COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONSgoals, although individual participants might per-
sonally feel indifferent toward those goals or even
alienated from their organizations. Concerted col-
lective action toward an apparent common pur-
pose also distinguishes organizations from social
units such as friendship circles, audiences, and
mass publics. Because many organizational forms
are now institutionalized in modern societies, peo-
ple readily turn to them or construct them when a
task or objective exceeds their own personal abili-
ties and resources (Meyer and Rowan 1977;
Zucker 1988).
Organizations have activity systems—or tech-
nologies—for accomplishing work, which can in-
clude processing raw materials, information, or
people. Activity systems consist of bounded sets of
interdependent role behaviors; the nature of the
interdependencies is often contingent upon the
techniques used.
Other key elements of organizations, such as
socially constructed boundaries, are shared with
other types of collectivities. The establishment of
an ‘‘organization’’ implies a distinction between
members and nonmembers, thus marking off or-
ganizations from their environments. Maintaining
this distinction requires boundary-maintenance
activity, because boundaries may be permeable,
and thus some organizations establish an authori-
tative process to enforce membership distinctions.
For example, businesses have human resource
management departments that select, socialize,
and monitor employees, and voluntary associa-
tions have membership committees that perform
similar functions. Distinctive symbols of member-
ship may include unique modes of dress and spe-
cial vocabularies.
Within organizations, goal attainment and
boundary maintenance manifest themselves as is-
sues of coordination and control, as authorities
construct arrangements for allocating resources
or integrating workflows. These internal struc-
tures affect the perceived meaning and satisfac-
tion of individual participants by, for example,
differentially allocating power and affecting the
characteristics of jobs. Control structures, which
shape the way participants are directed, evaluated,
and rewarded are constrained by participants’ multi-
ple external social roles, some complementing,
but others conflicting with organizational roles.
ENVIRONMENTSOrganizations, with few exceptions, are incom-
plete social systems that are not self-sufficient and
thus depend on interchanges with their environ-
ments. Therefore, goal setting by owners or lead-
ers must take into account the sometimes contrary
preferences of organizations and other actors,
because activity systems are fueled by resources
obtained from outsiders. For example, partici-
pants must be enticed or coerced into contribut-
ing to the organization’s activities: businesses pay
people to work for them, while voluntary nonprof-
it organizations may offer more intangible bene-
fits, such as sociable occasions.
Over the past few decades, organizational so-
ciology has gradually expanded its scope to in-
clude more of the external elements associated
with organizational life. Initially, theorists empha-
sized relatively tangible features: environments
were seen as stocks of resources (such as raw
materials, capital, or personnel) and information.
To the degree that resources are scarce or concen-
trated in a few hands, organizations are more
dependent on their environments and may be
vulnerable to exploitation or external control by
outsiders (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). To the de-
gree that information is dispersed, heterogene-
ous, or subject to change, organizations confront
problems of uncertainty.
Much research has been devoted to under-
standing how organizations deal with the prob-
lems of dependence and uncertainty that environ-
ments pose. Some organizations respond internally,
by developing specialized structures and process-
es. For example, boundary-spanning personnel
are charged with dealing with actors outside the
organization, acquiring resources, and disposing
of products; they thereby enable others in the
technical core to work under more certain condi-
tions. Some organizations respond externally, by
building bridges that stabilize their ties to environ-
ments. They use interorganizational devices such
as long-term contracts and working agreements,
joint programs or alliances, and interlocking direc-
torates (Mizruchi and Galaskiewicz 1993).
More recent scholarship has stressed the so-
cially constructed, institutional aspects of environ-
ments. Organizations must be attentive to these
external aspects to acquire and maintain legitima-
cy and social standing. Scott (1995) distinguished