Selznick, Philip, "Guiding Principles and Interpretation: A Summary"., In TVA and the Grassroots, 249-266. Berkeley: UC Berkeley Press, 1984.

The book is about a portion of the history of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the interactions of this big organization. The book is subtitled "A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization".

Sociological Directives

The "frame of reference" that Selznick uses in this analysis is:

1. Formal organizations are shaped by forces separate from the stated structure and goals of the group. Each person in the organization functions as a "whole", with actions and alliances separate from the formal organization. The organization also is affected by the environment. In total, "the organization is an adaptive social structure", facing problems independent of it's creation.

2. Informal stuctures and communication lines will develop from the actions of individuals to "control the conditions of their existance". The socilogist often will "search out the evolution of formal relations out of the informal ones".

3. The informal system is "indispensable" for the formal control and delegation structure. Leadership uses the informal system, but at a price (changed power distribution ,etc.)

4. Every adaptive structure evolves to meets it's basic needs for survival, and develops methods of self-defense. One can explain organizational behavior by examining the function/structure of the organization in relation to these needs. The organization strives for security and stability of formal and informal relations.

5. This type of analysis relatively ignores the external progress of the organization and focuses on how this progress (decisions) affect the internal organization.

6. This analysis focuses "on the structural conditions which influence behavior", and emphasizes constraints, which makes the whole thing a bit pessimistic.

7. The tensions and dillemmas caused by structural constraints are highlighted (producing more of an expose).

Unanticipated Consequences of Organized Action

The researcher in this type of study must focus on just a few aspects of how policies affect the internal organization, and must ignore many other issues or explanations. To properly analyze the situation, he must focus on those environmental effects (from policy) that affect the organization, and ignore the other effects the policy may have.

Unintended consequences of "purposeful action" are particularily interesting to the sociologist, because they often point to underlying social forces and informal structures within the organization. There are two main sources for these actions:

1. The limiting function of the "end-in-view". Anytime you focus intently on the goals, you may miss some unexpected consequences. This isn't the most interesting for the sociologist.

2. Commitment as a basic mechanism in the generation of unanticipated consequences. Any commitments (goals) made by the organization serve to limit the freedom of actions. But commiments are maintained through the actions of "self-activating and recalcitrant" people, resulting in unintended consequences. Different types of commitment can imply different unintended actions:

A. Commitments enforces by uniquely organizational imperatives. Organizations need to develop discipline, unity, defense and consent to survive. Often in the pursuit of unity special needs of one subunit are extended to the organization as a whole, producing many unintended consequences.

B. Commitments enforced by the social character of the personnel. People tend to be resistant to changes against their traditional views and habits, and employers may have to conform to these views or will face unintended consequences.

C. Commitments enforced by institutionalization. Some policies become so ingrained in the organization that they may become ends in themselves, causing unintended consequences.

D. Commitments enforced by social and cultural environment. The outside environment (other institutions, changes in public opinion) can have large unintended consequences if not anticipated.

E. Commitments enforced by the centers of interest generated in the course of action. Any delegation of tasks to others (who may have different interpretations of company goals or just different goals) may result in unintended consequences.

These areas can cause tension, dillemmas, and are key points of organizational breakdowns. There is always tension inherant in goals vs the tools and means (read people) that work to meet them.

"Day-to-day decision, relevant to the actual problems met in the translation of policy into action, create precedents, alliances, effective symbols, and personal loyalties which transform the organization from a profane, manipulable instrument into something having a sacred status and thus resistant to treatment simply as a means to some external goal."

The Cooptative Mechanism

Coptation is "the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence". Cooptation can be formal or informal.

Basically, it can mean either shared power and authority, or sharing of responsibility and participation without actual redistribution of power. It usually happens when an organization is "out of synch" with it's environment (lack of legitimacy, lack of mobilizing power.

Selznick hypothesizes that cooptation that "results in an actual sharing of power will operate informally, and cooptation oriented toward legitimization or accessibility will be done formally". Putting opposing party people into your own government is one example of cooptation.

Often the goal of formal cooptation is "the sharing of public symbols or administrative burdens of authority and public responsibility, but without an actual transfer of power." The organization needs to make sure the cooptation doesn't get out of hand. The organization needs participation, but too much participation may threaten leadership (hence the inherent dilemma and tenstions).

The Empirical Argument Restated

In the TVA story:

1. The grass-roots theory bacame a protective ideology. The TVA was created as a grass-roots attempt of a federal organization deeply wedded to local organizations. However, this threatened other federal organizations (Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Interior). who have resisted further attempts to repeat this type of federal structure.

2. The agriculture program was delegated to an organized administravie consitituency. The TVA coopted local officials into the TVA to gain local support.

3. The TVA's commitments to its agricultural constituency caused them to oppose fellow federal programs and in effect "support the enemy" , which hurt it's status from a national perspective. The cooptation had in unintended consequences by allowing the local officials to keep out the New Deal agricultural programs.

4. Under pressure from the agriculturalists, the TVA changed away from being a conservation agency.

5. Using voluntary organizations as coopted tools to strengthen TVA authority. TVA shared responsibility but not power.