Utilitarian Organizations

Utilitarian organizations are formal organizations that are voluntarily joined in order to gain a material reward. Utilitarian organizations are large and may be either for-profit or non-profit. Examples of utilitarian organizations include universities and business organizations. To motivate members, utilitarian organizations rely on material rather than psychological rewards. Although universities are typically given as an example of utilitarian organizations, there is diversity within these institutions; some departments may be utilitarian while others may be normative in nature. In the business world, too, some organizations are better suited to a utilitarian culture than are others. However, utilitarian organizational cultures are not appropriate to every task or situation, and problems can arise when a utilitarian culture is used in a situation that requires the more liberal policies and procedures of a normative organization.

One may join an organization for any number of reasons. Some organizations, like hobby groups or social clubs allow members to spend time doing something they enjoy or to meet new people. Other organizations are mandatory such as correctional institutions, or the military during a draft. Other organizations provide needed goods or services. For example, an organization may provide the living necessary to afford membership in other organizations that meet our needs. In fact, over the course of our lives, most of us will be members of many organizations. Many of these will be formal organizations: large, highly organized secondary groups that are structured to efficiently accomplish one or more tasks and meet goals. According to some categorizations, there are three types of formal organizations:

• Normative organizations that one joins voluntarily in order to pursue a common interest or to gain personal satisfaction or prestige (e.g., political parties, religious organizations, and sororities and fraternities);
• Coercive organizations which one is forced to join (e.g., correctional institutions or psychiatric wards);
• Utilitarian organizations that are voluntarily joined in order to gain a material reward (e.g., universities and business organizations).

Although the first type of organization that may come to mind when one thinks about utilitarian organizations that one joins to gain a material reward is business organizations, not all business organizations are necessarily utilitarian in nature nor are all utilitarian organizations necessarily business organizations. Some people may join a business organization because it allows them to meet a goal in their lives. In general terms, a business is merely an occupation in which an individual is engaged. Therefore, for example, a physician might become a member of a boutique medical practice not because the stated goal of being able to provide a higher standard of care to patients, but also because it brings in a higher income than a standard medical practice. To the extent that the latter is true, this is a utilitarian organization. On the other hand, a physician who joins Doctors Without Borders or a similar group would more than likely be joining the organization because of the organization allows him/her to help meet a non-economic need (e.g., to help others) rather than for the low stipend that it pays. This kind of group does not offer a high material reward and is, therefore, less likely to be a utilitarian organization. Further, not all utilitarian organizations are business organizations. The material reward that a utilitarian organization offers, for example, may not be directly monetary in nature. For example, schools and universities are considered utilitarian organizations in this schema. Although an educational institution may provide one with the credentials necessary to join a utilitarian or other business organization and earn more money than if one had not first attended the educational institution, the educational institution itself did not offer the individual money (as anyone writing a check for tuition can testify).

Motivation: A Defining Factor

As the discussion above implies, one of the factors that distinguishes between the various types of organizations is the motivation of the individuals who join them. One of the most enduring theories of motivation that has been applied to the understanding of what motivates individuals within an organization is Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs (Figure 1). Maslow hypothesized that people are motivated by different things at different times in their lives depending on what needs have been met or not met. In addition, Maslow's theory also hypothesizes that needs lower on the hierarchy must have been satisfied before higher level needs can be satisfied. Therefore, according to this theory, if one's more basic needs are not being met at any given time, one will focus on meeting these rather than meeting a higher order need. In his theory, Maslow posits that the most basic level of needs is the physiological needs including the needs to satisfy hunger and thirst, sleep, and sex. From the point of view of organizations, this means that one is unlikely to join an organization if it does not help one meet these basic needs (i.e., offer one sufficient remuneration to meet these needs). Therefore, for example, a physician is unlikely to join Doctors Without Borders if doing so would mean that s/he or his/her family would not be able to pay the rent or buy groceries.

Once one's physiological needs have been met, people become more concerned with safety needs including the need to feel secure and stable in life (e.g., having a job so that one not only has food for today, but can also buy food for the foreseeable future). Utilitarian organizations still work well at this level of need by providing members with the material things that they need to feel secure in life.

The next level of needs according to Maslow, however, is for belongingness. People at this level of need are motivated by such factors as the need to feel accepted and part of a group, to love or feel affection and be loved in return, and to avoid loneliness and alienation. Someone at this level of need may be motivated by being given the opportunity to work on a special team to solve an organizational problem where s/he could feel part of a group. This need is not well met by a utilitarian organization because of its emphasis on material rather than psychological needs.

The next level of needs in the hierarchy is for esteem needs including such things as the need to achieve, be competent, and independent. Both utilitarian organizations and normative organizations can meet this type of need. In the former case, it can be met by a high salary, corner office, or other things that symbolize that one has moved up in the organizational hierarchy. In normative organizations, on the other hand, this type of need can be met by contributing to a team not because it was an opportunity to be part of a group, but because it was a respected position that showed his/her importance or expertise.

The final level on Maslow's hierarchy of needs is self-actualization, or the need to live up to one's full and unique potential and is associated with such concepts as wholeness, perfection, or completion; a divestiture of "things" in preference to simplicity, aliveness, goodness, and beauty; and a search for meaning in life. Utilitarian organizations (and most normative organizations) are unable to fulfill this need within the organization.

Material Rewards

In normative organizations, sources of control and motivation are psychological or symbolic. In utilitarian organizations, on the other hand, sources of control tend to be material. Therefore, utilitarian organizations tend to reward or control members through the withholding or giving of the material objects that will meet the physiological or safety needs of their members. Since relationships within a utilitarian organization are narrow in focus and tend to center on the task at hand, belongingness needs are not typically met. Although a utilitarian organization might satisfy an individual's esteem needs, it would do so in a material way through the presentation of a bonus check, higher salary, corner office, company car, or other material objects that can help the individual receive esteem and act as a symbol of that esteem. Self-actualization, however, is not a need typically met by utilitarian organizations. Normative organizations, on the other hand, foster closer relationships (i.e., belongingness), esteem in non-material ways, and even, in some cases, self-actualization.

Applications

Academia as a Utilitarian Organization

Perhaps the best known utilitarian organization to students is the academic institution. Many people would not voluntarily go to school: There are so many more attractive things to do than attend classes, take notes on lectures, write papers, and take exams. However, for most people, getting a degree (or other educational credential) is a means to an end or, so to say, a way to get one's "ticket punched" to better compete in the job marketplace. Without a college degree, it can be virtually impossible to go to a professional school (e.g., medical school, law school, graduate school), get a high-paying job that will improve one's socioeconomic status, or any number of other status symbols that one might want to obtain. Therefore, one puts in the time, does the required work, and earns the degree that opens the desired doors.

Credentialism

For some people, this becomes a way to acquire knowledge and acquire a skill set that will make them more employable or give them the necessary credentials for other things endeavors. For others, however, going to school is truly a utilitarian activity in which one does only the necessary minimum to earn a degree. Such individuals typically do not see the degree as a useful other than as a door opener. This has led to accusations of credentialism, or the requirement for educational credentials for their own sake as a prerequisite for employment or for conferring social status rather than as an objective way to certify an individual's qualifications, skills, or abilities. For example, denying employment to a person with the skills or experience to do a job because of lack of a degree or recognition from a certifying agency is credentialism. Conflict theorists in particular see credentialism as a way to inhibit disadvantaged or lower classes from attaining better paying jobs because they have been unable to attain a required level of education whether or not that person has the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to do the job.

Normative vs. Utilitarian Academic Institutions

However, although many academic institutions are utilitarian in nature, not all of them are. In fact, different departments within the same academic institution may take different approaches to how the department is run. For example, the differences between normative and utilitarian organizations has been used in the literature to explain the differences between the attitudes of faculty and academic departments on such parameters as conceptions and expectations of students, educational objectives, norms for student/faculty relations, and conceptions of faculty effect on students. Bromley, Busching, Oliver, and Szozda (1981) investigated the evaluation practices of college grading using normative and utilitarian orientations. They hypothesize that normative orientations within academic departments promote valuation practices that result in higher grade distributions.

In universities or academic departments that have a normative orientation, knowledge is typically valued for its own sake. In such situations, the institutions tend to instill excitement about learning and the field of academic study, foster commitment to values and attitudes, and, in general, attempt to broaden, liberalize, and humanize their students. In such departments, faculty members tend to have a sense of mission and see themselves engaged in more than transmitting knowledge or attempting to reach the minds of the students; faculty are also concerned about the students and helping to transform them. Part of the role of faculty members in normative departments is often the socialization of students so that they will learn to fit into their chosen career or discipline in the future. Therefore, in such situations, students are often viewed and treated as apprentices or junior colleagues. As a result of this organizational culture, normative academic departments often develop seminars, tutorials, or other specialized programs that appeal to the interests of the students while helping to build trust and close relationships between students and faculty members.

In utilitarian academic departments, on the other hand, interactions and attitudes are more typically characterized by remunerative power and calculative involvement. As opposed to normative organizations, the goals of utilitarian organizations are typically expressed in terms of the transformation of commodities. Such an organizational culture lends itself to extensive division of labor with precise and systematic control of performance. In utilitarian academic departments, interpersonal relationships tend to be narrow in scope and focus primarily on the performance of specific goal-related activities. There is a focus on the transmission of technical knowledge or the skills necessary for occupational success. Similarly, the attitudes in such academic departments tend to emphasize the knowledge gap between students and faculty rather than bridge it. Students are not considered able to converse with instructors on their own level and close relationships are discouraged.

Differences in Grading & Assessment

It is not surprising that normative and utilitarian organizations foster different types of grading systems. The socialization that is part of the agenda in normative academic departments tends to make the criteria of success more difficult to articulate and evaluative criteria can often not be stated with the degree of precision and clarity that occurs in utilitarian departments. In addition, normative organizations tend to be more global in nature than utilitarian organizations. For example, in normative organizations the question might be whether or not a student has the ability to present him/herself in a professional manner. This goal, however, is vague. In the often unarticulated criteria of a normative department, "professional" could not only mean having sufficient knowledge to do the work (i.e., academic skills), but also having the ability to interact with both clients and peers on a professional level and to dress in a manner so that others will perceive the student as a professional. In a utilitarian department, on the other hand, the goals would have been much clearer and better articulated and much more specific, typically in a manner that can be measured using an objective evaluation instrument.

The relationship between evaluation criteria and interpersonal relationships in normative vs. utilitarian departments are circular in many ways. The necessity (perceived or real) for objective, well-articulated evaluation criteria in utilitarian departments may tend to foster less close relationships between faculty and students. Since the criteria are well-articulated, the student does not need to foster a close relationship with the professor because s/he already knows what the criteria are. Further, the professor may not foster a close relationship with the students in order to maintain his/her objectivity during evaluation. In addition, the fact that there are well-articulated evaluation criteria means that there is no need to foster close relationships. The opposite situation occurs in normative departments.

Conclusion

Most of us at one time or another in our lives will be members of a utilitarian organization. The schools we attend may have one or more utilitarian departments, for example, or we may find it necessary to join a utilitarian organization in order to earn a sufficient income to meet our other needs. Some organizational situations lend themselves more easily to utilitarian organizations than others. In academic situations, engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences may have departments that are more utilitarian because of the objective characteristics of the subject matter as opposed to those in the social sciences or the arts. In the business world, too, some organizations are better suited to a utilitarian culture than are others. Jobs that use unskilled workers, have a high employee turnover, or require the strict adherence to detailed procedures are more likely to be successful with a utilitarian culture. However, utilitarian organizational cultures are not appropriate to every task or situation, and problems can arise when a utilitarian culture is used in a situation that requires the more liberal policies and procedures of a normative organization.

Terms & Concepts

Coercive Organization: An organization in which membership is typically forced rather than voluntary. Examples of coercive organizations include military boot camps and correctional institutions. Coercive organizations are a type of formal organization.

Credentialism: The requirement for educational credentials for their own sake as a prerequisite for employment or for conferring social status rather than an objective emphasis on the qualifications, skills, or abilities of the person.

Culture: A complex system of meaning and behavior that is socially transmitted and that defines a common way of life for a group or society. Culture includes the totality of behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought of the society or group.

Formal Organization: A large, highly organized secondary group that is structured to efficiently accomplish one or more tasks and meet goals. Formal organizations may be classified into three categories: normative (voluntary), coercive, and utilitarian. One organization may function in multiple categories depending on one's position within the organizational structure.

Hierarchy of Needs: A theory of motivation developed by Abraham Maslow. According to Maslow, there are five levels of need: physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization. The theory posits that people's behavior is motivated by where they are in the hierarchy. People can move up and down the hierarchy and can also experience needs from several levels at once.

Normative Organization: An organization in which membership is voluntary and that is joined in order to pursue a common interest or to gain personal satisfaction or prestige. Examples of normative organizations include political parties, religious organizations, and sororities and fraternities. Normative organizations are a type of formal organization. (Also referred to as a voluntary organization).

Norms: Standards or patterns of behavior that are accepted as normal within the culture.

Organization: A group of persons who are associated for a particular purpose into an orderly, functional, structured social entity.

Self-Actualization: The need to live up to one's full and unique potential. Associated with self-actualization are such concepts as wholeness, perfection, or completion; a divestiture of "things" in preference of simplicity, aliveness, goodness, and beauty; and a search for meaning in life. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, this is the ultimate level of behavioral motivation.

Socialization: The process by which individuals learn to differentiate between what the society regards as acceptable versus unacceptable behavior and act in a manner that is appropriate for the needs of the society.

Socioeconomic Status (SES): The position of an individual or group on the two vectors of social and economic status and their combination. Factors contributing to socioeconomic status include (but are not limited to) income, type and prestige of occupation, place of residence, and educational attainment.

Status: A socially established position within a society or other social structure that carries with it a recognized level of prestige.

Turnover: The number of new employees that an organization must hire in order to replace those that have left the company in a given period of time.

Utilitarian Organization: An organization that is voluntarily joined in order to gain a material reward. Utilitarian organizations are large and may be non-profit or for-profit. Examples of utilitarian organizations include universities and business organizations. Utilitarian organizations are a type of formal organization.

Bibliography

Andersen, M. L. & Taylor, H. F. (2002). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Bromley, D. G., Busching, B. C., Oliver, D. L., & Szozda, M. S. (1981). Evaluation practices: A study of college grading using normative and utilitarian orientations. Teaching Sociology, 8(4), 423-441. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13914877&site=ehost-live

Ivanova, M. (2012). A benefit-based approach for increasing the effectiveness of promotions. Scientific Annals of the 'Alexandru Ioan Cuza' University of Iasi: Economic Sciences Series, 59(2), 67-82. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85319755

Kendall, D. (2005). Sociology in our times: The essentials (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=kzU-gtx2VfoC

Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in the 21st Century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Boston: McGraw Hill.

McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. A. (2003). Organizational behavior: Emerging realities for the workplace revolution (2nd ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Spillman, L., & Strand, M. (2013). Interest-oriented action. Annual Review Of Sociology, 39(1), 85-104. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89219289

Weinberg, A. M., & Graham-Smith, G. (2012). Collegiality: can it survive the corporate university?. Social Dynamics, 38(1), 68-86. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78236963

Suggested Reading

Azim, A. N. & Boseman, F. G. (1975). An empirical assessment of Etzioni's topology of power and involvement within a university setting. Academy of Management Journal, 81(4), 680-689. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4408009&site=ehost-live

Hodgkins, B. J. & Herriott, R. E. (1970). Age-grade structure, goals, and compliance in the school: An organizational analysis. Sociology of Education, 43(1), 90-105. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13008225&site=ehost-live

McCarthy, D. (2011). 'I'm a normal person'1: An examination of how utilitarian cyclists in Charleston South Carolina use an insider/outsider framework to make sense of risks. Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 48(7), 1439-1455. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60516884

O'Brien, S. (2012). Cultural regulation and the reshaping of the university. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 10(4), 539-562. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83565083

Penley, L. E. & Gould, S. (1988). Etzioni's model of organizational involvement: A perspective for understanding commitment to organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 43-59. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=12571342&site=ehost-live

Sheldon, M. E. (1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 143-150. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4014341&site=ehost-live

Vreeland, R. & Bidwell, C. (1975). Classifying university departments: An approach to the analysis of their effects upon undergraduates' values and attitudes. Sociology of Education, 39(3), 237-254. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12819705&site=ehost-live