interactions,

2. External factors of the suprasystem, and

69

3. Machinery of the construct.
In the Orwellian system the evolution of the organization
was guided by the controls systems to a stage of develOpment
in which factors 1 and 2 above became negligible in further
evolution. One has, at this final stage, virtually a pro-
grammed machine with a permanent energy source which "blindly”

stamps out or creates a variety of products-effects.

With this in mind, and returning to the question of "products"
of the organization, one pight ask what is the principal or
major product-effect of the construct. This is in much the
same way that one might ask a What is the principal "product"
or product-effect of General Motors 7 Probably one's first
answer would be "Cars." On the other hand, in the question

of goals one discovered that there are no such things as
organizational goals unless one takes a particular point of
view 3 that is, unless one makes a definition which would
depend, perhaps, on the norms of the human elements involved.
In the same way one can not speak of functional or dysfunc-
tional aspects of an organization unless one takes a point

of view. Thus, the Public Relations Department of an organi-
zation may appear functional relative to the Sales Department
but dysfunctional for long term organizational survival and
functional again from some worker's view - one who might seek

the dissolution of the organization on philosophic or

TO

moral grounds.

For the above reasons the following definitions are made :
l. The products-effects of an organization are the total
of effects on the ecology of the sUprasystem.

2. The principal products of an organization are those

determined by a particular reference frame.

One must note that it is the emphasis Upon the second defi-
nition which could limit - to one's detriment - organiza-
tional theory. Indeed, the limitation prevents a thorough
analysis of organizational problems from say viewpoint. For
example, returning to the example of General Motors, one
might say that the product-effect of pollution could have
been noted long before the public clamor. (The failure to
examine such problems could deeply affect a construct in

an open system.) Katz and Kahn briefly note the issue from

a ”goal" viewpoint of organizations and the notion of socie-

tal welfare.P

The particular point of view taken here for deciding the
principal products of the Orwellian system is that of
"management,” meaning O'Brien who has been referred to as

the Everyman of the Inner Party.

Tl

Thus, the principal products of the organization are :
1. Self generating, tightening control systems on x
a. Original organizational form (without distor-
tion.)
b. Human behavior
c. The External environment.

2. Increased power (As with Weber : "The probability
that one actor within a social relationship will be
in a position to carry out his own will despite re-

sistance.")Q of individuals over individuals.
Here one to have considered the total products-effects of

the system over a period of time, one might have noted that
the vast majority of these products-effects were constants

in the total environment, while control systems and power

accelerated, and ”new" products-effects were not generated.

Effggtivenesg ang Efficiency :

”The actual effectiveness of a specific organization is
determined by the degree to which it realizes its goals.
The efficiency of an organization is measured by the amount

of resources used to produce a unit of output."

72

One shall not labor the relativism of goals further : Suffice
it to say that O'Brien goals, which are among the products-
effects of the organizations, are being reached effectively.
They will continue to be so met because of the constricting
nature of the control system and the accelerating nature of

O'Brien's concept of the principal products.

Efficiency, assuming there is effectiveness, is clearly not

a concern in the Orwellian model, unless a special measure

is develOped for the Thought Police and control subsystems.
This follows from the supposition that efficiency is of no
concern in any ideally closed organization or subsystem. Of
course, the relativity of goals, products and so on, may
again come into play. One may speak of an individual's con-
cern for efficiency in so much that it is a concern of the
hierarchy and of the individual for promotion. And, one might
strengthen this negative argument for the Orwellian system

in which certain units of output are the destruction of mate-
rials. "But it was also clear that an all-around increase in
wealth threatened the destruction...of a hierarchical so-
ciety."156 And, "The problem was how to keep the wheels of
industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the

worlds .157

73

PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF THE SECTION :

One has noted ”facts” and considered some implications of
the Orwellian system. The intention now is to summarize the

major points and ideas inherent in this system.

Earricular Fratures of the Model a

l. The Suprasystem is in a §table grgrg. (No combination of
variable forces between the sUperorganizations can upset this
stability in a foreseeable future.)
2. The SUperorganization is closed.
3. A form of war (artificial or not) is necessary for z

a. The maintenance of closure,

b. The destruction of material wealth, and

c. The proper emotional state of human elements.
4. The structure of the superorganization is hierarchical
with reservations noted.
5. The Leader (imaginary or not) has charismatic qualities.
6. There exists a modified Weberian Bureaucratic structure
with principal variations being :

a. The hierarchical authority pattern gives overlapping

power to members (a subordinate may denounce a sUpe-

rior),

74

b. A number of formally established rules very conti-
nually.

c. Records of the actual past are continually changed.
7. There exists an automatically tightening system for con-
trol of human behavior which does not distort the construct.
B. The Control subsystem includes : Administration, Surveil-
lance, Distributive Justice (Punishment), Communications,
Production (tasks forcing further control), Conditioning
(multiple subsystems and special machinery), Status, Compen-
sation and Selection.
9. The Surveillance subsystem utilizes continuous rather than
giggratg surveillance.
10. The Communications subsystem has channels for technical
information and separate channels for information 222g; the
organization. The former is multidirectional and the latter
is downward only.
11. The human elements are such that their predominant drives
are 8 Existence, Power, and Sex. Further, they are such that
they can be conditioned to accept almost any situation.
12. The driving energy of the system comes from a repressed
and then rechanneled sex drive.
13. There are no innovative structures built into the system
and human elements throughout the hierarchy are prevented

from exhibiting innovative behavior.

75

nggral Notes Drawn from the Model and Related Material :

The above points are some of the principal features of the
particular system notes by Orwell. Beyond these features,
one should note the ideas or concepts which may be inferred

from the total scheme.

1. An organization, 22$ gr, has no goals. There are only
human goals. The organization, when functioning, throws off

a number of products. Some of these products will assume more
importance than others in the eyes of the human elements of
the organization. The ascribing, then, of goals to an orga-
nization is actually the fixing of a reference frame Upon an
individual or group of individuals with similar or normative

goals.

2. The standard elementary definition of an organization 3
"A social unit (or human grouping) deliberately constructed
and reconstructed to seek specific goals"S might be reconsi-
dered. Thus, with the Orwellian concept it might be : Ag_gr—
n' i ' on u t for channelin human ener an

ggnrrollrng human behryior. The eventual products-effects of
the organization will depend upon : Human element desires
and interactions: external factors of the sUprasystem; and,

machinery of the construct.

76

3. When one Speaks of functional and dysfunctional aspects
of an organization, one must Specify the frame of reference.
The consideration is relative, and even the continuance of
existence of the organization is not necessarily desired by

all human elements.

4. The human sex drive occupies a predominant place in
Orwell's considerations. The sex drive, repressed and rechan-
neled, generates the energy needed to operate the system.

The protagonists, Julia and Winston, are motivated - to a

great degree - by the sex drive.

One can hardly pretend that the recognition of sex as a moti-
vator and distorter of human behavior is new. Indeed, it has
been so recognized, that it has become neglected. At what
point is its repression or encouragement functional or dys-
functional to some aspect of the organization ? This, in
turn, leads to observations such as x "The only thing that
made life tolerable on the assembly line was that secretaries
passed from time to time. We tried to pinch them on the seas”
and, "I used to show up at work because this girl was there."
and, '...if you'd hire more men here we'd like working here

bettar. ”T

77

If Orwell merely makes cardinal what one already suspects as
well as that which some psychologists have accentuated, then
a heavier emphasis upon it in organizational theory might be
called for. Social needs, physiological needs, interpersonal

interaction, all may have the turn of an euphemism.

5. The Orwellian system leads to a concept of the Stable

State. This is a state of organizational evolution in which
the human element of the construct is virtually powerless to
alter the preset role structure or control the product flow
of the system. The construct machinery determines the speed
and direction of evolution in Orwell's model; for, even ex-

ternal pressures have been equalized.

The Orwellian model, it has been noted, steadily tightens
the control system of the construct without deforming it. Of
course, other machinery may be envisaged which would lead to

the breaking-up of an organization or even its expansion.

6. There is, perhaps, a tendency of a school to fix a single
frame of reference in organizational study. For example, the
view of Management toward Employees and of Employees toward
Management does not ngcessarily represent two frames of re-
ference; however, usually, the view will be from the single

"management“ frame which demands an increase in efficiency

78

or effectiveness for one reason or another.

Concern with Orwell's system raises a question of relativity
of reference frames. This is particularly clear when consi-
dering the products of the system. What, finally, are the

products of an organization ? The determination of the pro-

ducts will depend upon the placing of a coordinate system.

In the same way, kinematics permit one to drive the axes of
a solar system through any point one wishes : Be that point
Earth, Sun, the third moon of Saturn or some changing point

between two asteroides.

Dynamics are another matter. They raise a more complex pro-
blem. One is certainly familiar with the fact that upon ob-
serving through a telesc0pe the motion of Neptune and Upon
plotting that motion over some period one finds retrograde
motion. If one, however, makes the assumption that the earth
revolves about the sun in a given time, then the motion of

Neptune is simply that of an ellipse.

79

The preference, of course, is for the simpler form of motion
and what appears to be subsequent simpler form of dynamics.
Other than that - at least in this present - one has no rea-
son to prefer one reference frame to another as being that

of ”reality."

Orwell would have one place the reference frame, at least
for his discussion, with the origin at the individual, his
freedom, or some similar point set. But this leads to the
question of dynamics and power x It leads to a question of
products. One may then envisage a frame which permits one to
consider the products of an organization to be : The total

of products-effects in the ecology of the soprasystem.

THE MODEL OF HUXLEY

BO

81
THE SUPRASYSTEM :

The Huxleyan suprasystem is composed of a single super-
organization and numerous minor organizations called

Islands and Reservations.

These systems are virtually closed to one another. As will
be shown, any ”opening" of one to the other is dependent
upon the sUperorganization; however, it has already reached
a form of the stable state,A and its machinery is geared

to closure.

Closure of the minor organizations is maintained by force
from the outside sUperorganization. For, one notes that
Island members are outcasts of the superorganization :

"I don't know what we should do without...(Islands). Put
...(outcasts) in the lethal chamber, I suppose."156 Reser-
vation members live in areas "...not...worth the eXpense

109

of civilizing." The New Mexico Reservation has been

"...surrounded by a high-tension wire fence...five thou-

6?

send kilometers...at sixty thousand volts."

Closure of the sUperorganization itself vrg-a-vis Islands

and Reservations involves a police force; however, just

 

82

as essential is genetic manipulation, conditioning, and
drugging of members of the superorganization. In addition,
there exists machinery for selective repression of research
and falsification or destruction of chronicles from the

past a

If the balance between the Orwellian SUperorganizations
may be considered a dynamic equilibrium, then the balance

between Huxleyan states is static.

Indeed, one might take the point of view that Islands and
Reservations are merely subsystems of the single superor-
ganization: for, Islands serve as penal colonies while

Reservations may be considered as merely undevleped human

and material resources of the sUperorganization.

THE SUPERORGANIZATION :

Minn:

There is a deceptive simplicity to the Huxleyan model. The
human elements are created in Hatchery and Conditioning
Centers located in various parts of the world. Through
genetic manipulation and chemical treatment ("Nothing like

oxygen-shortage for keeping an embryo below par."9) the

83

humans are created and divided into five basic intellectual
classes 3 Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon - Alpha
being the highest and Epsilon the lowest on a genius to
near moron scale. The precise number of each class created
in this intellectual hierarchy depends upon a system-wide
human resource planning. Subsequent conditioning of the
subjects guarantees - in most instances - their contentment

with their intellectual class and appointed tasks.

Thus, the conditioning voice repeats : ”I'm so glad I'm a
Beta...Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than
we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really
awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And
then we are much better than the Gammas.and the Deltas.
Gammas are stUpid. They all wear green, and the Delta chil-
dren wear khaki. Oh no, I ggglr_want to play with Delta
children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too

Stupidaeenle

In the same way, the Epsilon-Minus semi-moron is made to
enjoy his menial work. For example 2 "Roof 2 He (the
Epsilon-Minus operator) flung open the gates. The warm
glory...made him start and blink his eyes. Oh, roof 2 he
repeated in a voice of rapture...He smiled up with a kind
of doggily expectant adoration in the faces of his

passengers."39

B4

The conditioning of the classes and individuals takes
different forms : "I do love flying, I do love having new
clothes..."32 and among the end results in an "...adapting

of future demand to future industrial supply."32

Thus,
human beings are created per job descriptions - rather than

the reverse; and, consumer demand is created for some

future supply.

Let one continue with general observations before noting

specifics of the system.

Huxley's paper grganiration (the role structure delibera-
tely conceived prior to its functioning with human elements)
demands in its motto : Community, Identity, Stability. A
number of assumptions are then made about the human element,
and one of the more salient is z A stable organization will
remain stable only if it is Operated nigh humans who are
intellectually and emotionally matched to job demands.

"An Alpha-decanted, Alpha-conditioned man would go mad if
he had to do Epsilon semi-moron work - go mad or start
smashing things Up."151 Phrased in another way, one might
say that there is a human drive to use one's intellect.
Frustrated from using that intellect, the human breaks down
- or breaks the system. Overtaxed, the human again breaks

down and fouls or smashes the system.

85
Further, this created human being is not a completely
static creature. Although genetically and chemically
deformed from some original sperm, although conditioned,
although drugged and sated with sex and tactile pleasures
- the human element still may grow beyond his planned
limits. That is, perfect control over or prediction of the
human element is still impossible. Therefore, those who
become ill fitted for their preassigned tasks may move, to
some slight degree, vertically and horizontally in the
hierarchy of the organization. If the individual is still
a misfit relative to the paper organization and if drugging
does not rectify the matter, then the individual is banished

from the sUperorganization.

The emphasis in these brief, general notes has been on the
Huxleyan human element rather than unique structural fea-
tures of organizational machinery or facts such as police
control and stated philosophy. For, Huxley stresses - if
only by volume of words - the importance of distorting the
human element in order to fit it into a construct. And,
although the organizational machinery is of interest, it
could as well be almost 35y construct, and the malleable

human being could be shaped to fit it.

86

Goal: 3

As was noted earlier,B organizational goals are simply the
goals and goal-compromises of individual human beings; and,
the determination of what those goals are for a particular
organization will depend upon the placing of the analyst's

reference frame.

With Huxley one shall begin with the paper organization
goals. These are also the goals of Hand and the other

World Controllers; for, the Controllers - as everyone else -
have been conditioned and screened until there is a perfect
fit between Founder and current management aspirations for

the organization.

A primary goal of the organization, than, is the develop-

ment and maintenance of happiness for mankind.

This happiness, whatever it is, can be achieved through
an emphasis on Community, Identity and Stability. And,
the measure of the Happiness is found in the extent that
human beings have lives which are emotionally easy and

even, as well as intellectually not dissatisfying.

87
Stability is a goal and a necessary condition for reaching
happiness. 'No civilization without social stability. No
social stability without individual stability."28 But indi-
vidual stability, a form of happiness, in turn depends upon
immediate gratification of desires. So it is noted :
”Impulse arrested spills over, and the flood is feeling,
the flood is passion, the flood is even madness...Feeling
lurks in that interval of time between desire and its

consummation. Shorten that interval..."29

Thus, surrounding the goals one adds a number of objectives
such as the elimination of passion and unfulfilled desire.
Or, when the Savage claims the right to be unhappy, Mond
replies 8 "Not to mention the right to grow old, ugly and
impotent: the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right
to have too little to eat...the right to be tortured by
unspeakable pains of every kind."163 Then, the elimination

of these horrors, too, becomes objectives of the organi-

zation.

happiness and Stability, however, remain fundamental.

61

"Don't you wish to be free...?" "I don't know what you

mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time.

61

Everybody's happy nowadays." And the Controller argues,

”Besides, we have our stability to think of. We don't want

88

to change. Every Change is a menace to stability."153

Indeed, the reference frame for determining the goals of
the organization could be placed at any point in the sys-
tem (excepting with the banished and yet-unbanished
deviants) and the goals of the individuals for the organi-

zation would be in harmony with the founder goals.

The Epsilons would certainly not be able to conceive of
the full range of goals of the Alphas; however, they would
be convinced that their own needs are primary in the system
and that others are quite happy working for them. In the
same way the Deltas, Gammas, Betas and Alphas each have the

best of all possible worlds.

Because of this goal ”harmony“ one is tempted - at least
in Huxley's model - to speak of the goals 21 the organi-
zation without further qualification. This same temptation
arises when one considers organizations in which goals are
a set of compromises. At that time, a cataloging of the
individuals' perceived goals in no way reflects the ”real"
operations. In both cases, for convenience, one speaks of
the goals 2i an organization. But the use of the word "of”
leads to an anthropomorphic view of organizations. If the

goal concept doeg have a value, then perhaps one should

B9

abandon the unqualified "organizational goals" and "goals
of an organization" for the more precise "consensus organi-

zational goals” or "goals for an organization."c

The Huxleyan model is a flat hierarchy of subsystems which
is headed by the Controllers Council. The subsystems them-
selves are steep hierarchies with, presumably, a modified

bureaucratic administration.

In addition, there is a social hierarchy and an individual
power-authority structure which are first determined by
one's intellectual class and then refined according to one's

work function.

As for the subsystems hierarchy, one might rank them
according to any number of reference frames : power, social
acceptance, task intellectual demands, stabilizing influence,
and so on. Huxley does not make such a ranking except to
place the Controllers Council at the head of the super-
organization and to permit one to infer that those subsys-
tems primarily dedicated to stability - Police, Hatcheries
and Conditioning (and probably ggmr production) - would

rank high.

90

As for the social hierarchy, individual notables are x

“The Chief Bottler, the Director of Predestination,...
Deputy Assistant Fertilizer-Generals (and so the Fertilizer-
General), the Professor of Feelies in the College of Emo-
tional Engineering (and so the President of the College),
the Dean of the Westminster Community Singery, the Super-

.105 To this list one adds :

visor of Bokanovskification...
The Arch Community Songster, the Director of Hatcheries and

Conditioning and, of course, the ten World Controllers.

The social hierarchy is congruent with the individual

power-authority structure.

The Huxleyan formal structure does not, in itself, show
marked variations from classical structure - in this case,
legal authority with a bureaucratic administrative staff.

On the other hand, Huxley's model functions more effecti-
vely and more efficiently than any known ”real" organization
operating with a similar structure. And Mond states. "Tech-
nically it would be perfectly simple to reduce all lower-
caste working hours to three or four a day. But would they

be happier for that 7'152

This operational perfection does not arise from a

structural variation over classical forms but, rather,

91

from a close tailoring of the human element to a given role,
a holding of its character constant and a satisfying of all

of its wants.

Of course, as C. Wright Mills observes, modern corporations
condition and train employees in this Huxleyan manner.D
Lack of closure and inability to condition employees from

a sufficiently early age preclude a Huxleyan success.

THE HUMAN CONTROL SYSTEM :

Given a paper organization meant to function in a closed
system and given a major objective of organizational
stability, then the human control subsystem becomes an

important feature of the construct.

In the Huxleyan system, markets and materials, total
products-effects, and so on may all be treated as cons-
tents. Consumption, too, may be set at any constant level.
"We condition the masses to hate the country...(but) to

love all country sports...(that) entail the use of elaborate
apparatus."15 The single first order variable of the
Huxleyan model remains the human being - in spite of

predestining machinery and conditioning. Organizational

92

stability for the Huxleyan model means permanence of the
paper structure. The human element must not be permitted

to deviate from a preassigned role set.

Bglige :

The ultimate arm of the control subsystem is the Police.
Mustapha Mond denies this : "Then came the British Museum
Massacre. Two thousand culture fans gassed...In the end...
(we) realized that force was no good. (We accepted) the
slower but infinitely surer methods of ectogenesis, neo-
Pavlovian conditioning and hypnopaedia..."34 Yet, riots
are quelled by police. Marx must be quieted by guards.
Deviates presumably do not all go willingly to Islands

- and there is no record of Islanders escaping. Reserva-
tions are controlled by police and natives are gassed by

guards.

The above is not meant to overemphasize the role of the
police in the system of control, but simply to point out

that police are essential to it.

In the same way, considering contemporary "real” organi-
zations, the inference is that a state police system is

essential for organizational survival. (This note will be

93

carried further in the general model in which an organi-
zation is considered the sum of its subsystems in a refe-
rence frame which permits it to include all government and
private agencies, paid and partially controllable, which

perform tasks for the construct.)

ggrggniretigng :

For simplicity one may consider the Huxleyan communications

subsystem on two levels 3 the Social and the Technical.

Serial 2

Social communication is class-locked: that is, there is no
social communication between classes. Alphas and Bates, in
this case, form a single class; Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons
each form single classes. Huxley addresses himself primarily

to the Alphas and Betas.

Within that dual class there is a relatively free flow of
information. One might almost call it a required flow of
conversation on the subjects of acceptable sex, sports and
tactile pleasures. This "free flow” permits members of the
group to detect deviants. For, although Mond claims,

'Characters remain constant throughout a whole lifetime,"37

94

not all mistakes in the Hatcheries manifest themselves
immediately in the human being. If there is no narrowing of
the band of acceptable behavior - for Controllers have the
final word on banishment - there is still a continual remo-

val of deviants. The class morality remains constant.

The blocking of communications between classes aids the
conditioners in their task of making each individual feel

that he has the best of situations.

Social communication is encouraged not only to make the
detection of deviants relatively easy, but also to assure
that the full pressure of group norms is brought to bear on
potential deviants. ”I really do think you ought to be
careful. It's such horribly bad form to go on and on like

this with one man.'27

If Fanny says this to Lenina, then
consider Mustapha Mond : "...the old men work, the old men
copulate, the old men have no time, no leisure from plea-

37 Indeed, it

sure, not a moment to sit down and think...”
is a sin to be alone, to communicate with oneself; and the
sin of forming a twosome is nearly as great. For, ”Every

one belongs to every one else, after all..31

The essential problem, however, is to keep this social

communication on subjects which are not disrUptive to the

9S

stability of the organization. The natural bent of the

human element - must be emphasized through all social
channels in order to satiate the potentially disruptive
human, to exhaust him, to prevent him from having any energy
or desire left to set in motion or stimulate the intellec-
tual or creative drive within him. For, in spite of all
conditioning, the structure of the human is such that he
figs; invent, gags create. Creation can lead to change. This
is, according to Mustapha Mond, an anathema to the organi-

zation.

lessens: :

From the management point of view, again that of Mustapha
Mend, "I'm interested in truth, I like science. But truth's
a menace, science is a public danger...we can't allow
science to undo its own good work. That's why we carefully
limit the scope of researches...We don't allow it to deal
with any but the most immediate problems of the moment. All

other enquiries are most sedulously discouraged.n155

The above philosophy or point of view has led Mond upon
reading "A New Theory of Biology” to write : "The author's
mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is novel

and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the

 

96

present social order is concerned, dangerous and poten-

tially subversive. Not 59 be published."118

That is, technical progress or discoveries and theories
lead to new social ideas and potential dysfunctioning of

a system. A control system for eliminating these dysfunc-
tional ideas must exist; and, the Controllers perform this

function.

Of course, technical ideas are eXplored during social or

 

non-working hours: however, with the exception of a
Helmholtz, these ideas are confined to the current,
acceptable framework. Even Helmholtz with his "radical
searching" limits his conversations to two people : Marx

and The Savage.

The networks of communication in Huxley's model are
distinguished not by directional flow or even the closed
loops within the different classes, but by the information
which can be passed on the channels. The human senders and
receivers are so conditioned as to be unable to frame a
message of any non-conforming meaning or to receive one
with an analytical reaction. Only a one-to-one network
permits the transmission of rare messages outside of the

accepted framework.

9?

Technical or social ggrgg are essential to the development
of emotion, and emotion in turn breeds instability. So, for
the Savage relative to Pope : “...he had never been able to
say how much he hated him. But now he had these words, these
words like drums and singing and magic."89 Thus, certain
words must be conditioned out of the language; and in the
same fashion, certain ideas must be eliminated. Helmholtz

of flexible, liberal thought bursts out in laughter on the
hearing of a particular passage from om o and ' x

”The mother and the father (grotesque obscenity) forcing

the daughter to have some one she didn't want £...In its
smutty absurdity the situation was irresistably comical."124
Helmholtz's own thoughts on solitude, however, result in
his being reported to his Principal atthe College. "Remem-
ber, they've (the students have) had at least a quarter of

. million warnings against solitude.'122

Words, though not simply cut out of the language as in
Orwell, are rendered useless through conditioning of the

human being.

In order to assure that controversial information is elimi-
nated, the 3311 is eliminated. Books have been destroyed.
With a flick of his hand Mustapha Mond brushes away history.

'Back to culture. Yes, actually to culture. You can't

9B

consume much if you sit still and read books."33 But if
consumption is needed, the destruction of books is for a
more cogent reason. Books are the source of words and ideas,
the stimulus for change, the glorification of the indivi-

dual over the group.

With the closing of the past there is a corresponding

emphasis upon the present and a blocking out of the future.
(For the future, too, or the consideration of it, can lead
to instability.) And, with communication so limited and the

human element conditioned to any predetermined role, the

general organizational structure - beyond IRE barir human
senirsl_mssbsaiama - becomes relatively unimportant in the

functioning of the organization.

Willem 3

Each member of the organization is conditioned to accept
the value system of his class and to discourage deviant
behavior. This results in a surveillance system which has

been formally planned to operate outside of "management."

Surveillance, although not continuous, is nearly so and is
essential to stability; for, the steady removal of the non-

conformists keeps the "preassigned“ norms constant, permits

99

one to treat the human elements as homogeneous and with

predictable behavior.

As noted earlier, the Controllers Council also serves as a
surveillance unit. This is a management unit and is prima-
rily devoted to the suppression of ideas - that is, the
blocking of communication - and, although it does concern

itself with social behavior, this is a secondary function.

Interestingly, the Controllers themselves appear to be

relatively free from surveillance. This will be considered

under Innovative Mechanisms.

THE HUMAN ELEMENTS AND THE VALUE SYSTEM :

 

”A mental excess had produced in Helmholtz Watson effects
very similar to those which, in Bernard Marx, were the
result of a physical defect...what the two men shared was

the knowledge that they were individuals.”45

But these two men were aberrations. The Islanders, the
Savages and to some extent the Controllers were all aberrant
forms of the human element. The 'true' Huxleyan fell neatly

into one of five categories - Alpha through Epsilon.

lOO

Emotions, intellect and height were similar for "indivi-
duals" within a given category; however, certain general
assumptions held for all the classes.

1. Man is malleable, and with proper care can be condi-
tioned to accept, even embrace, any situation.E

2. The driving forces within the human are those of ggr,
the grargh for ragrilg pleasure and creativity. (One must
assume that basic physiological needs are being met.)

3. Other so-called human drives are merely sublimations
of the sex drive or of such minor magnitude that they can
be drugged to ineffectuality.

4. The need-sated human will adjust best to a given role;

however, there must be an intellectual and job-demand fit.

Class values are established according to general societal
needs and along the lines of human drives according to the
human's class. That is, one chooses the paths of least
resistance. Although one may condition any value system
into a subject, the task is made easier with the satis-

faction of basic drives.

Thus, in general, it is 922g to consume. If lower classes
value country sports materials, a Beta says : ”We always
throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending."33

And, "The more stitches, the less riches...”33 In general,

101

it is 322g to tolerate others. Although "I'm glad I'm not

a Gamma...”42 one must recognize that ”Every one works for
every one else. We can't do without any one."49 In general,
ggrg,is 322g, “A gramme in time saves ninesg...and one cubic

centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments."6U

Although the following would have been spoken differently
and styled differently were an Epsilon to have phrased it,
the Director of Hatcheries expresses the general class
values in his damnation of Marx : "By his heretical views

on sport and 1253, by the scandalous unorthodoxy of his sex-
life, by his refusal to obey the teachings of Our Ford and
behave out of office hours, 'even as a little infent'...he

has proved himself an enemy of society, a subverter..."100'F

But, as was noted earlier, it is fundamental to the value
systems that each member of the total system is convinced
that there is no better position or life within or without

the system than the one which he himself holds.

102

INNOVATIVE AND STABILIZING MECHANISMS :

An organization or construct which is closed to outside
pressures of other organizations and individuals is still
subject to distortion through internal pressures. At least
such appears to be true in the Huxleyan model; and, this
fact is clear without recourse to the more recent paradigms

of Gouldner.G

Internal factors tending to distort the construct are
mechanical or human (poor human-job fit, natural capri-
ciousness, physical-mental difference from some norm) or

some combination of the above.

For example, the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
notes : “...Gammas, Deltas, and even Epsilons, had been
conditioned to like f1owers...The idea was to make them
want to be going out into the country...to consume trans-
port...(but) a love of nature keeps no factories busy.
(Now)...We condition the masses to hate the country...(but)

to love all country sports."14

The Controllers with the Alphas-of-planning act as a
stabilizing mechanism or in the stabilizing subsystem of

the organization. It is important to note, however, that

103

this subsystem operates 30 modify a situation to a fixgg
£1£2£52£33 that is, the human is changed rather than the

structure.

This leads one to a distinction - one which may or may not
raise a useful concept - between stabilizing and innovative
subsystems of an organization. Thus, the stabirrring gyb-
gyrrgm shall be that which attempts to change the situation
or human to fit the structure and the innovgtrvg ggbgygrgm
shall be that which attempts to change the structure of an

organization to fit the situation or human element.

In Huxley's model, then, the human control subsystem would

be one aspect of the stabilizing subsystem.

Is there, indeed, such a thing as an innovative subsystem
in the Huxleyan model ? Certainly, there is such a thing as
Research and Development. One of the Controllers' principal
functions is to eliminate those ideas which could conceiva-
bly lead to change. But Research and Development, no matter
how unfettered, is without direction toward structural
change, and does not meet the above definition. It is

simply an idea source for stabilization.

104

This, in turn, might raise the question of innovative versus
stabilizing subsystems in contemporary organizations. Given
a situation, to what degree is it met by the two subsys-
tems 7 For example, a "product” is placed upon the market
and sells at slightly less than expectation. Does Adverti-
zing - a stabilizing subsystem by definition - move in to
push the product 7 Is the Sales Division reorganized ? Is
there a combination of the two 7 Is the product simply
dropped 2 Is Management described, in some way, by the

employment of these subsystems ?

For example, in a political situation, a "product” is

placed upon the market. Let one imagine that Russia must be
suddenly placed in people's minds as a favorable ally in the
place of Finland. Is it the Stabilizing subsystem which is
always the first to take on the task ? Indeed, in these
organizations - if innovative subsystems even exist - are
they so geared that structural changes are impossible in

meeting problems except at the top of the sUperstructure ?

The essential for the argument of this section is, however,
that in the Huxleyan model there is gnly a Stabilizing
subsystem. Further, Research and Development - or Research

only - which could at least provoke attirudrga; changgr

without demanding structural revision of the organization,

105

is dominated by the stabilizing influence of the

Controllers.

One might object to the above statement by noting : I'In the
end...the Controllers realized that force was no good. The
slower but infinitely surer methods of ectogenesis, neo-
Pavlovian conditioning and hypnopaedia...(were more effec-
tive)."34 But this shift is not even attitudinal : the view

of controlling the human being for the human's happiness

remains.

One might then wish to conceive nice distinctions between
structures which have mechanisms for structural or attitu-
dinal changes and the relationship between them and the

stabilizing subsystems.

ORGANIZATIONQL EVOLUTION :

If the Orwellian model develops a particular state and then
spirals inwardly, tightening the construct while maintaining
structural relationships; then the Huxleyan model, too, has
reached a Stable State - but one in which not only the
structural relations remain the same, but also the intensity

of interaction remains constant.

106

In the former case, one can envisage a point at which the
construct "explodes," while in the latter case there is a
planned dissipation of energy and a non-constricting design.
With suprasystem and internal organization closure relative
to the structure, there is scant possibility of organiza-

tional evolution.

A Mustapha Mond, a World Controller, may say : "Almost
nobody (reads books). I'm one of the very few. It's prohi-
bited, you see. But as I make the laws here, I can also
break them. With impunity, Mr. Marx...Which I'm afraid you
535;; do.'148 But the extent to which Mustapha Mond can
change the gtructure of the organization is slight. He is
conditioned as are all members of the Controllers Council.

As he, himself, would say, his bottle is only slightly

larger than are those of other beings.

In as much as energy remains, however, all systems are
”candidates” for disruption. A Mustapha Mond - a human
being - may develop into a Helmholtz or Savage, as may the
entire membership of the Council, and the result will be

a form of evolution.

107

PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF THE SECTION :

Particular Fearures of thg_Model :

 

l. The superorganization is in a Stable State.

2. The superorganization is closed. Both internal and exter-
nal pressures have been eliminated. The external pressures
included ”the force of the past" as carried in words and
ideas in books and art, internal pressures were generated

by the human element. The former were prohibited or burned
outright, and the latter were contained by the human control
and stabilizing subsystems. Among the means employed in these
subsystems were : genetic manipulation, force, drugging,

conditioning and more or less continuous surveillance.

3. The formal structure gryhin lower classes is egalitarian
with a eUparimposed bureaucratic authority structure compo-

sed of members of the Alpha class.

4. The status pattern grrhin classes, excepting Alphas and
Betas, appears to be flat or equal. The status pattern
between classes depends upon the observer's view. Each
class is convinced that it has the best of all possible

worlds in status.

108

5. There exists a social hierarchy within the Alpha-Beta
joint class which generally matches an individual's posi-

tion in one of the many SUperimposed authority structures.

6. Paper or Founders goals include human ”happiness"
through the subgoals - or objectives - of Community,

Identity and Stability.

7. With closure, stability and relatively unlimited
resources, the only first magnitude variable in the

construct is the human element.

8. Conditioning is a necessary but not sufficient control
strategy for Operation of the organization. At the base of

operations is the force of police.

9. There are essentially two communications networks within
the system 3 The social, and the technical. If the former

is essential to the human element's mental well-being and
social direction, it is also a control device for the system
in the detection of deviant behavior. The social network has
five nearly closed loops. (Controllers, Alpha-Beta, Gamma,
Delta, and Epsilon.) The technical network, for all practi-
cal purposes, extends only through Controllers, Alphas and

Betas. Operational information flows in all directions:

109

innovative Technical information flows upward for screening

and revision or suppression.

10. The surveillance and communications subsystems are

fused. (This is not unlike Orwell's model.)

11. Of importance to the model is the matching of value
systems to the tasks of a given class, as well as to the
reward or status system. This eliminates the ”relative"

dissatisfaction for work and value received.

12. The Huxleyan human elements are, to a great extent,

homogeneous within a given class. Deviants are eliminated.

13. General assumptions concerning the human element
include 8
a. Man is malleable, and with proper care can be
conditioned to accept, even embrace, any situation.
b. The driving forces within the human are those of
15;, 1h; .garrh for ragtile pleasurg and rrgayiyity.
(One must assume that basic physiological needs are
being met.)
c. Other so-celled human drives are merely sublimations
of the sex drive or of such minor magnitude that

they can be drugged to ineffectuality.

110

d. The need-sated human will adjust best to a given
role; however, there must be an intellectual and

job-demand fit.

Gengral Notes Dragn from the Model and Related Materia; :

l. The human being can be conditioned - in nearly all cases
so as to function successfully in any organizational struc-
ture in so long as his physiological needs are met, and 3

He is sated sexually; his creativity drive is given outlet;
and, there is minimal stress between job demand and indivi-

dual ability.

This human conditioning - or perfect selrrtion in an open
system - is the primary factor for a closed system, and the
mechanics of the organization are secondary. As one moves
from a closed to an cpen system, machinery rises in impor-
tance; however, the human element does not correspondingly

diminish in importance.

Of course, one could create a structure to fit the human
elements: however, in as much as human beings are ngt
homogeneous elements (apart from behaving according to
gross or approximate laws) such a structure will be nearly

impossible to create in any realistic form. Personnel change

111

and human "growth" complete the problem. Further, even a
continual evolution of organizational structure would be
dysfunctional for some of the human elements. Thus, condi-

tioning again becomes primary.

2. One might do well to use the phrase goals for an organ;-
zation rather than goals gf an organiration. Although the

latter is often employed by writers on organizational

 

theory, the result is a deceptive anthropomorphizing of the

constructs and leads away from clear analysis.

3. Through Huxley, one might agree that a continuing task

of management is to effect closure. That is, management must
exert a continuing effort to control organizational envi-
ronment. The areas to be controlled are multidinous, and

the methods employed are many; however, particular attention
should be given to rontrgl gf rhe pgg . What actually
happened in the past is unimportant : What people yyigy
happened in the past is a determinant for the present. (One
might note parallels to Huxley's thought. Thus, contemporary
major oil companies advertize repeatedly that care for eco-
logy has been the primary concern of the companies for
several decades. In the same way, one finds sympathetic

(if false) company histories as public relations departments

rewrite the past to match present needs.)

112

S. Huxleyan management performs a stabilizing function in
the organization. Problems are solved by manipulating humans
or situations: that is, no basic structural or attitudinal

change is possible for the organization or management.

This might lead to a classification of the four "systems"
of the novelists, one which could conceivably be gener-

alized.

Put another way, one might argue that organizational prob-
lems may be met by management through a §tabilizing,
Inngyatiyg or At 'tu inal attack or some combination of
them. The former two have been defined. Attitudinal refers
to an undirected shift in management's basic attitudes

toward goals or problems.

When they exist. are these approaches the function of a
single group - such as management - or are they divided
among independent task force groups which will then advise
management ? In the Huxleyan model, the three approaches

are vested in a single management. If Research and Devel-
opment is ever capable of making Attitudinal changes, it

is here delimited to immediate solution of current problems.
Further exploration is prevented by the human control

system.

113

6. As in Orwell, a consideration of the system leads one to
establish reference frames other than that of the organiza-

tional mechanic.

It is common practice to recognize that an organization is
embedded in - or, from an organismic view - a part of a
suprasystem. Even this latter viewpoint is occasionally
obscured by the organizational mechanic through his ten-
dency to define the membership or subsystems of an organi-
zation within a framework of direct payroll-personnel.
Further, the very definition of an organization as used in
this study limits one to a particular "social unit.”
Perhaps one should place more emphasis upon the tgtgl
subsystems of an organization. For the present, these shall
be defined as those systems which are partially or wholly
funded by the organization and which measurably affect the
Operation of the organization. Thus, the state police system
is, in a very real sense, a subsystem of a legitimate orga-
nization within a state. The judicial system of the state
and/or nation is a subsystem of the organization. In the
same way, the bureau of posts, of sanitation, are also

subsystems of an organization.

In a practical sense organizational personnel gg recognize

these ancillary organizations or subsystems from the fact

114

that they attempt to control them. A question is then
posed as to the extent to which auxilliary organizations
actually control the organizations of which they are

subsystems.

7. The Huxleyan system has reached the stable state.
In spite of the Controllers Council, the direction of
the organization depends only upon the machinery of the

construct, and the machinery functions without distortion.

THE MODEL OF EAMUS

115

116

THE SUPRASYSTEM :

Camus' suprasystem consists of the real world complex of
interdependent organizations and individual human beings as
well as the governments (controlling and facilitating orga-

nizations) which span them.

For a period of approximately ten months a small set of
humans and organizations - those in the city of Gran -

become virtually a closed system.

The closure is ordered by the government: and, it is main-
tained by its external police force and its internal force

as aided by citizens of Gran.

The human elements in the Camus model have ennobling fea-
tures, particularly when compared to those of Huxley and
Orwell; however, even at the height of rational action and
when the need for closure is clear, that closure can only be
maintained by force. Thus, the suprasystem protects itself
and controls its environment. The basis of all control is

the police force.

11?

THE SUPERORGANIZATION :

Formal Structure :

Camus assumes that the reader is familiar with French bureau-
cracy; therefore, one is not given structural details but,
rather, brief insights into the bureaucratic inability of

ceping with an abnormal and changing situation.

A plague is raging and the administrative staff puts out
ineffectual regulations. One does not wish to alarm the citi-
zens. But the statistics on plague deaths rise, and the si-
tuation demands immediate action. The Prefect says, "I'll

ask government for orders."58 The government delays. The
Prefect belatedly tightens the regulations; but now the
plague demands still more stringent measures. Long after the
decision should have been made, the government orders the

city closed.59

In the same way, the regulations concerning burials are fol-
lowed meticulously but ceremonies are being speeded-up to an
absurd pace. Only the overwhelming fact of masses of bodies

forces the breaking of the regulations.

118

This functioning of the bureaucratic administration in a
single direction - and usually with the same speed - is again
apparent as one segment of the administrative staff, a seg-
ment which should be fighting the plague, placidly gathers
information for some future collection of taxes and possible
debts to the government.99 The military concerns itself with
such trivia - but to itself important - as the problem of

154 The church con-

awarding military medals to prison guards.
tinues unperturbed in its ritual, and if a Paneloux explains
that "...religion in a time of plague could not be the reli-
gion of every day,"202 then Paneloux is ”dallying with here-

sy." The church did not change: Paneloux died.

Whatever the formal structure ;§ - andone has necessarily
assumed that it is an enormous hierarchy with a slow func-
tioning, grinding bureaucratic administrative staff - one is
at least made aware of some of the things it does to humans.

226 It can order up firing

227

It converts them into prosecutors.
squads of human beings to murder human beings. It distorts
them so that they will accept any number of half-lies as the

truth.11

The vignettes of those working in the formal structure are
many. As for Grand, a minor functionary, "Even before you

knew what his employment was, you had the feeling that he'd

119

been brought into the world for the sole purpose of perfor-
ming the discreet but needful duties of a temporary assistant

municipal clerk..."41

And, in a city where thousands live in
poverty, a Mayor considers it sufficient that "...there was
no reason to believe that anyone had ever died of hunger in
the town.'43 They, the bureaucrats, were ”...sticklers...(or)
consolers...(or) important persons who asked the visitor to
leave a brief note of his case and (said)...they would decide
on it in due course.” They were '...trif1ers...(or) the red
tape merchants, who made...(one) fill up a form and promptly
interred it in a file; overworked officials...and much-haras-
sed officials who simply looked away; and, finally, the tra-
ditionalists - these were by far the greatest number - who

referred...(one) to another office or recommended some new

method of approach."98

This officialdom is not incapable of asking for voluntary
help. But official channels - at this level - will not permit

the transmission of spirit. ”What they're short on is imagi-

114 And one returns to the note that "Officialdom can

never cepe with something really catastrophic.,114

nation."

Thus, one has the portrait of a bureaucratic structure which
becomes ineffective in periods of radical change, which con-

tinues meaningless housekeeping tasks when the need for such

120

has vanished, which converts humans to a brutish state and
which generates a single, inflexible approach to problem-
solving among the human elements. (So, a problem which is

not Upon one's personal desk is not a problem at all.)

The above might lead one to consider dysfunctional sapects

of bureaucracy which would not necessarily involve assump-
tions about the human element.A That is, as change accele-
rates, the bureaucracy, which is dependent upon ordinary
decision-making by rules or regulations, becomes dysfunc-
tional. Problems change more rapidly than rules. Problems
tend to become unique - if only for lack of time or machinery

for categorizing them so that new rules may be applied.

Ingidenta; Qrganizgtiong :

The plague situation coupled with human needs and desires

brought about the existence of Tarrou's Volunteer GroUp120

128

and the Smuggling organization with which Cottard was

associated.

One is given scant information about organizational Opera-
tions. The Volunteers worked as a set of teams. Each volun-
teer did what he could do best or accepted a task - perhaps

below his powers - in which he was told he was needed.

121

If Tarrou was the prime organizer and Grand became a form of
general secretarylzz to these sanitary squads, there was
still no formal hierarchy. This 3g Egg organization, it would
seem, could function only in a time of high stress with an

immense work load and a stress-related need on the part of

the volunteers.

One knows even less about the Smuggling Organization. It
existed in spite of danger because of an easy market and high
rewards. As one is assumed to know about the Operations of
French Bureaucracy, one shall assume a structure with the
flexibility of the Volunteers - one guided by a ”moral” code

but untrammelled by bureaucratic rules.

THE HUMAN ELEMENT :

I'Our citizens work hard, but solely with the object of get-
ting rich. Their chief interest is in commerce...(and) doing
business. Naturally, they don't eschew such simpler pleasures
as love-making, sunbathing, going to pictures. But...they
reserve these pastimes for Saturday afternoon and Sundays and
employ the rest of the week in making money, as much as pos-

sible.'4

122

This is Dr. Rieux's opinion of the general citizenry in the
ordinary days before the stress of the plague. It is a com-

mentary rather than a condemnation.

These citizens have learned to "...get through the days
without trouble...(for they) have formed habits. And since
habits are precisely what our town encourages, all is for
the best...social unrest is quite unknown among us. And our
frank-spoken, amiable, and industrious citizens have always

inspired a reasonable esteem in visitors."5

These same citizens are put under the stress of the plague.
Their lives are in danger; their work and their habits are
disrupted. They move from anger to shock to a chaos of action
and finally to a somewhat organized state of resistance to

the plague - or, if one wishes, to new habits.

From this citizenry there are those who apply early for
volunteer work to fight the plague. But these should not be
overly praised : "For this attitude implies that such actions
shine out as rare exceptions, while callousness and apathy
are the general rule. The narrator does not share that view
...On the whole, men are more good than bad...but they are
more or less ignorant...the most incorrigible vice being that

of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and

 

123

therefore claims for itself the right to kill.n120

This citizenry can rarely forget reality and its self-created
reality. But there are rare moment such as those at the end
of the plague. "All were laughing or shouting. The reserves
of emotion...were being recklessly squandered to celebrate
this, the red-letter day of their survival. Tomorrow real
life would begin again, with its restrictions. But for the
moment peOple in very different walks of life were rubbing
shoulders, fraternizing. The leveling-out...was realized at

last, for a few gay hours, in the rapture of escape."267

The foregoing has furnished a description of the "average"
citizen; however, rather than now listing so-called proper-
ties of that human element, one must consider the world which
existed around him when there was no plague. For that, one
must turn to the views of Camus' urhomme, the rare one who

has found the time to evaluate the suprasystem.

Rieux says 3 "Do you know that there are some who refuge to
die 7 Have you ever heard a woman scream 'Never 1' with her
last gasp ?...(after that) I saw that I could never get har-
dened to it. I was young then, and I was outraged by the
whole scheme of things...Subsequently, I grew more modest.

Only, I've never managed to get used to seeing people die."117

124

Tarrou says 3 "Have you ever seen a man shot by a firing-
squad 7...The spectators are hand picked and it's like a
private party, you need an invitation...Do you know that the
firing-squad stands only a yard and a half from the condemned
man 2 Do you know...their big bullets make a hole into which
you could thrust your fist ?...those are things that are ne-
ver spoken of. For the plague-stricken their peace of mind

is more important than a human life,e225

Rambert says a ”Man is an idea, and a precious small idea,
once he turns his back on love. And that's my point; we

- mankind - have lost the capacity for love." And again :
”Well, personally, I've seen enough people who die for an
idea. I don't believe in heroism; I know it's easy and I've
learned it can be murderous. What interests me is living and

dying for what one loves."149

Rieux, Tarrou, Rambert and even Grand have each spoken
through their separate philosophies to the horror or absur-
dity of the world in which they and those ordinary citizens

live and for which they are in part responsible.

With this in mind, one may note a few of the assumptions of

Camus concerning the ordinary citizen.

125

1. He is a creature of habit, comfortable in a routine.

2. He is naturally industrious, but, of course, is driven
by a desire to make money.

3. He is not callous or apathetic, but is more or less
ignorant.

4. This habit, this ignorance, this industry, this system
which he has created prevent him from taking any broad
view of man himself and the human condition. Thus, he
does not even recognize :

(a) that he has adjusted to absurdities and even
promotes them,

(b) that his rationale permits him to justify the
murder of human beings: indeed, this is a normal
state of things which does not even bear exami-
ning.

5. He can be ground down into a person without love, and if
this affects his personal happiness, his awareness is so
dulled that he does not revolt; further, his work is not
effected adversely. It will be all that remains to him.

6. He can eventually adjust to any situation and accept it

as normal.

In epite of the above, it should be recognized that this
human element has the potential to love, to break downward

through self-constructed class barriers, to have passion

126

without murder; but, the system and the self place this
somewhere in the doubtful future. Few have fulfilled that
potential. Or, as Tarrou says : "...it's a wearying business
being plague-stricken. But it's still more wearying to refuse

to be it...a weariness from which nothing remains to set us

free except death."229

ORGANIZATIONAL MORALITY :

Organizational morality has the same anthropomorphic ring as
organizational goals; and, perhaps, one should speak only of
concepts of morality jg; an organization. Of course, it has
yet to be debated whether the conceptof morality even has a
place in organizational theory: nevertheless, certain ques-

tions arise from Thg Plague which may be best considered in

terms of morality.

Camus' central characters of Rieux, Rambert and Tarrou

- although these are not the only ones - are involved in mo-
rality, a morality different from that of the ordinary citi-
zens of Oran. Their codes guide them as much as habit guides
the citizen. A major difference is that the central charac-
ters act mith an awareness of why they act. If the individual

has: any control over his destiny - which problem shall not be

127

argued here - they, at least, have the illusion of control.

For Rieux : ”The thing was to do your job as it should be
79

done."38 And, "...the law was the law..." But, even though
he could not accept the scheme of things, he worked within

and through an organization.

For Rambert : "The truth is I wasn't brought into this world
to write newspaper articles. But it's quite likely I was
brought into the world to live with a women."78 But, there
was no way he could break free of the constraining organi-

zation.

For Tarrou : "I learned that I had an indirect hand in the
deaths of thousands of people: that I'd even brought about
their deaths by approving of acts and principles which could
only end that way. Others did not seem embarrassed by such
thoughts...they told me...I should remember what great issues

were at stake."227

And, Tarrou has withdrawn from every acti-
vity which could have anything to do with a man's death -

that is to say, from most activities in the world.

It is not necessary to develUp here the full moral codes of
Rieux, Rambert and Tarrou. Whatever they are, one knows that

they are different from the general ethic of organizations

128

and at variance with the many particular moral codes - ins-
titutional, professional, religious - to which the ”accepted"

man is expected to ascribe.

The human element in Camus' world is caught between these
powerful code-ridden organizations and there is conflict

with his personal code. Although that conflict exists for

all human elements, it is the guzhomme of Camus who is most
torn and most capable of feeling pain. And, it is the ordi-
nary citizen who is prevented from rising above himself in
love and awareness. For Camus, the adverse effects of this
conflict - no matter that they may be momentarily ennobling -

are always on the individual.

The general ethic or moral code of organizations is usually
unwritten. However, Rieux and Tarrou see it to be much the
same throughout the world. Tarrou, in particular, sees it as
a set of 'should's" and interdictions which subvert the indi-
vidual code to the benefit of the organization and the des-

truction of the individual.

From the individuals in The Elague one might infer the
organizational ethic for the member; and, not surprizingly,
the derived code closely ressembles Hubbard's well-known and

management-venerated "A Message to Garcia.” Thus :

129

1. Man should play his contracted role in an organi-
zation, one which includes this ethic, and subvert
the personal code when conflict arises or one should
leave the organization.

2. As a corollary, man should always be loyal and
supportive of the organization and the humans fil-
ling positions in the hierarchy.

3. Personal codes may be suggested and forwarded within
the organizational framework; but when they are
rejected, the matter should be drOpped.

4. Man should not concern himself with the ultimate
products of organizational endeavor, but rather with
the excellence of his clearly defined work. For, it
is that for which he is paid and not for the passing

of devisive moral judgments.

This emphasis or obsession with morality - depending upon
one's point of view - can be related to more than a single
element in a theory of organizations. Theory itself and the

theorist must be questioned.

For example, it is natural that in a new field - such as
organizational theory - one utilizes the methods and patterns
of the established fields at the inception of study. Thus,

physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and mathematics have

130

become models for organizational theory while data and
theorems have been drawn from psychology, political science,

economics and so on.

In organizational theory, then, one has identified elements,
examined constructs, and created models which permit predic-
tion. This theory, when one takes the view of Camus, has

neglected the limiting factor in the analogy between the new

and old disciplines - the human element.

One cannot point to the Human Relations school of organiza-
tional theorists as a significant variant from the school of
Scientific Management. In the inferred view of Camus, a Fayol
and Taylor were as advanced as any member of the Human Rela-
tions group. For, one must note that the task of both schools
was to make the human being functional for the organization
rather than to make the organization functional for the
human. Indeed, one might say that the theorists' concern has
been primarily if not solely with the limited area of

"Organizational Mechanics."

Now, clearly, the student of organizational mechanics must
know and be able to create divers structures; he must know
the variant moral codes of the human elements; and, he must

analyze this human in interaction with humans and the

131

structure. For Camus, the science would still be incomplete.
It was noted that Camus would question theory and theorist.
In the first case he would ask that variant phi1050phies be
attached or integrated with mechanics; and in the second
instance he would demand that the theorist not only place
the reference frame of importance on the human being, but
also analyze his own (the theorist's) position or role in

fostering a system of horror and absurdity.

PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF THE SECTION :

 

Eartigular Features of thg Model :

l. The SUperorganization is partially closed.
2. The basis of all closure and control is a police force.

3. The formal structure of the superorganization is bureau-

cratic under rational-legal authority.

4. The structure is dysfunctional in periods of rapid change.
And, the dysfunction arises from an inability of z
(a) The organization to categorize problems and esta-
blish related rules as well as annul past rules,
(b) The human element to break from habit and exercise

imagination, and,

132

(c) the human element to recognize or admit the

"problem" of the human condition.

5. General assumptions concerning the ordinary human element
include : he is a comfortable creature of habit, driven by a
desire to make money, neither callous or apathetic but more
or less ignorant. He can be (and has been) reduced to a love-
less person, ignoring the murder of himself and his fellow
human beings. He will eventually accept every situation as

normal and promote the absurdities which grind him down.

6 ne a N e D a n f om th ode and e ated Mate is z

1. Although the primary variable in the "success" of any
organization is the human being, most structures are so
designed that the human is reduced to a functioning but

non-creative "cog" in the system.

2. Bureaucratic models may be shown to be technically dys-
functional when a system is partially open in a period of
rapid change. In this one may criticize Weber for making the
tacit assumption that the velocity of change will remain

constant.

3. Management assumptions concerning humans, whether they be
those noted by McGregor or those by the novelists considered

in this study, should be paralleled with management codes of

133
ethics or morality.

4. Organizational Mechanics has been the prime concern of
Organizational Theory. One might do well to consider a dis-
cipline of Organizations which in turn would demand related
philOBOphies, various theories and finally a subcourse in

M BChaniCSe

S. The theorist who has chosen organizational mechanics as
his specialty must examine his personal philosophy and then
reexamine it in the light of his tasks within mechanics. He
must be, at least, aware of his placing of reference frames
'and of his perpetuation of various products-effects of an

organization.

THE MODEL OF KAFKA

134

135

PRELIMINARY :

Literary interpretations of lfl£.l£i2£ are as numerous as

the critics of Kafka. Clearly, some of those interpretations
were not those intended by Kafka; and, the present extrac-
tion of concepts for organization I'theory" results - in all

probability - in another unintended study.

That aside, one should observe that the screen employed in
this study restricts the material drawn from a symbolist
such as Kafka much more than it does the material from an

Orwell, Huxley or Camus.

THE SUPRASYSTEM :

Kafka's suprasystem involves a ggglity system and a

nonconflicting but associated cgugt system.

The reality system includes the multitude of organizations
within the states of the world. One is given scant infor-
mation about this general structure. The major focus is
on a single organization within it : K's Bank. One does

know, however, that "K. lived in a country with a legal

136

constitution, there was universal peace, all the laws were

in force...”7

One suspects that the organizations within the reality
system are structured and function much as does the Bank.
They would appear to fall under Likert's Benevolent Autho-
ritative classificationA - at least at the upper management
level - and into the Exploitive Authoritative class for
other levels. The assumption in the above is that the class
structure of K's society is rigidly stratified and breads,
or is associated with a similar rigidity in organizational

functioning.

This class-conscious society is documented in small remarks
and attitudes such as K.'s thought 3 ”...nor did he want

her (Leni) to find him so deep in intimate conversation

220

with the tradesmen..." Or, note the manufacturer speaking

of the poor painter : "...it would certainly mean swallowing

171

one's pride to go to such a fellow for advice." Dr, K.

asking : ”Must I...let myself be confused still worse by
the gabble of those wretched hirelings 7'10
One can find ample evidence of the above; however, there is

no appraisal of interaction between organizations in the

reality system.

O.

137

The notion of a suprasystem implies some connection or
interaction between elements of the totality, therefore,
one should ask what relationship exists between the major

systems of reality and court.

It is easy enough to imagine that the court system exists
only in the mind of Joseph K. Or, one might also claim and
defend the statement that some form of court system exists,
more or less developed, in the mind of every man. At the
same time, although one would be hard pressed, one might be
able to defend the notion that the court system exists in
the same fashion as the Bank and related organizations which

form the reality system.

One could, of course, complicate or saphisticate the

unatter infinitely.

For example, if the court system exists only in the mind of
Joseph K., indeed, if all is seen through his distorting
eyes, then the suprasystem - as one can deduce its nature
from the work - is no more than K.'s perception of this
reality. It includes the Bank, fragmented descriptions of
other organizations, individuals and the imaginary court

system - all interacting in unpredictable ways.

138

Or, one may become more objective - perhaps - by ignoring
such things as point-of-view, and characters' distinctions
between reality and imagination. Then, it may be stated
that one has Franz Kafka's description of a SUprasystem,
the limits of which are not defined, but in which the focus
magnifies a Bank organization, an individual and his

possible distortion of reality.

The above "attitudes" with their concomitant assumptions
will lead, clearly, to different interpretations of the
work with varying degrees of relevance for the study of

organizations.

In one case it may be argued that the very use of the court
system metaphor implies that there is an overriding impact
of organizations upon individuals, one which gives the
individual a sense of powerlessnessB and deranges him men-
tally. But, even as in Kafka's own extended cathedral meta-
phor, one may argue that organizations are made to appear
elementary in structure and functioning, that even the
irrational court system is simplicity itself when compared
to the individual when drawn in his full complexity.
Further, it may be said that Kafka, although sketching his
multi-faceted individual in terms of the court bureaucracy,

is describing the loss of control of the reality system

139

organization over the individual and is purposely minimizing

the importance of the reality organization.

Since it is highly unlikely that one may resolve a matter
which has yet to be resolved by a host of literary critics,
the approach in this phase of the study will be one which

is merely in harmony with previous phases — however limiting

that may be. One will accept a character's point-of-vieg as
being on; of many valid descriptions of reality.

Therefore, the suprasystem in IDE Igig; shall consist of a
reality system and a court system. They are on equivalent
levels in whatever is reality and for whatever is existence.
Interaction between the two systems occurs as individuals
attempt to satisfy the demands of each system. There is a
continual drain of human energy from the reality to the
court system. For this, organizations of reality merely

151 z The

adjust themselves by a "compensating reaction"
court, on the other hand, is unaffected by the reality

system, except as it affords a controlled energy input.

140

THE FORMAL STRUCTURE :
W s

The Bank, the only organization of which one is appraised

in the reality system, has already been noted to fall into
one of Likert's Authoritative classes. Certainly, it appears
that the Bank is bureaucratically organized and meets the
Heberian criteria. In the same way, variations on recogni-
zed bureaucratic dysfunctions are apparent.c Thus, K.'s
personal problem with the court causes him to neglect his
clients161 which in turn causes the Assistant Manager to
survey K.'s work more closely. K. resents the supervision
and vows to get even with the Assistant Manager. ”...I'll
make him suffer for it, too.”175 One is not told precisely
how this increase in tension affects the Bank Operations.

K. must imagine it minimal: for, the Bank is an organization
like the court : ”One must lie low...and try to understand
that this great organization remained...in a state of deli-
cate balance, and if someone took it upon himself to alter
the disposition of things around him, he ran the risk of...
...destruction, while the organization would simply right

itself by some compensating reaction in another part of its

machinery...and remain unchanged, unless...it became still

141

more rigid, more vigilant, severer, and more ruthless.n15l

In the same way, having authority as Chief Clerk, K. finds
it more rational that he neglect his clients than that the
Assistant Manager have the right to collect data on those
clients from K.'s files. That is, associated with role
demands are role privileges which, in the mind of the role

player, are of greater importance than the task.

Dysfunctional behavior from a management view - assuming
that efficiency and effectiveness are defined in the stan-
dard manner - is even more apparent in the operation of the
court. Since the Bank and court are both bureaucratic
structures, and since the above assumption may not hold for
the court, a comment on Bureaucracy, Weber and his critics

- as prompted by Kafka's work ~ may now be apprOpriate.

"Weber has often been criticised for presenting an idealized
conception of bureaucracy...he addresses himself to the pro-
blem of how a given element contributes to the strength...
of the organization. What is missing is a similar systematic
attempt to isolate the dysfunctions of the various elements

discussed and to examine the conflicts that arise...”

142

Let one assume for the moment that the criticism is valid.

Kafka's model points to any number Of dysfunctional
paradigms from the Weberian base. In that these paradigms
are variations (due to conceivable human actions) of later-
conceived and empirically derived models, they can hardly

be discounted without discounting those others. For example:

Earadigm I

Organizational ‘ Individual System
Demand for Control Needs - Problems

 

 

 
    

 

 
 

Delegation of

Prescribed Status Rightsj
Authority ’ -

 

 

 

_ - -Taking of Maximal
[Functional Aspects rights for Individual
* Needs - Problems

 

 

 

 

 

'Leading to portion Of E
[ ’ Simplified Gouldner model

 

Leading eventually to
Delegation of Authority.

 

 

Paradigm I is simply that of Joseph K. - a member of Bank
management - as he takes maximal right as Chief Clerk and

neglects his clients for consideration of his personal

143

needs and problems. (This parallels a worker's knowledge

of minimal acceptable behavior when rules are set and is
equally dysfunctional for the organization.) The taking of
maximal right - and more - leads to closeness of sUpervision
by the Assistant Manager. This results in an increase in
power relations and tension and, although not cycling to
Gouldner's centerpiece of 'use of general and impersonal

rules” does return to Selznick's "delegation of authority.”

P di

Organizational - Individual System
Demand for Control Needs - Problems

 

 

 

Establishment of _
Control Mechanisms

 

 

L

 

 

Perceived Organization Perceived Individual.
Adjustment and Relative
Survival Power Ability Powerlessness

 

 

 

-Individual Maximal Safe-
Disregard for

 

 

[Organization needs.

 

144

Paradigm II is drawn from Joseph K.'s perception of organi-
zational power both of the Bank and the court system and the
recognition of his relative powerlessness. "One must lie

151 This leads to a

low...he ran the risk of destruction.“
maximum safe disregard for organizational needs; however,
with general control mechanisms functioning, it recycles to

strengthening of control mechanisms.

Other paradigms might be drawn from the Kafka model:
however, let one return to the discussion of Weber as

stimulated by a consideration of Kafka.

Weber defined the salient features of what he chose to call
a bureaucratic structure. It is lagically of no consequence
that this description varies from structures found in
”reality.” Variance becomes a measure and the ”degree of
bureaucratization' a frame of reference. Further, that Weber
did not develop the "logical” dysfunctions amounts to the

criticism of the great for not being greater. But the fore-

going is not enough 3 h n ' man f h
n n n b h O ' tn 'n f'ni
u i n a a on in h h man eme h' h a
F

fun i 'n a i an u .

 

145

March and Simon point this out relative to Eouldner's model,
stating that it ”...leaves some puzzles unexplained. In par-
ticular, why is increased sUpervision the supervisory res-
ponse to low performance ? It seems reasonable that the
tendency to make such a response is affected both by role
perceptions and by a third equilibrating process in the
system - the individual needs of the supervisors. Thus, the
intensity of supervision is a function of the authoritar-
iggign of sUpervisors and a function of the punitivity Of

. . G
e i o e. ion."

The above sOphisticated explanation could have been pref-
aced, perhaps, by the introductory note a The first order
factor in the functioning of any construct is the basic

nature of the human elements to be placed in that construct.

McEregor is well aware of this. Certainly Weber was also
aware of it; however, some of his assumptions about the
human element were tacit, and this itself may be a rela-

tively valid criticism.

Kafka's Ideals may have a failing in that structure

description is sacrificed to that of human description.

 

146

Court System : Part I

"The ranks of the officials in this judiciary (court) system
mounted endlessly, so that not even the initiated could
survey the hierarchy as a whole. And the proceedings of the
courts were generally kept secret from subordinate officials,
consequently they could hardly ever quite follow in their
further progress the cases on which they had worked: any
particular case thus appeared in their circle of jurisdic-
tion Often without their knowing whence it came, and passed

from it they knew not whither."149

If the above gives an overview of the possible chaos within

the structure, there are other aspects 3

Of the Warders : "...you (Joseph K.) are arrested." When K.
asks why, they reply 3 ”We are not authorized to tell you
that...Proceedings have been instituted against you, and you
will be informed of everything in due course."6 And, ”We are
humble subordinates who...have nothing to do with your case
except to stand guard over you..."9 And, “...the high autho-
rities we serve...must be quite well informed about the
reasons for the arrest..."10 And, when K. demands to be

taken to see the Wardere' sUperior officer, one answers,

”When he orders me, not before..."11 According to the

147

Warders they "...would certainly have been promoted to be

Whippers..."105 but, due to a minor failing ”...all is lost

"106 That failing seems to

...our careers are done for...
have been a conflict between tradition and regulations. They
have stolen, "...but it's a tradition that body-linen is

the wardsrs' perquisite...'105

However much one would screen out prior knowledge of the
Weberian bureaucratic authority structure - and remain with
only "formal" structure - one cannot ignore similarities
with the Blau and Scott interpretation of Weber as consi-

dered in the section on Orwell.

Of the Inspector : K. asks if he may sit down. The Inspec-
tor notes, “It's not usual..." K. then demands 3 "What
authority is conducting these proceedings 7 Are you officers
of the law 2 None of you has a uniform, unless your suit..."16
Following this tirade, the Inspector says that K. is labo-
ring under a great delusion. "These gentlemen here (the
Warders) and myself have no standing whatever in this affair
of yours, indeed we hardly know anything about it. We might
wear the most Official uniforms and your case would not be

a penny the worse.’16 Finally, on learning that arrest leaves
one with freedom of movement, K. says "...there was no par-

ticular necessity to tell me about it..."20 The Inspector

 

148

states 3 ”It was my duty.”20 "A stUpid duty," K. said.

"That may be...but we needn't waste our time with such

arguments.'20

Of the Whipper : "...I refuse to be bribed. I am here to

whip people, and whip them I shall.“07

Of the Law Student 3 On speaking to K., "...it was your

71

duty to go away, and as soon as I came in..." And, after

having ”violated” a woman, he carries her off to the Exa-
mining Magistrate for similar treatment. The woman cries to

K., 'Let him alone...He's only obeying the orders of the

73

Examining Magistrate..." But no one will thrash the

student, ”...he's too influential.'77

Of the tradesmen Block 3 "So the way Block stuck to his

reading (incomprehensible papers for his trial) showed me

how faithfully he does what he is told.u242

Of the Priest 8 "...if it were this priest's duty to preach

a sermon at a certain hour regardless of circumstances, let

261

him do it...“ And, the Priest admits, "I had to speak to

you (K.) first from a distance. Otherwise I am too easily

influenced and tend to forget my duty."266

_ J1). -‘.

149

Now, the foregoing comments of minor characters give further
hints of the Weberian form of the Court system. Because of
this direction and the multitude of quotations necessary to
establish the full system one shall employ a defensible
short-cut at this time. On; ghall §tate the Webgrian form

in full and match the Cogrt system to it. References fgr

the defense or comgarigon of form§ will, of course, meet

rhe criteria for gagging the defined screen, Ihe gcreen
ghall then bg reemgloyed to pick up additional material,

n order to avoid biasin this has of the tud .
o t S tem art

In dealing with Orwell one referred to Blau and Scott's
interpretation of Weber. Differences in the Orwell and
Weber models were such that a broad ”matching" of points
was sufficient; further, the Orwell construct and hierarchy
had few of the complexities of formal bureaucratic struc-
ture, and a detailed, prolonged study of it did not appear
worth while. The Kafka model, however, is based on a rela-
tively complex formal structure and demands the nicities of

a primary source.H

Essential to Court system develOpment in Part III of this

section is a verbatim text of the Blau and Scott

150

interpretation of Weber on Legal Authority with a Bureau-
cratic Administrative Staff, and notes by Weber (as trans-

lated) on the same subject.

Blau and Sgott InterpretationI

Almost all modern administrative organizations (as well as
some ancient ones) are bureaucratically organized. Weber
enumerates the distinctive characteristics of this type of
organization in the following way I

(1) Organization tasks are distributed among the various
positions as official duties. Implied is a clear-cut divi-
sion of labor among positions which makes possible a high
degree of specialization. Specialization, in turn, promotes
expertness among the staff, both directly and by enabling
the organization to hire employees on the basis of their
technical qualifications.

(2) The positions or offices are organized into a hierar-
chical authority structure. In the usual case this hierarchy
takes on the shape of a pyramid wherein each official is
responsible for his subordinates' decisions and actions as
well as his own to the superior above him in the pyramid
and wherein each official has authority over the officials
under him. The scope of authority of superiors over subor-
dinates is clearly circumscribed.

(3) A formally established system of rules and regula-
tions governs official decisions and actions. In principle,
the operations in such administrative organizations involve
the application of these general regulations to particular
cases. The regulations insure the uniformity of Operations
and, together with the authority structure, make possible
the coordination of the various activities. They also pro-
vide for continuity in Operations regardless of changes in
personnel, thus promoting a stability lacking, as we have
seen, in charismatic movements.

(4) Officials are eXpected to assume an impersonal orien-
tation in their contacts with clients and with other offi-
cials. Clients are to be treated as cases, the officials
being expected to disregard all personal considerations and

151

to maintain complete emotional detachment, and subordinates
are to be treated in a similar impersonal fashion. The
social distance between hierarchical levels and that between
officials and their clients is intended to foster such for-
mality. Impersonal detachment is designed to prevent the
personal feelings of officials from distorting their ratio-
nal judgment in carrying out their duties.

(5) Employment by the organization constitutes a career
for officials. Typically an official is a full-time employee
and looks forward to a lifelong career in the agency. Employ-
ment is based on the technical qualifications of the candi-
date rather than on political, family or other connections.
Usually such qualifications are tested by examination or by
certificates that demonstrate the candidate's educational
attainment - college degrees for example. Such educational
qualifications create a certain amount of class homogeneity
among officials, since relatively few persona of working-
class origins have college degrees, although their number
is increasing. Officials are appointed to positions, not
elected, and thus are dependent on superiors in the organi-
zation rather than on a body of constituents. After a trial
period officials gain tenure of position and are protected
against arbitrary dismissal. Remuneration is in the form of
a salary, and pensions are provided after retirement. Career
advancements are according to seniority or to achievement,
or both.

n A ho i Wi h a
eau ati Admini t ativ S eff

J

Weber distinguishes between the effegrlvenggs of legal
authority, the fundamental categorigs of rational legal
authority, and the criteria for the purest type of bureau-
cratic administrative staff. Occasionally, as in the Blau
and Scott text, the points under the three headings are
combined; occasionally, points are dropped. In the following
passage the gffectivenegg and category notes will be abrid-

ged where there is merely elaboration on the central point

 

":
‘i.
:-
I.

152

being made. The criteria notes will be verbatim from the

translation of Weber's text.

(Effectiveness g)

The effectiveness of legal authority rests on the accep-
tance of the validity of the following mutually inter-
dependent ideas.,

1. That any given legal norm may be established by agreement
or by imposition, on the grounds of expediency or rational
values or both, with a claim to Obedience at least on the
part of the members of the corporate group. (There follows
a brief passage on the extension of this obedience claim.)

2. That every body of law consists essentially in a consis-
tent system of abstract rules which have normally been
intentionally established. Furthermore, administration of
law is held to consist in the application of these rules

to particular cases...

3. That thus the typical person in authority occUpies an
'office.’ In the action associated with his status, inclu-
ding the commands he issues to others, he is subject to an
impersonal order to which his actions are oriented. This is
true not only for persons exercising legal authority who
are in the usual sense 'officials,' but, for instance, for
the elected president of a state.

4. That the person who obeys authority does so, as it is
usually stated, only in his capacity as a 'member' of the
corporate group and what he obeys is only 'the law,’ He may
in this connexion (gig) be the member of an association, of
a territorial commune, of a church, or a citizen of a state.

5. In conformity with point 3, it is held that the members
of the corporate group, in so far as they obey a person in
authority, do not owe this obedience to him as an indivi-
dual, but to the impersonal order. Hence, it follows that
there is an obligation to obedience only within the ephere
of the rationally delimited authority which, in terms of
the order, has been conferred Upon him.

153

(Categories 3)

The following may thus be said to be the fundamental
categories of rational legal authority 8

1. A continuous organization of official functions bound
by rules.

2. A specified sphere of competence. This involves (a) a
sphere of obligations to perform functions which has been
marked off as part of a systematic division of labour.

(b) The provision of the incumbent with the necessary autho-
rity to carry out these functions. (c) That the necessary
means of compulsion are clearly defined and their use is
subject to definite conditions. A unit exercising authority
which is organized in this way will be called an 'adminis-
trative organ.’

(There follows an elaboration on the point and the note that
not all administrative organs are provided with compulsory
powers.)

3. The organization of offices follows the principle of
hierarchy... there is a right of appeal and a statement of
grievances from the lower to the higher. (Differences in
hierarchies are then briefly noted.)

4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be
technical rules or norms. In both cases, if their applica-
tion is to be fully rational, specialized training is ne-
cessary. It is thus normally true that only a person who

has demonstrated an adequate technical training is qualified
to be a member of the administrative staff of such an orga-
nized group, and hence only such persons are eligible for
appointment to official positions. (Further elaboration
falloUSe)

5. In the rational type it is a matter of principle that

the members of the administrative staff should be completely
separated from ownership of the means of production or admi-
nistration. Officials, employees, and workers attached to
the administrative staff do not themselves own the non-human
means of production and administration. These are rather
provided for their use in kind or in money, and the official
is obligated to render an accounting of their use. There
exists, furthermore, in principle complete separation of

the prOperty belonging to the organization, which is con-
trolled within the sphere of office, and the personal pro-
perty of the Official... There is a corresponding separation
of the place in which official functions are carried out,

154

the 'office' in the sense of premises, from living
quarters.

6. In the rational type case, there is also a complete
absence of appropriation Of his official position by the
incumbent. Where 'rights' to an office exist...they do not
normally serve the purpose of appropriation by the official,
but of securing the purely objective and independent charac-
ter of the conduct of the Office so that it is oriented only
to the relevant norms.

7. Administrative acts, decisions, and rules are formulated
and recorded in writing, even in cases where oral discussion
is the rule or is even mandatory. This applies at least to
preliminary discussions and prOposals, to final decisions,
and to all sort of order and rules. The combination of
written documents and a continuous organization of Official
functions constitutes the 'office' which is the central
focus of all types of modern corporate action.

8. Legal authority can be exercised in a wide variety of
different forms....

(Crirgria :)

The purest type of exercise of legal authority is that which
employs a bureaucratic administrative staff. Only the supre-
me chief of the organization occupies his position of autho-
rity by virtue of appropriation, of election, or of having
been designated for the succession. But even El; authority
consists in a sphere of legal 'competence.' The whole admi-
nistrative staff under the sUpreme authority then consists,
in the purest type, of individual Officials who are appoin-
ted and function accordingly to the following criteria 8

1. They are personally free and subject to authority only
with respect to their impersonal office obligations.

2. They are organized in a clearly defined hierarchy of
offices.

3. Each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence
in the legal sense.

4. The office is filled by a free contractual relationship.
Thus, in principle, there is free selection.

 

155

5. Candidates are selected on the basis of technical

qualifications. In the most rational case, this is tested
by examination or guaranteed by diplomas certifying tech-
nical training, or both. They are a ointed, not elected.

6. They are remunerated by fixed salaries in money, for the
most part with a right to pensions. Only under certain cir-
cumstances does the employing authority, especially in
private organizations, have a right to terminate the
appointment, but the official is always free to resign. The
salary scale is primarily graded according to rank in the
hierarchy: but in addition to this criterion, the response-
bility of the position and the requirements Of the incum-
bent's social status may be taken into account.

7. The office is treated as the sole, or at least the
primary, occupation of the incumbent.

8. It constitutes a career. There is a system of 'promotion'
according to seniority or to achievement, or both. Promo-
tion is dependent on the judgment of superiors.

9. The official works entirely separated from ownership

of the means of administration and without appropriation

of his position.

10. He is subject to strict and systematic discipline and
control in the conduct of the office.

S t a t

The task, now, is not to criticise Weber or his commenta-
tors, but rather, to compare the Kafka Court system with
the Weberian Ideal of Legal Authority with a Bureaucratic

Administrative Staff, with particular emphasis on the

21113213 section.

156

Beginning with the criteria for individual officials of the

bureaucratic administrative staff :

1. Condition met. (One must assume that even the pandering
of the law student is an obligation of office. That the
functionaries from Ushers through Examining Magistrates are
subject to power and persuasion, is true; however, these are

not negating factors in meeting the condition.)

2. Condition met. (Again, although "...not even the initiated

149 the hierarchy is

could survey the hierarchy as a whole,"
sufficiently well defined within any individual's sphere of

action.)

3. Condition met. (The Usher, Warders, Whipper, Priest - all
have, to the best of one's knowledge, a defined sphere of
competence. The absurdity of that sphere is of no conse-

quence.)

4. Condition met. (The Warders are poorly paid104 and the
Usher is dissatisfied: however, they choose to stay with the
organization. K., of course, is not a member of the bureau-
cratic administration, but is an unwilling 'member' of the

Court system 2££ Weber's effectivenegs point 4.)

5. Condition met. (This is based on limited information;
however, one notes that the Law student may rise to great

power, and the Whipper is an expert in his task.)

157

6. Condition met. (Salaries are paid to Warders and Ushers
and presumably to others in the hierarchy. Pensions are not

required and the remaining criteria appear to be met.)
7. Condition met.

8. Condition met. (Even a Warder claims "...we had every
prospect of advancement and would certainly have been pro-

"105 The Law student will

moted to Whippers pretty soon...
advance. Presumably, minor judges will advance in the infi-

nite hierarchy.)

9. Condition met. (If Kafka's judges do have 'rights' to an
office - as in point 6 of categorieg - one finds no evidence
that it does lead to apprOpriation. The "right" may aid, but
certainly not secure "...the purely objective and independent
character of the conduct of the office..."; however, that

final condition falls under categories rather than criteria.)

10. Condition met. (Certainly this is true for the minor of-
ficials : Usher, Warders, Whipper, Inspector. There is no
reason to SUppose it is not so for the judges and others as

one moves Upward in the hierarchy.)

Since Weber does not "close" his model, that is, since he
has not forbidden the addition of other unique features tO
this model, one must observe that the Kafka model has a

nearly perfect fit with the Weberian bureaucratic

158

administrative staff criteria.

In the same fashion, although one shall not labor the point,
one will find a good fit between the Court system and the
effectivenesg and the categories lists enumerated under

Weber's Rational Legal Authority.

The discussion, however, is of more interest in the ideas

generated than in the exactness of fit.

1. "Experience tends universally to show that the purely
bureaucratic type of administrative organization...is, from

a purely technical point of view, capable of attaining the
highest degree of efficiency and is...the most rational known
means of carrying out imperative control over human beings.
It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability,

in the stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability."K

But the Kafka model, matching the ten points of the crite-
ria, functions under both authority (imperative control) and
ggrguagion or influence. One can similarly conceive of a

model Operating under goyer.

This leads to a "paper" analysis of dysfunctional aspects Of

a construct under each heading. It suggests the addition or

 

159

subtraction of descriptive points to the basic ten in the
first Weber-Kafka model. Thus, what is the effect of changing
point seven in the model to : The Office is treated as the
secondary ocCUpation of the incumbent 7 Or, what is the ef-
fect of changing point eight in the model to z The office
shall not constitute a career ? Or, what is the effect of
changing point one to 3 They are personally free and subject

to authority only with respect to their personal Office obli-

gations; hogever rhey are expected to react to official §ta-
tug ln the game mgnner when on or off the job ?

In short, the Kafka model in comparison with that of Weber
suggests that one establish a number of formal variations

from the ideal.

2. In the above, one has spoken of paper constructs without
the inclusion of the action force - the human being. Kafka,
as will be noted in the following section, has detailed to

some extent the drives and motivators of his human elements.

Weber, of course, made assumptions concerning the human ele-
ments which were to fit in his construct. Many of those as-
sumptions are implicit in the description of the bureaucratic
staff. Thus, the human must be “...subject to strict and

systematic discipline and control in the conduct of his

160

office,"L and the incumbent in office "...works entirely
separated from ownership of the means of administration and
without appropriation of his position."M There were tacit
assumptions about the human element as well - ones which
were not built into the construct description. Thus, the
probable existence of a work-ethic in which a knowledge of
minimal acceptable standards did 391 lead to minimal produc-

tion, was tacit.

These notes lead, in turn, to general dysfunctional models

of bureaucracy and their validity in a critical sense to the
Weberian and rygg Kafka ideal. One notes again the Gouldner,
Merton and Selznick models of paradigms. Dysfunctional aspects
depend upon one's assumptions concerning human behavior. Any
reaction to a demand for control or delegation of authority
because of a demand for control in those models probably

depends upon non-Weberian assumptions.

Thus, March and Simon observe : ”Eouldner's model leaves
some puzzles unexplained. In particular, why is increased
supervision the supervisory response to low performance ?"N
And, one might also ask, relative to Selznick and Merton :
What assumptions about the human element has one made -
different than those of Weber — which lead to bifurcation

of interests with subsequent internalization of goals and

161

emphasis on reliability leading to rigidity of behavior with

subsequent client trouble 7

McGregor - as well as the novelists - gave a direction in
that he noted with some clarity his assumptions concerning
the individuals who will function in a given construct in a

given time. (The ”given time” is tacit with McGregor.)

On the other hand, it should be noted that the above view or
approach to the organization theory "problem" - no matter

how obvious it might appear - is rather different than the
view of other current theorists. Hills, for example, states :
"There is little to be gained...in the study of organizations
by identifying the concrete human participant as the element
and then making every conceivable observation on those ele-
ments. There are far too many properties that may be ascribed

to any such entity to make this a feasible approach.”0

3. Finally, the Kafka communication network must be consi-
dered. The communication loops vary radically from those
which one assumes function in Weber. (Certainly, in the
Weberian system, there is a stated downward flow of commands
and an Upward flow of grievances; and, there is implicit
exchange of information in the systematic surveillance of

one's office. But, this does not give one a sufficient

 

162

description of the network; for, the same may be said of
Kafka's model and yet the functioning of the network produces

different results.)

For all practical purposes the Court system has a set of
"informational" communication lOOps which are closed at each
given level. Surveillance generally appears to permit one to
lift a "case" or problem from one level to the next. Between
hierarchical levels there is little or no communication other

than downward directed "command” channels.

From the model one suspects that the communications network
description is essential for any analysis of the functioning
of an organization. Thus, given a construct, one might sUper-
impose any number of networks and one would discover an enti-

rely different set Of products-effects.

The obviousness of the above may be matched with a decision-
making pattern's importance in the functioning of an organi-
zation. The linkage between the two might be examined. This
is not to ignore Simon's work, but to point out that deci-
sion-making patterns (effective or ineffective for someone's
goals jgr an organization) may be partially independent of
internal communication channels. That is, communication

channels for an organization are extensive, reaching far

V4

 

163

beyond those of the internal or official external networks
of a construct; and, in that extension distort the planned
internal decision-making pattern and displace official

decision-making centers of the organization.

THE HUMAN ELEMENT :

Generalizations about Kafka's human elements may be made

_g lnfinitum. The problem is one of elimination rather than
generation: for, all comments on humans and human interaction
have passed through the preliminary screen. More, perhaps,
than in similar sections on other authors, the inferred must
take the place of the stated. Where a certain "common" logic
dictated previous selectioned material, it is here purely a
matter of predilection on the delimitation and relative
importance of Kafka's commentary on the human element.

”But in the end one gets used to it."84 The girl in the
court offices is speaking to K. of a single situation. She

could as well have generalized; for, Kafka's human beings

adapt to and eventually accept all ”absurdities.”

Warders Franz and Willem accept the Whipper.104 The Usher

accepts the (presumably) daily raping of his wife by the

 

164

Law student and Examining Magistrate.76 The doorkeeper before
the Law and the man from the country267 have become - or were
so constructed as - static beings waiting for something in
the system to move them, rather than taking action themselves.
And K., first mildly resistant to the madness of the trial,
eventually asks, ”Am I to leave this world as a man who has
no common sense 7 Are peOple to say of me...that at the be—
ginning of my case I wanted to finish it, and at the end of
it I wanted to begin it again ?"283 By that time it seems
normal and correct to K. that two comic creatures ”pallid and
plump, with tOp hats"279 should lead him to a cliffside,

strangle him and plunge a knife into his heart.

The ability to live with a set of absurdities, relative to
some past reality - itself an absurdity - is a common trait
of men. Needs and/or drives, perhaps basic to the aforemen-
tioned ability to live with absurdities, include the need to
break from the isolation of oneself, to be recognized as
‘ggmgggg, as a person in the impersonality of a hierarchically
arranged world. But that implies that one must seek a place
in the hierarchy, and this in turn isolates the person in a

role and in the expectations of others as one plays that role.

Again, the need to break one's isolation within oneself may

appear in the asserting of one's authority over another

165

person. This is most easily accomplished in an hierarchical
structure. Thus, the individual will help maintain that
structure in the measure that he is satisfied or sees the

possibility of satisfaction.

But the human does not, will not or cannot recognize the
need of others to break the isolation and he ”hides” within
the role structure, "doing his duty" - as does every Kafka
character. And, that human functions implacably, as the
Whipper, in his well-defined role, easily able to ignore

absurdities.

That some human desperately seeks the commendations of his
self-defined peer group. And, Joseph K., minutes before his
death, is deeply concerned with what people will say of him.
Indeed, in this sense, his peer group has become those above

him in a given hierarchy.

If the hierarchy of an organization is a vehicle to satisfy
one's need and at the same time is dysfunctional, it should
be noted that the human does not automatically or easily fit
into any given structure. For, in moving between organiza-
tions, the human will seek matching role-positions and
expect similar role-eXpectations from his fellow organization

members. Sooner or later, however, the human can be

166

”worn down" to function within a structure. This can be
accomplished by further isolating the already self-isolated

human by blocking even normal channels of communication.

Sex is a primary driving force of man and woman. It affords,
perhaps, the major means of communication between humans and
the only non-dysfunctional way of breaking one's isolation.
There is no way of separating rational decision making from
the continual pressure of the sex drive. K., the Law student,
the Examining Magistrate, the Lawyer Huld, Lani, Frhulein
BOrstner, the Painter, the Usher's wife - all turn or act

on the force of the sex drive.

Of course, one might note any number of correlative actions

to the above. The Lawyer Huld needs to humiliate the trades-

236

men Block. K. wants to feel that the Lawyer humbles him-

self before K.233 K. is convinced that the officials of the

court are ”ever-vengeful."151 Leni always falls in love with

the accused.230 The Usher's wife does not want to be free.72

And, in another tone, the Whipper sees his subordinates as

untrustworthy,106 and the subordinates are willing to sacri-

fice one another to the Whipper.107 If the Priest has sympa-

thy267 and the doorkeeper is undeceived and faithful to the

waiting man,274 duty - or personal security within the

hierarchy - helps to prescribe one's action.

167

It might be well now, prior to the preliminary summary, to
expand upon Kafka's view of the human element within a con-

textual framework of often accepted management writers.

McGregor's well-known Theory X and Theory Y management
assumptions with related notes from Maslow and Herzberg

shall serve as that reference frame.

From Theory X :P

1. The average human being has an inherent dislike of
work and will avoid it if he can.

2. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of
work, most peOple must be coerced, controlled, di-
rected, threatened with punishment to get them to
put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of
organizational objectives.

3. The average human being prefers to be directed,
wishes to avoid responsability, has relatively
little ambition, wants security above all.

From Theory Y :Q

l. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in
work is as natural as play or rest.

2. External control and the threat of punishment are
not the only means for bringing about effort toward
organizational Objectives. Man will exercise self-
direction in the service of the objectives to which
he is committed.

3. Commitment to Objectives is a function of the
rewards associated with their achievement.

The explanatory passage following point 3 reads : "The most
significant of such rewards, e.g., the satisfaction of ego

168

and self actualization needs, can be direct products of
effort directed toward organizational objectives.”

4. The average human being learns, under prOper condi-
tions, not only to accept but to seek responsability.

S. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of
imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution
of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly,
distributed in the population.

6. Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the
intellectual potentialities of the average human
being are only partially utilized.

Sergiovanni's review of Herzberg's and Masolow's workR draws

the motivational pattern behind Theory Y.

Herzberg's research...tends to confirm the existence of the
satisfier and dissatisfier phenomenon. Herzberg found that
five factors (achievement, recognition, work itself, respon-
sability and advancement) tended to affect job attitudes in
only a positive direction. The absence of these factors did
not necessarily result in job dissatisfaction. The eleven
remaining factors, if not present, led to employee dissatis-
faction. The absence of these factors tended not to lead to
employee satisfaction.

These eleven factors are : Salary, Possibility of growth,
Interpersonal relations (subordinates), Status, Interpersonal
relations (superiors), Interpersonal relations (peers),
Supervision-technical, Company policy and administration,

Working conditions, Personal life, and Job security.

Maslow hypothesized a hierarchy into which needs arranged
themselves in order of their appearance. The Maslow

169

hierarchy of needs, from lowest order (most prepotent) to
highest order (least basic or prepotent), is as follows a
physiological needs, security needs, social needs, esteem
needs, and the need for self actualization...As long as the
lower needs are satisfied, they cease to motivate the indi-
vidual; in our society the physiological and security needs
are well met for most peOple, thus they seldom motivate
behavior.

Were one to draw some Theory K from The Trial, then one of
the many possible variants would be 3

1. The average human prefers to work in a structured
situation with well-prescribed duties and clear
- though often unattainable - channels for advan-
cement.

2. The average human, if sufficiently isolated, can be
worn-down to accept any situation, no matter how
vile or absurd relative to some prior held code.

3. The average human who has reached his own recognized
limit in an organizational hierarchy, but is short
of his needs, must be coerced and punished if he is
to maintain a satisfactory performance level.

4. The average human will make decisions by rules
rather than the rational, and although various
personal needs affect a decision, all will be

overridden by sex needs or drive.

As with the above "Theory K" some notions of motivation may

be drawn from the text.

170

The needs of the Kafka individual, of course, include the
basic physiological demands, and a Willem pleads : "...if
you only knew how badly we are paid, you wouldn't be so hard
on us. I have a family to feed and Franz here wants to get
married, a man tries to make whatever he can, and you don't

get rich on hard work, not even if you work day and nightOn105

Of equal importance are :

l. The need for recognition. (And, in so much as a
hierarchy will give this to a man, then the man
will support the hierarchy.)

2. The need to break from the isolation of the self.
(And, the hierarchy, which appears to give the indi-
vidual this freedom, further isolates him within a
role.)

3. The sex need or drive. (The interrelation with the

above points has been noted.)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is of interest in the light of

Kafka's emphasis on the sex drive.

The sexual need, presumably, falls into Maslow's category of

most preponent needs: and, those are the physiological needs.

171

For Kafka, by his characters, the sex drive is not satiable
and is ever-present as a motivator. In the same way, the
intellectual-emotional need to break from one's isolation
is a basic and continuing need. Both are overwhelming moti-
vators and neither - one should assume - has been a parti-

cular concern of "real" institutions.

The concept, then, of a step-by-step satisfaction with new
motivators replacing old ones is questioned within the Kafka
reference frame. Thus, the physiological-sexual needs erg
basic to the lowest order - as Maslow would have it, accor-
ding to Sergiovanni; however, the need continues and is
predominant at the second level of security and again at the

social level and so on.

One might argue that the need for food and water is, equally,
a continuing need through the hierarchy: and that Maslow did
not intend to present non-continuous motivators in a linear

simplicity without variances in degree of intensity.

The point is, however, that Kafka's system clearly draws a
need pattern in which "new" motivational factors run concur-
rently with Maslow's prepotent needs, and extend unsatisfied
(and hence as continual motivators) the length of the Phy-

siolOgical-Security-Social-Esteem-Self Actualization

172

hierarchy.

Turning to Herzberg's work in view of Kafka's extreme empha-
sis on the sexual need and the need of breaking from one's
isolation, one might ask how these are reflected in the
sixteen factors and particularly in the interpersonal
relation set and personal life category. Further, one notes
the g gogteriori approach in Herzberg's study in the catego-
rization of satisfiers and dissatisfiers. A possibly valid
objection to the use of this method to the exclusion of an

2 griori approach is that employees are perhaps incapable of
identifying and of verbalizing their sex needs vig-a-vig

job attitudes to interviewers when the focus is Upon a job
which, by accepted job descriptions, rewards, and so on has

rarely been associated with sex.

"Thus a men might report that as a result Of tensions on the

job he got along less well with his wife..."5

One might wish to turn the interview, to direct the questions
and the result could be 3 "thus a men might report that as a

result of tensions with his wife he did poorly on the job..."

That is, the gross human motivators will Operate in nearly

all situations: however, the individual - for a variety of

173

reasons - will fail to recognize them, or having recognized
them will fail to admit them. One need merely site the pro-

blems of the Kinsey researchers in a sex oriented situation.

PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF THE SECTION :

Parrigular Featureg of the Model :

l. The SUprasystem contains two major systems a reality and
court. The former contains a set of interacting organiza-

tions while the latter is a single superorganization.

2. System interaction is through disruptive effects on the
”shared" human element: and, there is a steady drain of

energy from the reality to the court system.

3. In the reality system where "effectiveness" and
"efficiency" appear to be goals, any number of dysfunctional
patterns are apparent when one admits the input of personal

problems under Kafka's assumption about the human elements.

4. The communication network is comprised of closed loops
on each level Of the hierarchy : and, in addition, a purely

downward directed pattern for commands. Material is

174

retrieved from the closed loOps through the general super-

visory system.

5. The formal structure of the court satisfies the Weberian
criteria for a bureaucratic administrative staff. (The

reality system presumably is organized in a similar way.)

6. Although the court generally satisfies the gffectivenegg
and categories requirements for rational legal authority, it

also functions under "persuasion" and, occasionally, ”power."

7. Among the major assumptions which Kafka makes concerning
the human elements of his system are x The human seeks
structure, can be worn-down to accept any absurdity, must be
coerced and punished at a certain stage of self-realization
and achievement in order to maintain satisfactory perfor-
mance, and will make decisions by rules rather than the
rational - while nearly all decisions will be strongly

colored by his sex drive.

8. The human element is primarily motivated by the inter-
related factors of : his sex drive, his need to break from

the isolation of himself, and his need to be recognized.

175

General Notes Drawn from the Mgdel and Related Material :

l. Dysfunctional paradigms of the Weberian model are gene-
rally not drawn through technical contradictions, but rather
through assumptions made by Weber's critics about the human

elements fitting into the construct.

Although it may be possible to draw Weber's own assumptions
about the human elements from the criteria, and £323 to
demonstrate that the model is dysfunctional, there is no
evidence to show that such was done by Weber's critics. The
serious fault, then, is with the critics who have made tacit

assumptions about human elements.

2. As an exercise, perhaps leading to useful concepts, one
might develOp a set of related Ideals from the Kafka model

by adding or subtracting certain criteria and predicting,
gith the use of Kafka'g human elementg, the variations in
total products-effects. (One hesitates to seek "functional"
and ”dysfunctional” aspects in as much as goals or objectives

for the Kafka construct are not spelled out.)

3. In the same way, one might consider a more standard or

accepted model, such as offered by the Weberian bureaucratic

176

administrative staff, and substitute various aSSUmption-sets

about the human elements into the construct.

4. In the same way, again, one might vary effectlyenegg
ideas (in the Weberian sense) from authority, to influence

and to power.

5. Or, finally, one might SUperimpOSB a variety of communi-
cation systems and decision-making patterns Upon the cons-

truct.

6. The foregoing possibilities were noted as exercises; for,
although the communications system of the Kafka model appears
to be a determining factor in distortion of the model's
functioning when compared with that of Weber, one observes
that, for Kafka, the only first order factor in the functio-
ning of a construct is the human element. And, the element

is driven primarily by sexual needs.

7. The sex drive as a physiological need cannot be satis-
fied, for Kafka, in the ordinary sense as would be other

motivators in the Maslow hierarchy.

MODELS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

177

178

PRELIMINARY :

To this point one has screened and placed some order to the
data drawn by the novelists from whatever is observable rea-
lity. The intent now is to link the material. One must bear
in mind, however, that some contradictions are bound to arise
in the superstructure when there is conflict in axioms - such

as the various assumptions made concerning the human element.

GENERAL :
f'n't’on f an ani at'on :
By definition : An 0 ani a 'on s a f un’f’
on o 'n th b ha ' f a f 'n 'v' a
3hr mggberghig.

Mgmbgrghlg is voluntary;1 rgntrglllng implies directing; and,
gnlfied gygrgmr shall be undefined but used synonymously with

construct or organizational structure.

Unlike the Etzioni definition, a social unit (or human grou-

ping) deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek

179

specific goals, the emphasis is on individual and control

rather than social units and goals.

The foregoing is not an arbitrary emphasis; rather, the
definition was designed to incorporate the two basic elements
of all organizations : structure and the individual human
being. For the moment it is of no concern Egg or £225
controls or directs the membership nor is the reason for

controlling important.

Erogggtg-Effectg :

Let one assume that the voluntary association has been made
and that the control systems have begun functioning. Bor-
rowing a law from physics, gomething will happen. The fact
Of the organization's functioning will create any number of
nrgggsigzgjjgsrg. That is, there will be some change in the
total ecology of the suprasystem which is due to the

existence of the organization.

Some of these products-effects will be quantifiable and
others will not be; however, all must be considered for an
unbiased analysis of the organization. Thus, a given organi-
zation might have as its products-effects (to note only a

few) : an increase of care within the suprasystem, an

180

increase or decrease of jobs, an increase or decrease of
particular natural resources, a direct debilitating or resus-
citating effect on an individual or group Of individuals, a
breakdown or support effect on various organizations within
and without the system (economic, political and moral).

self-structural changes, and so on.

Any study of organizations should be prefaced at various

points in the study by a stating of reference frames.

For example, it is common practice to speak of dysfunctional
aspects of an organization. The tacit assumption is that one
is considering a management view of dysfunctionality. But,
clearly, this is only one of many attitudes through which

one might center a reference frame. Might one not consider
organizational dysfunctions from a labor Union view point,

or dysfunctions from a worker-centered frame, or dysfunctions

from any one of the various ”publics" view ?

The assumption of a management view is generally well founded;
for, the study of organizational behavior has been primarily
sponsored by management. This, however, does not justify the

use of a single reference frame for a general theory; and,

181

such single use even precludes develOpment of a general

theory.

In much the same way, one has formed a habit of speaking of
the goals 2: an organization when, in fact, one is Speaking
of the goals jg; an organization. This lack of specificity
of reference frames may be the cause for such statements as :
"Organizations are social units which pursue specific goals;
their very raigon d'gtrg is the service of these goals. But
once formed, organizations acquire their own needs, these

sometimes becoming the masters of the organization."2

Thus, one has thoroughly anthropomorphized the organization
and, to some extent, blocked discoveries of its real pro-

parties.

Pursuing the matter further, one notes the so-called products
of an organization. Few peOple would be willing to argue
against the fact that the organization called Ford makes,
among other things, cars. But this is now a statement - al-
though true in a general reference frame - which is part of

a bounded reference frame. Such a bounded frame leads to the

same problems which arise with an unspecified frame.

182

For the above reason one has employed the general concept of

products-effects.

This same review of reference frames now causes one to return
to the definition of an organization. For, are not defini-

tions often linked to particular viewpoints ?

Thus 3

1. An organization is a social unit (or human grouping) deli-
berately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific
goals.

2. An organization is a set of unified systems for control-
ling the behavior of a set of individuals called the
membership.

3. An organization is a set of individuals creating in
conscious, concerted action intended (and often unintended)

products-effects of a select group of individuals called
management.

One has chosen the second definition and notes that the nove-
lists from whom it was drawn have demanded that one place a

reference frame with origin on the individual.

One does not reject the first definition; however, one Oh-

serves its management orientation, and so on.

One does not reject the third definition; indeed, it might
be the preferred were it not for a lack of emphasis on the

totality of human elements. Further, it should be pointed

183

out that the scOpe of the third definition would include

such grOUpings as mobs. Although these are briefly noted in

Huxley,

Camus, Orwell and even (slightly) in Kafka, one shall

"conserve definition” in this paper as much as possible.

Firgt Summary 3

To this

1.

2.

point, then, one has :

Defined an organization with an emphasis Upon
individuals and control,

Indicated that the basic elements of all organi-
zations are individuals and structure,

Noted that a fundamental concept in rglg conside—
ration of organizations is that of products-effects.
and,

Observed that organizational analysis should be
prefaced by a reasonably precise statement of the

reference frame employed.

DISTORTION :

Over a period of time, structures tend to distort and human

elements behave differently than upon their induction into

organization. That is, an organization evolves and the

184

result is a change, however minimal, in products-effects.

Four major factors have been identified in this study which,
in various combinations, are responsible for distortion and
evolution. These are x

1. The exogenous pressures of the sUprasystem,

2. The natural changes of the human element from self

and interaction,
3. The inverting pressures of products-effects, and
4. The built-in deforming characteristics of the

structure itself.

Were there not appropriate stabilizing mechanisms from within
the organization to counter these vectors, one could easily
imagine the creation, brief functioning and relatively quick

disintegration of organizations.

Organizational Distortion Factors

 
 
  
   
 
 
 

SUprasystem

Built-in strU tural

" "n2 .3 .2 .2, an}?
Distortion f ctors «v

Products effects

185

Such disintegration does not occur with every organization.
For example ; in Huxley's model the Human element vector was
removed by force, conditioning, sexual satiation and drugs.
The Suprasystem vector was eliminated by force; and the re-

maining vectors were countered or controlled mechanically.

Before continuing, it might be well to give an example of
each distorting factor. And, further, to note that, in
exceptional cases a normally distorting factor will actually
hold organizations together. (Thus, the plague held Terrou's
volunteer group together while disrupting a host of other
constructs. Or, one might say that Human and SUprasystem

vectors cancelled out.)

1. Exogenoug Ereggures of rhg Sugragystem :

These pressures would include 3
a. The natural disasters of fire, flood - even plague,
b. Organizational pressures, such as,
(1) Market losses to competitors,
(2) New laws from various levels of government,
(3) Public service increases and decreases

(4) Consumer boycotts - normally an organized
matter, etc.

186

2. The Natural Changer of the Human Elemgnr :

These pressures are basically endogenous forces. In organi-
zations which have reached the stable state (Orwell, Kafka,
Huxley) they are relatively unimportant. In Camus, only a
rare set of individuals are in a position to ”change” the

evolutionary course of an organization.

On the other hand, human beings are the most unpredictable
of all forces involved. The sum of their seemingly trivial
dysfunctions - from a management view - may be such as to
weaken the organization relative to other organizations, and

the pressures of the suprasystem increase.

Human elements of the suprasystem, those of the ”Power Elite,"
in as much as they direct organizations, have abnormal force.
They are, however, implied under forces of the suprasystem.

More will be said later of the human element.

3. nv 'n of O ct - f t :
Products—effects of an organization have been defined as
"the total of effects on the ecology of the suprasystem.”3
Thus, one may imagine an educational organization producing
scholars who Upon completion of their work, force a change
in organizational attitude and structure. Or, depletion of

resources in order to produce, may eventually force the

187

closing of this or that plant. One might, of course, simply
state that any effect the organization has Upon the supra-
system will eventually be felt by the organization itself

- as noted in point one.

Admittedly, all factors are interacting; however, in as much
as this force is generated by what the organization itself
does, and may be controlled by the organization itself

- certainly more so than the suprasystem - it should be

counted as a factor distinct from the sUprasystem forces.

4. h ’ ~i efo 'n Cha a to i ti
gf rhg §IIUEEH£§ x

These may be classified as Technical and Human deforming

characteristics.

Technical deformation may be easily considered in the light

of the four models of the novelists.

For example, Huxley's model began to distort when people
were conditioned to travel to the country where they did not
consume the products of the system. This was a conflict of
systems, a technical flaw in the construct. Orwell's model
is in the stable state but is steadily constricting as a

gradually tightening spiral. One can imagine that it will

188

eventually reach an entirely new state - by eXplosion,
perhaps, when elements can no longer support the stress.
Suprasystem, Products-effects and Human Element forces have
all been eliminated, yet the distortion continues. Camus'
model of bureaucracy does not distort itself. It is a rock
which fails to erode in a river of change: and, if the supra-
system could eventually shatter the structure, that necessary
force will not come from a structural dysfunction. Kafka's

court organization is impervious to all forces of change.

On the human side - much like the deforming pattern noted in
products-effects - one may imagine the grinding down of the
human element, his gradual dysfunctionality within the cons-
truct or role-structure and subsequent distorting effects.
In Orwell, Huxley and Camus this deformation does not take
place because of the surveillance system which guarantees
elimination of the ordinary worker as he ceases to fulfill

his role. In Kafka, as noted, the force does not exist.

Big Brother of Orwell probably does not exist: there is no
visible end to Kafka's hierarchy; Camus' bureaucracy appears
to have an order of infinity. Only Huxley's system permits

a structural deformation by the action of a Mustapha Mend

who is in a position to make and break rules. But again, this

is within limits. He is a member of a council, is

189

conditioned, and is plunged into a bureaucratic structure

of magnitude.

Now, in spite of these four interacting forces, not all
organizations disintegrate: indeed, many thrive and grow.
This is accomplished by a countering or eliminating of the
distorting forces. These counter-forces may be classified as
Innggative, §tabilizing, and attitudinal. They are a function
of the human being in the organization as well as the struc-
ture of the organization. Prior to their consideration, a

discussion of these organizational elements may be in order.

THE HUMAN ELEMENT :

The human being in his variety of needs, drives and aspire-
tions is the primary concern of the novelists. Between the
four authors there is scant disagreement on the prOperties
and state of these humans. Differences - not contradictions -

lie in the methods for constraining the human element.

In what follows, one speaks of the vast majority of the
human elements and not the exceptional Terrou's, Helmholtz's

or Smith's of the novelists' world.

190

1. Man is malleable. With prOper treatment he has been or
can be conditioned and forced to accept all situations - no
matter how absurd or contradictory vis-a-vig his code of

some yesterday.

2. The basic drives of the human are existence and s 5.

3. Other drives are those of page; and the gratification

of the ggnseg.

4. Man is basically industrious and takes pleasure in his

work.

5. The pleasure man receives from work will vary with the
individual, and, in general 3
a. There should be a job demand and intellect fit,
b. To the above, one must add emotional controls within
whatever system the task exists, and,
c. In general, routine suits the lower intellect, and

variety with challenge suits the higher intellect.

6. Man may be successfully conditioned by any number of
systems. The greater the closure of the system, the greater

the probability of success.

191

7. Most satisfactory conditioning is dependent upon manipu-
lation of the sex drive; for example, complete satiation,

deprivation or distortion.

8. Ordinary humans tend to copy other human's behavior:
therefore, a normative control system demands the removal

of deviants.

There are, of course, observations unique to each author
such as Kafka's implication : The average human being who
has reached his own recognized limit in an organizational
hierarchy, but is short of his needs, must be coerced and
punished if he is to maintain a "satisfactory" performance

level.

Further, Camus implies : Man can be ground-down into a person
without love and is thus incapable of caring for or helping
his fellow human being to rise above his miserable state.

Hie awareness, without this love, is so dulled that he will
not revolt. further, his routine work is not affected adver-

sely. It will be all that remains to him.

Orwell also has a comment on the human of ordinary intellect :
In general, he will work, breed and die without an impulse

to rebel if there is a minimal gratification of his

192

physiological needs and his psychological desires.

Of course, the above assumptions concerning the human being
differ from those of Theory X and Theory Y. There is prac-
tically no similarity with the former. And, although Theory
Y fares better by comparison, it is the difference in refs-

rence frames which is striking.

Thus the equating of the naturalness of energy expenditure
in work, play and rest appears justificatory for management;
while, the natural drives of existence, sax, power and gra-
tification of the senses - no matter how industrious the
human - are drawn from a general frame. Man may indeed
”...exsrcise self-direction and self-control in the service
of the objectives to which he is committed." However, in that
rewards are rarely sufficient, a complex system of controls
is required for satisfactory performance. If ”The average
human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to
accept but to seek responsibility," one would replace the
euphemistic ”learns” with the more rational "can be condi-

tioned." Further, man can be conditioned to accept anything.

In the same way, one might argue that Herzberg's factors are
”academic" rather than reality centered in their neglect of

emphasis on sex and gratification of the senses.

193

("Reality centered" is, perhaps, not too strong an expression
for the novelists' reference frame when the object of obser-
vation is the human element.) Again, the sex element as in
Maslow's hierarchy would not appear to follow a linear

satisfied-or-not-satisfied pattern.

The essential here, however, is to recognize that each nov-
elist has develOped a relatively non-contradictory set of
assumptions about the human element. Further, it should be
noted that there is very little difference between these
assumption sets. The chosen reference frame permits consi-
deration of the human element in a variety of activities
rather than those which appear to reflect an enculturated,

management view of a particular time and place.

Sgcong Summary :

An organization is defined as a human control system. Its
basic elements are human beings and structure. For a
thorough analysis of such a system, one should employ a
general reference frame; and, a concept essential to the

frame is that of products-effects.

Organizations tend to distort and disintegrate under four

major forces: and, the subsystems of an organization are

194

primarily engaged in countering or redirecting these forces.

The human element is the generator of nearly all forces
Operating on the organization. Not always predictable, an
undefined element, it appears to behave according to gross
drives of existence, sex, power and gratification of its
senses. In general it may be conditioned to perform in any
manner; however, the existence of the exceptional case, the

unconditionable case, is always possible.

STRUCTURE :

The human being may be placed into any number of precon-

ceived authority patterns or constructs.

The base of all such constructs is physical force, and the
secondary level is conditioning. There is a third level

- overlapping as do the others - of reward. It may take
positive or negative values. Thus, it may satiate or deny

the various drives-needs of the human element.

For a given organization which is not itself the suprasystem
one may expect to find reward to be solely the function of

the organization. Conditioning, generally, is a function

195

of both the organization and the suprasystem. Force is, for

all practical purposes, a function of the suprasystem.

It is important to note at this point that the organization
can not be conceived of as a hard core, a nucleus of indi-
viduals under mutual control or driving toward some specific
goal. Rather, it should be seen as a nucleus enveloped in a
wide spreading haze of support systems devoted to force and

conditioning.

Whether one speaks of Participatory or Authoritarian struc-
tures with variant overlays of a Bureaucratic administrative
staff, it has been noted that the organization is subject to
four major distorting forces. The counteracting or redirec-
ting of these forces is the assigned function of the giggiy
lizigg, innovativg and gttitudingl systems of the construct.
As will be seen, normally, the stabilizing system has been so
expanded in organizations that innovative and attitudinal

systems have been completely repressed or dismembered.

Reasons for the above may be found in the continuous ope-
ration of the stabilizing system as well as its relatively
immediate reaction time to pressures and the already noted
properties of the human elements - elements which are

naturally inclined to favor routinization.

196

The §tabilizing System 3

By definition, the stabilizing system Operates to modify
a situation (of forces) or humans to fit the organizations

given structure.

Thus, in a sense, the system functions to maintain the
gtatug guo by controlling the four forces on the construct.
Although it may anticipate a shift in forces, it remains

basically a reacting system.

Within the nucleus of the models under consideration the
stabilization system relies primarily Upon management
working through Surveillance and related components, and
management working through Communication. Of course, Rewards
(compensation), Selection, Induction and so on, may all be
considered a part of this system which attempts to counter
the distortion forces of z 1. The sUprasystem; 2. The human
element of the construct: 3. The inverting pressure of
products-effects, and; 4. The characteristics of the

structure itself.

fiurvgillance :

Surveillance, which is locked to the Police-Punishment

component, functions most effectively in a closed system

197

and is directed toward eliminating force number two noted
above; and, where applicable and possible, it may counter
some effects of forces one and three. Ideally, every member
of the organization is assigned to it in order to survey
everyone else: and the communications network functions so
as to isolate the individual and prevent the development of
low group norms. As the system opens in a non-homogeneous
organizational society, surveillance tends to move from the
continuous to the discrete. Isolation becomes impossible and
police efficacity drops. Norms, tolerable for the individual
but insufficient for management in an open system, are deve-
loped. In the same manner, this "freeing" of the individual
permits deviation in role assignment; and, the first three

of the distorting forces begin to change the construct.

mmun' t’ n x
The dependency of the Stabilizing system upon the communi-

cations network of an organization is primal.

It must be reiterated that the communications network of an
organization extends, at least in attenuated form, throughout
the suprasystem. For purposes of discussion one may imagine
it as an internal and external network connected at various
key junctures. Or, more concretely, it may be viewed as a

wire audio system of one-way and double valves which permits

198

the passage of select information loads between the nucleus
and the extended construct of ancillary subsystems and

publics.

Unlike Surveillance, the Communications subsystem is the
essential element in countering distortion in an cpen sys-
tem. It is also the primary instrument used by members of

the construct to effect a form of closure.

The most obvious communication channel is a one—way linkage
from organizational management to the various exterior pu-
blics with information loads of advertizing or public rela-
tions material. The linkage does not permit a dialogue; the
information passed is rarely countered directly by the
various organizations of the suprasystem and can practically
never be effectively countered by an individual: and, it has
a conditioning property which eliminates a number of forces
arising from the suprasystem, the human element within, and

products-effects.

Two-way external channels exist between organizations of the
suprasystem. These are direct management-to-management chan-
nels. The information load will be much as that passed bet-
ween Orwell's Oceania and Eurasia or Eastasia. (In current

times one would say that the information is similar to

199

that allegedly passed between ITT and the Justice

Department.)

Within the organization one has already noted the direc-
tional patterns and load possibilities Of the divers chan-
nels. One-way and multiple channels may carry social, techni-
cal, command and occasional feedback material between the

membership.

The full network of various organizations would permit a
typology Of constructs of considerable interest - were one
able to discover the actual, operating external channels.

Generally, the analyst is limited to the internal system.

The nno a iv S m

By definition, the innovative system Operates to change a

given structure to fit a situation or the human elements.

That is, in place of countering the distorting forces, the
construct arranges for “planned-change.” In the four models
- when the system's existence is implied - it is a function
of management and, to a lesser extent, of a Research and

Development component of the construct.

200

If Huxley's ”management" experiments with a Cyprus and
Ireland, there is still the stated, basic Opposition to
change. Experimentation with structural changes does not

exist in the other models.

Here one to seek reasons for the neglect of the innovative
system in the models, one might note a l. The assumptions
concerning the human elements which note a preference for
routinization; 2. The preoccupation of management with an
already apparently effective stabilizing response to pro-
blems, and: 3. The very centering and responsibility for
development of two divergent stratggieg - one of which is
natural to the decision-making body - within the single

decision making body.

By definition, the attitudinal system Operates to develOp
philosOphic dialogue gbggt the organization githin the orga-
nization. Further, it is non-directional, or, non-prOpagan-
dizing. It is normally a function of management and could be
related, again, to Research and DevelOpment. In the models
of the novelists its possible existence is inferred from
Huxley's research system and Camus' voluntary organization.

In Orwell the very focus Of the stabilizing system permits

201

one to imagine its existence.

Clearly, an attitudinal system could eliminate forces ema-
nating from each Of the four major sources: however, as with
the innovative system, there is a conflict with the nature
of the human element - or at least one's assumptions about

it - and the system, generally, is inoperative.

One might wish to imagine that the three systems were in

full force in divisions under management; but, by the models,
the stabilizing system has absorbed the other systems along
with philosOphers, sociologists, scientists, and managers.
The counterforce potential of the attitudinal system is

clear; however, its disruptive potential is equally clear.

Vggignt Structures 3

As a Group G varies from a Commutative Group in abstract
algebra by a single axiom, one might also list any number of

variations on Weber's Bureaucratic administrative staff.

The novelist prOposed four such variations. Each structure
when coupled with the assumed human element led to a form of
the stable state. In three of the four constructs - and one

might even include the model of Camus - one could argue that

202

the Communication Subsystem became the first order variable
in directing the organization to a point at which mechanics,
rather than the individuals or groups of individuals,

actually controlled organizational evolution.

Organizational evolution itself is not treated extensively
in the novels. Of course, one might consider the fact that
evolution has stopped - barring Orwell's tightening

structure - to be sufficient treatment.

CONCLUSIONS :

Ergliminagy :

The intent of this dissertation was to draw organizational

theory from the data, stated and implied, in $284, 235;;

Mg: World, [hg Elague and [he Iris}.

That intent was directed toward a small portion of the
assumed general problem which posed : A need for problem
creating mechanisms in the study of organizational behavior;

and, a need for examination of the axiom Of change.

203

Consensus on precisely 122$ constitutes theory in the

field of organizational behavior was not found. One pro-
posed, than, that theory be considered with the spirit Of

a HcGregor. Specifically, it was defined as any set of
consciously framed assumptions connected with generalizations
and hypotheses through which one accounts for known facts

and attempts to predict new phenomena.

The methodology employed a standard screen of limited scape
in an attempt to prevent the 'reading-in' of theory already
well develOped. Further, the novels chosen for examination
were - with rare exceptions - written prior to the creation
of those fragments of theory to which the novels are occa-
sionally compared. Of course, ”reading-in“ cannot be comple-
tely eliminated: and, one would no more think of giving
novelists credit for organizational theory than one would
credit Lucretius rather than Dalton with the foundations of

atomic theory.

With the above in mind, the novels were screened and the

resultant data were ordered in chapter summaries.

204

Clearly, the emphasis Of the novelists was upon the hUman
being - the fundamental element Of an organization. Assump-
tions were made concerning the human being. He was placed
in reasonably well-defined structures: and, dysfunctionalism
- or functionalism - of humans and the constructs were
noted. Generalizations were made; and, those facts stand
without a conviction that a character Of a novelist repre-
sents, in some way, Everyman. The broad hypothesis of each
work might be roughly stated as 2 ”Given this moment of
novel-writing, the assumptions concerning human elements

and the current state of organizations, thgg: the constructs
and the human beings will evolve to the state described in

the given novel.”

The constructs are Ideals and may be used for comparisons

in typologies or as predictors for variants of stable state
organizations. The assumptions concerning the human elements
and the described behavior form further predictors for given

structures.

The foregoing, by the definition employed, might appear to

qualify as theory in organizational behavior.

205

One shall not dispute the possibility that more was drawn
about theory and theorists than was created in specific

theorya

Thus, although the concept of products-effects belongs to
the novelists, it speaks more to the narrowness of current
product definitions than it does to a clearly defined total,

functional typology.

Thus, the change Of origin of reference frames from struc-
ture to that Of human beings, is more a criticism of the
theorist who limits himself to organizational mechanics than

it is itself a valid cornerstone for a general theory.

Thus, a definition Of organizations as human control systems
may be viewed as a bias with a moral tag and a commentary on
scientific bias itself, rather than a precise definition

basic to new theory.

In spite of these arguments, it is maintained that the
employed definition for theory was met even though the

constructs cannot meet the axiomatic rigor of a mathematics.

 

206

Recommendations for Further §tudy :

1. That further studies of novels be made using the same

or variant screens.

2. That these studies be encouraged to range the field of

art beyond novels.

3. That an historical study of the definitions of an
organization be made and a classification formed according

to the reference frames of those making the definitions.

4. That a typology Of products-effects be determined for

organizations already classified by other headings.

5. That the human element assumptions of the novelists be
reframed and tested against those new current in specific

management structures.

6. That a detailed study of the communications subsystems
of organizations be made in the extended reference frame

Of internal and external channels.

FOOTNOTES

207

INTRODUCTION

1Amitai Etzioni, flodern Organizationg (Englewood Cliffs,
1964), p. 3.

2William Hogarth, an engraver and painter, a social critic

and satirist (169T - 1764).

3The painting Of the German bombing of the Spanish town
Of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War.

4Gauss, Bloyai, Lobachevsky : Hathematicians of the early
19th century generally credited with the invention of
Hyperbolic (non-Euclidean) Geometry.

5Robert Ackermann, Ihe Ehilosoghy of Sgigngg (New York,
1970), p.63.

6James 6. March and Herbert A. Simon, n’ t n
(New York, 1966), p. 5.

7Ackermann, p. 33.

B;pig.. p. 49.

9Li11ian n. Lieber, The Ein te'n Theor of e ativ’t
(New York, 1945)

10Ackermann, p. 43.

11Arthur L. Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theories
(New York, 1968), p. 13.

lzlEifl-e 9-130

208

13Ackermann, p. 58.

14Peter M. Blau and U. Richard Scott, £Q£m§1_ggg§fli£2£igflg

(San Francisco, 1962). P. 13.

15Douglas McGregor, The Hgman Side of Enterprise
(New York, 1960), p. 6.

16Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations,”

Adminigtrgtivg Science angtggly, 103289 - 320, 1965.

17Reaction Of Labor and Industrial Relations professor
at Michigan State University and several colleagues to a
prOposal on novel use as data sources.

18Inglis Fletcher, pOpular historical novelist in the

1950's.

19Daniel E. Griffiths, Administrativg Iheggy (New York,
1959).
20

Herbert A. Simon, Administrativg Eghavior (New York,
1957). pp. 45 ff. '

21As taken from Blau and Scott, noting 3 Talcott Parsons,

and e in Mo n S ' ie (Glencoe, 1953),
Pp. 183-186.

22Etzioni, p. 6.
23

1g;g., p. 3.
24

Ackermann, p. 43.

25Stinchcombe, p. 13.

6Etzioni, p. 3.

Zleige. pa 40.

28m" p. 6.

209

291b;g., p. 7.

3°1big., p. 40.

31Ibid” p. 8,

”use” p. 8.

33Kurt Godel, twentieth century mathematician.

34Gustav Janouch, ggnveggationg gith Kafka (New York, 1953)
Do 45s

35

Adrian Jaffe, The Egocegs gf Kafka'g [rial (East Lansing,
1967). Do Is

 

36Heinz Politzer, an fka a sh e an a ,
(Ithaca. 1962). P. 167.

37Charles Osborne, ngkg (London, 1967). p. 5.
38]big., p. 91.
39

Pulitzer, p. 166.
‘DOsborne, p. 76.

‘lRuth Ann Lief, flomggg to Oceania (Columbus, Ohio, 1969)
p. vii.

421b;g., p. 144.

‘BRobert A. Les, Qgggll'g fiction (Notre Dame, 1969). P. xi.

44[big., p. xi.

4slbid" p. xi.

‘GRichard J. Voorhees, [he Eagedox of George Qrgell

(Lafayette, 1961), p. 87.

210

47Jerome Meckier, Aldous Huxley, Satire and Structure

(London, 1969), p. 183.

48D.V. Jog, Aldous HuxleyI The Noveligt (Bombay, 196-),

p. 57.

49John A. Atkins, Aldous Huxley (New York, 1956), p. 76.

50Jenni Calder, Chronicles of ggngcience (London, 1968),

ppe 231-2320

51Philip Thody, Albert Camus (London. 1951). Po 110°

52D.R. Haggis, Albert Camug La Eeste (Great Neck,

New York, 1962), p. T.

53;b;g., p. 36.

54Thody, p. 101.

55Thody, p. 93.

SGHaggis. p- 54-

57Haggis, p. 57.

58Carol Petersen, Albert Camus (New York, 1969), p. 74.

THE MODEL OF ORWELL

A n mbe ed foo note 'n thi cha e efe t he a

'n th t f 8 .

George Orwell, 1284 (Signet Classic,
New American Library; New York, 1961,
forty-sixth printing.)

211

AThis is a state of organizational evolution in which
the human elements of the construct, alone or together,
are powerless to alter their role structure or control
the products-effects Of the organization.

BSee the section on Goals in the chapter on The Model

Of Huxley.

cAmitai Etzioni, fiodegn Qgganigationg (Englewood Cliffs,
1964)! ppe 5-19e

DOne does not employ the word "mechanic" in deprecation,

but to underline the distinction between those who would
work in particular reference frames (usually those of
management) to correct organizational ”faults" and those
who attempt to synthesize from some general view.

EMax Weber, The Theo f Socia and Economi O an ation
(New York, 1966), p. 358.

See the section on Formal Structure in the chapter on
The Model Of Kafka.

8Peter M. Blau and w. Richard Scott, Formal Qgggnizaligns
(San Francisco, 1962), p. 32.

HRensis Likert, Ihe Human Organization (New York, 1967),
p. 14.

IHerbert Marcuse, Qng-Qimengional flan (Boston, 1964),

as theme.
J
Etzioni, p. 10.

KJames G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organization;
(New York, 1966), pp. 40-46.

leig., pp. 40-46.

MDouglas McGregor, [hg Human Side Of Enterpgigg
(New York, 1960). pp. 33-57.

212

NOne might Observe a similar ”drive” in young disciplines
to develOp a precise, functional language with the dysfunc-
tional result Of blocking exterior communication.

0See the section on The Human Element in the chapter on
The Model of Kafka with particular reference to Herzberg
and Maslow.

PDaniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, Ihe Sogial Esyghology
9f Ogganizationg (New York, 1967), p. 266.

QBlau and Scott, p. 27.

REtzioni, p. 8.

51b1g., p. 3.

TFrom informal talks with workers in Michigan Industry,
1971.

THE MODEL OF HUXLEY

A num e d f tn e n th' h e fe O h

'n th tex O a e w .

 

Aldous Huxley, agave Neg ugrlg ( A perennial
Classic, Harper and Row: New York, 1969.)

ASee Orwell chapter footnote A.

BSee Orwell chapter on Goals.

cAmitai Etzioni, floggrn Organizallong (Englewood Cliffs,
1964)! PP. 5-190

Dc. Wright Mills, 1h; 391;; §115g (New York, 1956). p. 144.

Elpig.. p. 144.

213

rMax Weber, The Theogy of Sogial and Economic Organization
(New York, 1966), p. 333. (In particular, note point (1).)

See Kafka chapter on the Formal Structure.

THE MODEL OF CAMUS

All nggbeggd fooinotgg in ihig chagtei Igfg; to the gag;
in he tax of h a u .

 

Albert Camus, Ihe Elagug, Trans. Stuart Gilbert,
(The Modern Library, Random House; New York, 1948.)

ASee the chapter on Kafka, section a Reality System.

THE MODEL OF KAFKA

All numbeigd fgoingieg in ihig ghagie; Iefg; io ihe gagg
'n the t xt f h a .

 

Franz Kafka, Ihg Iiial (Vintage Books,
Random House: New York, February 1969.)

ARensis Likert, IE! Hgggn Qgggnizgtion (New York, 1967),
p. 14.

3Gerald H. Hoeller and W. W. Charters, “Relation of
Bureaucratization to Sense Of Power among Teachers,”

(Adminigiggiivg Sgigngg nggtgily, 10:444-465, 1966.)

cJames G. March and Herbert A. Simon, ngggiggiiggg
(New York, 1958), pp. 41-45.

DPeter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, an' n
(San Francisco, 1962), p. 34.

214

EMarch and Simon, p. 45.

FIbid., p. 37.

Blbig., p. 46.

Weber makes a distinction between efficiency, cats 0 'e ,
and giiteiig in his description of Legal Authority with a
bureaucratic administrative staff. Blau and Scott, probably
for reasons of simplification, have compounded the three
”categories.” They omitted two points in the criteria list
which are of particular interest in matching Weber and Kafka.
These were a Point one - "They are personally free and
subject to authority only with reapect to these impersonal
office obligations" and Point nine - "The Official works
entirely separated from ownership of the means of adminis-
tration and without apprOpriation of his position."

IBlau and Scott, pp. 32-33.

JMax Weber, The Theoiy Of Social and Economic giganigation

(New York, 1966), pp. 329-334.

Klbid., p. 337.

L;b;g., p. 334.

Mlbid., p. 334.

NMarch and Simon, p. 46.

DR. Jean Hills, Toyard a Science of giganigation

(Eugene, Oregon, 1968), p. 5.

PDouglas McGregor, lhg Human Side of Entergrige
(New York, 1960). PP. 33-34.

“Leap.. pp. 47-48.

RThomas J. Sergiovanni, ”Factors Which Affect Satisfaction

and Dissatisfaction of Teachers," The Journal of Edugaiignel
Adminigtgaiign (1967, 5:66-82), pp. 66-67.

215
sFrederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner and Barbara Bloch

Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York, 1967), p. 54.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1One has chosen "voluntary" for an Ideal which conflicts
to some extent with Orwell's model.

2Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organiiationg. (Englewood Cliffs,
1964), p. 5.

3See Orwell section on Production.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackermann, Robert. The EhilOSOghy of Science. New York, 1970.

Albéres, R.M. L'aventure Intellectuelle du XXe Siecl .
Paris, 1959.

Atkins, John. Aldous Huxley. New York, 1956.

Blau, Peter M., and W. Richard Scott. Formal Organizationg.
San Francisco, 1962.

Camus, Albert. Thg Plague. Trans. Stuart Gilbert.
New York, 1948.

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organiiations. Englewood Cliffs, 1964.

French, Wendell. Thg Pargonnel flanagemgnt Piocesg.
Boston, 1970.

Griffiths, Daniel E. Administiative Iheogy. New York, 1959.

Hage, Jerald. 'An Axiometic Theory of Organizations."

Administrativg Scigngg Quaiterly. (10: 289-320, 1965).
Haggis, D.R. Albgri Camug 1 La Eggte. Great Neck, 1962.

Herzberg, Frederick, and Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch

Snyderman. The Motivation to Wozk. New York, 1967.

Hills, R. Jean. [oyaig a Sciengg Of Oiganiiation. Eugene,
Oregon, 1968.

Huxley, Aldous. Bgavg Ngy Woglg. New York, 1969.

Jaffe, Adrian. [he Eigggsg gf Kafka'g [£igl. East Lansing,
1967.

Janouch, Gustav. Conveigationg yith Kafkg. New York, 1953.
Jog, D.V. Algggg Huxlgy Ihg NOVgligt. Bombay, gogt 1963.

 

217

Kafka, Franz. The Tiial. Trans. Willa and Edwin Muir.
New York, 1969.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Egychglogy
W. New York. 1957-

Les, Robert A. giggll'g Figiion. Notre Dame, 1969.

Lieber, Lillian R. Thg Eingtgin Thgggy gf Rglgiiyiiy.
New York, 1945.

Lief, Ruth Ann. Hgmggg ig Qggania. Columbus, Ohio, 1969.
Likert, Rensis. [hg Human gigggizaiion. New York, 1967.

Litterer, Joseph A. Oigenizationg ; Siiugtuig gng thgvigg.
New York, 1963.

March, James 6., and Herbert A. Simon. Ogganiggtiong.
New York, 1966.

Marcuse, Herbert. One-Digengignal Man. Boston, 1964.

McGregor, Douglas. h Human Side of En e i .
New York, 1960.

Meckier, Jerome. Aldoug Huxley, Satirg and §iiugty;g.
London, 1969.

Mills, C. Wright. Thg Boys; Elitg. New York, 1956.

Hoeller, Gerald H. and W.W. Charters. "Relation of
Bureaucratization to Sense of Power among Teachers.“

Agminigtiaiiyg Sgience Quarteily. (10: 444-465, 1966).
Orwell, George. l284. New York, 1961.

Osborne, Charles. figjkg. London, 1967.

Park, Peter. §ociolggy Tomorroy. New York, 1969.
Parsons, Talcott. Thg Sogial Sygtem. New York, 1951.
Petersen, Carol. Albert gemug. New York, 1969.

Peyre, Henri. Albeit Qamug : Moraligtg. Little Rock, 1962.

Politzer, Heinz. Fran Kafka arab e an a adox.
Ithaca, 1962.

 

218

Presthus, Robert. The Organizational Society. New York, 1962.

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. ”Factors Which Affect Satisfaction
and Dissatisfaction of Teachers." The iournal of

Educational Adminigtiation. (5: 66-82, 1967).
Simon, Herbert A. Adminigiiative Behaviog. New York, 1957.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. Constructing Social Ihgorieg.
New York, 1968.

Thody, Philip. Albeit Camug. London, 1961.

Voorhees, Richard J. The Parado; of George Qiyel .
West Lafayette, 1961.

Weber, Max. he heor of Socia and c nomi n' ation.
Trans. Henderson and Persons. New York, 1966.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

In the study of the four novels, passing note has been made
of a number of writers on organizations. The eclectic nature
of these references may puzzle the reader unfamiliar with

the literature Of organizational theory. One must reemphasize
that were another student of organizations to have screened
the novels and linked the material, many Of the authors

mentioned in this study would have been replaced by others.

For example, it is conceivable that none Of the following
authors - authors mentioned in this study - would be familiar
to the reader : Blau, Charters, Etzioni, French, Griffiths,
Hage, Herzberg, Hills, Kahn, Katz, Likert, Litterer, March,
Maslow, McGregor, C.W. Mills, Moeller, Parsons, Presthus,

Scott, Sergiovanni, Simon, Stinchcombe and Weber.

It is not one's intent to measure the relative stature of
the above noted writers; rather, one would stress those
authors who are of major consequence to the concepts dis-

cussed in this study.

219

220

Max Egbe; is perhaps the best known Of the sociologists to
address himself to the study of organizations. All Of his
writing was done prior to 1920, and this is in sharp contrast
to the other authors noted: for, the bulk of their work was
32;; 1950. In this study one has drawn heavily Upon Weber's
he Theo of Socia and Economi r ani ation; and, one has
made use of his concepts from Eggayg in §Ociolggy. Indeed,
it is difficult to eliminate any of Weber's writings; for,
many of the concepts which he developed initially have

passed into the common coin of thought.

Weber laid down the criteria for the Bureaucratic Adminis-
trative Staff and develOped the general Ideal Type - concepts
which were employed in the study Of all four novelists.
Emphasis on single contributions, however, may diminish one's
appreciation of the full range and depth of Weber's thought.
Miller in his work May ygbg; states a "...(He) has become

one of the monumental figures Of social science. His socio-
logical and political concepts are part of the working
vocabulary of social scientists...(he) has illumined several
fields of sociology...political science...economic history
and...(hae investigated) the links between religion and

society."

221

In spite Of the above, it is not recommended that one begin
his reading with Weber. The prose is difficult and the
concepts are Often clouded in the first haze of discovery.
One would do better, perhaps, to read a few Of the many
commentators Upon Weber and only then return to the original

works.

Blau and Scott in fggmgl giggnizationg ; A gomgaiaiive
figgggach have been mildly criticised in this study for an

over-simplification Of Weber's Bureaucratic Administrative
Staff; nevertheless, their general, introductory approach
to Weber and to organization theory in a sociological
context is commendable, and might be preferred to the more
sOphisticated treatment by Katz and Kahn in their work

Thg §g§ial Egyghglggy gf giganizgtiong. Miller's flgi_!gggg

is a desirable addition for preliminary work.

In as much as the beginning reader is forewarned that Weber
has been used and not infrequently abused by writers
”standing on his shoulders" a current overview Of organi-
zational structure from Weber's interpreters and modifiers

may be the most wise point of departure.

If organizations have structure and human beings as their

basic elements, one would do well to note Douglas McGregor's

222

he Human Side of nter ri . It is a deceptively clear work
and often begets the contempt reserved for clarity. McGregor
notes two divergent management views concerning the human
element. One may easily generalize from McGregor's base.

As one group Of theorists develops variant organizational
structures, another - and much smaller - group is involved

in variant assumption sets concerning the human being.

Etzioni, one of the more prolific modern writers on
organizations, unites and summarizes work on both the
structural and human components Of organizations. For that
reason, his work Modern grganigationg was used as a defi-
nition base in this study. His language is "standard" and
he encompasses reasonably well the breadth of ideas current
in organizational theory. The encyclopaedic reader, having
framed his own definition of an organization and having
considered the basic and elementary overviews may wish to

turn to March's Hgndbggk of Organizaiiong. One drew
indirectly upon that work in this study.

Structural and human element variations provide a myriad
of possibilities for typologies of organizations. Among
these typologies, the reader might wish to consider Blau
and Scott's §Hi_§ggg which classifies organizations

according to the prime beneficiary of the Operation.

223

A detailed and extremely sOphisticated typology of another
assumption set may be found in Rensis Likert's h Human
Oiggnizetion. Prior to that letter reading one might do well
to consider Likert's Neg Patterns Of Management in which he
maintains that he first develOped a science-based system of

management.

TO this point, the beginning reader has been guided toward
an overview reading through Etzioni followed by a perusal
Of Blau and Scott or Katz and Kahn. All of these readings
lead back to a base of Weber for structural development and
to McGregor on the human element. The more sophisticated

reader could turn to March and to Likert.

Again, however, one must warn the reader that the above is

a matter of predilection. It could be argued that one should
start with March and Simon's giganizationg and then work
outward and in depth through the three 'schools' Of
organizational theory 3 Scientific Management, Human
Relations and Structuralism. In the same way it could be
argued that one should begin with a broad range of readings
such as Offered in Carver and Sergiovanni's Qiganizationg

gng Hyman flghgyig; or in Etzioni's Cogglgi Oiganigationg 3
A S i ’ a .

224

Rather than pursue methods or direction of study under the
references given in this consideration of novelists and
organizational theory, one would suggest that the reader
employ the basic screen through his reading, skim the
Obscure references, and only after having created his own
concept Of organizational theory return to the standard

theorists by whatever method suits best himself.

"7%))11)!MIN)“