Prestige and Goals in American Universities

Author(s): Walter F. Abbott

Source: Social Forces, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Mar., 1974), pp. 401-407
Published by: University of North Carolina Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2576896
Accessed: 16/09/2009 19:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

Prestige & Goals / 401

7. Are you in favor of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? (Survey 522, 1953;
Survey 774, 1969) 2
8. Do you believe in life after death? (Survey 580,
1957; Survey 764, 1968)
9. Do you believe in the devil? (Survey 580, 1957;
Survey 764, 1968)
10. Should the churches keep out of political matters-or should they express their views on dayto-day social and political questions? (Survey 580,
1957; Survey 758, 1968)
11. Do you think that persons 18, 19, and 20 years
of age should be allowed to vote, or not? (Survey
520, 1963; Survey 792, 1969)3
12. Which of these three policies would you like
to have President Nixon follow?4 A. Go more to
Responses to this question were dichotomized
into "0-3" and "4 or more."
3For the Protestant-Catholic comparison, the
1950s question is from Survey 523.
4 In 1954, the wording of the question was
"Which of these policies would you like to have
our government follow?"
2

the RIGHT, by following more of the views of

business and conservative groups? B. Go more
to the LEFT, by following more of the views of
labor and other liberal groups? C. Follow a
policy half-way between the two? (Survey 541,
1954; Survey 774, 1969)
13. Do you think the laws regulating labor unions
are too strict or not strict enough? (Survey 521,
1953; Survey 723, 1966)
14. In general, do you approve or disapprove of
labor unions? (Survey 521, 1953; Survey 751,
1967)
15. Would it be better for the United States to
keep independent in world affairs-or would it be
better for the United States to work closely with
others? (Survey 519, 1953; Survey 774, 1969)

16. Do you think Communist China should or

should not be admitted as a member of the United
Nations? (Survey 533, 1954; Survey 774, 1969)5

5 For the Protestant-Catholic comparison, the

1950s question is from Survey 578.

Prestige and Goals in American Universities*

WALTER F. ABBOTT,

Universityof Kentucky

ABSTRACT

Organizationalgoals that are pursued for the purpose of accommodating an organization to a social environment are termed adaptive goals. The purpose of this article is to test the thesis that university prestige may lead to the pursuit of adaptive goals. Prestige and goal data on universitiesin the United States
from a larger study by Gross and Grambsch were utilized to study this hypothesis as it relates to the
university as an organizational type. Size, income, ownership and financial dependence are used as control variables. Zero-ordercorrelations indicate that prestige is negatively related to adaptive goals. Controlling for size, income, and university ownership does not substantially alter this pattern. The inverse
relation between prestige and adaptive goals is also generally found to hold in private universitieswhen
financial dependence is controlled. The conclusion that is thus reached for universities in the United
States is: the greater the prestige, the less the focus on adaptive goals.

In most theories of complex organization the

interplay between internal structure and external social environment is left implicit. Familiar
topics of inquiry touch internal structure and
process: the structure of bureaucracy (Weber,
* I should like to acknowledge the generosity of
Edward Gross and Paul Grambsch in providing
the data for this paper from their study of goals
in American universities.

1947), oligarchical power tendencies (Michels,

1949), human relations in work groups (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939), cooperation and
communication (Barnard, 1938), and leadership and supervisory effectiveness (Kahn and
Katz, 1953). Etzioni's (1961) "compliance"
theory of organizations and Dalton's (1950)
studies in line-staff conflicts are in the same
class. Goff et al. (1970), Kruytbosch and

402 / SOCIALFORCES/ vol. 52, mar. 1974

Messinger (1970), and Hodgkinson and Meeth

(1971), represent three of many recent books
on innovation in higher education that analyze
organization and authority in the modern university. Thus the stress in this tradition is on
the structure and dynamic processes that are
internal to organizations.
Economics since its inception as an independent field of study has laid heavy emphasis on
the market as an environmental condition for
the operation of individual firms. In modern
micro-economic theory, the standard classification of firms and models-pure competition,
monopolistic competition, oligopoly and monopoly-is
based on the external marketing
conditions confronting a firm offering its goods
and services to a given public. However, this
approach to organizational analysis is by no
means restricted to economics. Homans' (1950)
"external system," Parsons' (1956) postulate
that bureaucracies emerge in a differentiated
society, Kerr and Siegel's (1954) study of the
effects of the worker community on labor conflict, Thompson's and McEwen's (1958) analysis of environment and goals, Selznick's (1949)
discussion of cooptation in the TVA, Clark's
(1956) study of the precariousness of values
in adult education due to dependence on external sources of support and Stinchcombe's
(1965) attempt to codify the connections between organizations and the social structure
illustrate types of sociological analysis in which
the events and structures internal to organizations are treated as dependent or interdependent with an external social environment.
This list of external influences on the internal
structure and processes of complex organizations does not include the effects of organizational prestige, a factor external to a specific
organization by virtue of its very nature as the
image a significant public holds as to the value
of an organization. The focus on the importance of prestige as a dimension of social
plurels and power groups has a venerable tradition in sociological analysis. However, "images
of organizations have been little explored outside of consumer research," Clark (1962:197)
reports, "but images play an increasingly important role in the relation of organizations
with their environment." The aim of this article
is thus to investigate the connection between
prestige and goals in American universities.

The rationale linking prestige and goals is

derived from Homans (1950), Thompson
(1967), and Perrow (1961). The logic is as
follows: (1) Organizations depend on the external environment (suppliers, capital sources,
clientele, governmental or other control agencies, the labor market) for purposes of maintenance and goal-attainment. (2) Organizations
try to control dependence upon the external
environment through such mechanisms as prestige, cooptation, bargaining, and coalitionformation. Of these mechanisms, prestige has
high priority. "Acquiring prestige," as Thompson (1967:33) puts it, "is the 'cheapest' way
of acquiring power." (3) Concern with prestige, however, may result in two strategies
involving different classes of goals. The first
strategy is to put high priority on attaining ultimate or official goals, or those goals to which
there is high commitment as ends in themselves.
The pursuit of this type of goal is preferable.
Yet because of resource limitations, the organization may not be able to emphasize ultimate
goals. A second strategy is thus to put priority
on adaptive goals-activities that are an accommodation to the external environment in
order to receive in exchange sufficient rewards
to operate as an ongoing social unit. (4) Under
what conditions, however, can an organization
pursue adaptive goals, specifically intended as
manipulative, and yet have a favorable image
from significant publics? It is proposed here
that the nature of the response of the significant
public depends on the nature of that public's
expectations of the organization. And the nature of the significant public's expectations may
vary depending on the societal function of the
organization. A business firm, which is expected
to maximize profits by virtue of the model supported by an entrepreneurial ideology, presumably encounters different expectations than does
a fiduciary or public service organization. It
may thus be appropriate and effective for a
business corporation to attempt to market an
"image" (a theme in Riley's, The Corporation
and Its Publics, 1963) since economic ideologies are highly instrumental. However, it may
never pay universities to resort to instrumental
goals because this is inconsistent with the expectations of members of the academic community. Thus in this article I am specifically
concerned with this research question: Is an

Prestige & Goals / 403

emphasis on instrumental educational goals

linked with the prestige position of a university?
SECONDARY ANALYSIS AND ORGANIZATIONAL
RESEARCH

This study considers a particular class of complex organizations: the major secular universities in the United States. The prestige and
goal data are from a major study of American
universities by Gross and Grambsch (1968).
Institutions were included in this universe on
the basis of data provided in Cartter (1964:
Appendices IV and VI), and the following
criteria (Gross, 1968:527):
1. Ph.D. degree must be granted in at least
three of four fields (humanities, biological sciences, physical sciences and social sciences).
2. Degrees granted in the two least emphasized
fields must come to 10 percent or more of the
total doctoral degrees conferred.
3. There must be a liberal arts undergraduate
school with three or more professional schools.
4. The institution must have conferred ten or
more doctoral degrees during 1962-63.
Seventy secular universities with balanced
graduate programs representing most of the
major universities in the United States were
found in this statistical population for the
academic year of 1962-63. The availability of
data allowed for the inclusion of 66 universities
in the study.
Although there is folklore in abundance
about prestige differentials among American
universities, there are no commonly accepted
indexes available analogous to the occupational
and other prestige scales routinely used in
stratification research. Since prestige is a response by a significant public to a social object,
the fundamental problem in constructing a
prestige index is to define the public serving as
a referent. The publics for a university are
numerous; students, the citizenry and its representatives, supporters, alumni, and the professions represented by the constituent departments of a university are among the most
significant and immediate publics of a university. The public presumed here to be of greatest
significance to a university is the body of professional peers associated with the constituent
disciplines that comprise the university. The
present study uses one of several indexes of

university prestige developed by Gross and

Grambsch (1968:128-132)
to register professional judgments of the quality of a cross-section of universities in the United States. The
Gross-Grambsch index is based on data from
the Cartter (1966) report, which rated the
graduate faculty of 29 departments in a crosssection of universities in the United States as
distinguished, strong, good, adequate-plus and
no rating. The Gross-Grambsch quality index
is a weighted mean of the ratings provided on
a maximum of 29 departments for each of the
universities and is thus intended as an aggregate
measure of university quality.
Confidence in the Gross-Grambsch quality
rating is enhanced if it is also found to correlate reasonably well with indexes based on
independently collected data. The Gourman
(1967) ratings of universities and colleges in
the United States constitute an additional, independent series of indexes to assess further
the Gross-Grambsch index. The ambitious goal
of this series is "to provide a detailed rating of
the undergraduate programs of nearly all of
the colleges and universities in the United
States" (Gourman, 1967:ix) and is thus designed for a somewhat different purpose than
the Gross-Grambsch indexes. The basic ratings
are of academic (departmental) and nondepartmental facilities. The criteria for departmental ratings include accreditation, number of
courses, research and library facilities, honorary societies, and scholarships and fellowships received by graduates. The non-departmental ratings are based on administrative
practices, student services, faculty, and other
matters of university-wide concern. Despite the
intent of the Gourman ratings to assess facilities for undergraduates, Table 1 indicates that
they correlate highly with the Gross-Grambsch
quality index (.89 and .86).
Table 1 reports also the relation between the
Gross-Grambsch index and two specific performance criteria heavily stressed in universities:
the output of doctorates and research. The
number of doctorates conferred in 1963 was
obtained from Cartter (1964). Although the
correlation between the Gross-Grambsch index
and number of doctorates is reasonably high
(.77) by social science standards, it is not stufficiently high to be considered the sole source
of variation in university prestige. The index of

404 / SOCIALFORCES/ vol. 52, mar. 1974

Table 1. Gross-Grambsch University Quality Ratings

and Validating Indexes: Zero-order Correlations
Validating Index

Gourman academic rating

Gourman nondepartmental rating
Doctorates conferred: June, 1963
University elite journal research
productivity: 1963

.89
.86
.77
.91

Note: Analysis based on 65 cases.

research productivity, in broad outline, has

been constructed as follows:1 (1) The disciplines about which research is ascertained are
the 29 disciplines included in the prestige index.
(2) For each discipline the elite journal published in the United States has been selected
(or several journals if there is no single representative journal) and the number of articles
attributed to each university through the institutional affiliation of the author(s) has been
ascertained for the volume covering all or the
greater part of the calendar year 1963. (3) The
scores for the separate disciplines were aggregated into five knowledge areas: the humanities,
social sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences and engineering. (4) Since the quantity
of output among the knowledge areas varies
widely, a weighting procedure was applied to
give each area equal weight in the aggregate index for each university. (5) An aggregate index
was obtained by summing the weighted output
for the five knowledge areas. This index is incomplete in at least three ways. First, it does not
include all the disciplines in a university community. (The index has been designed specifically to test the prestige rating based on the 29
disciplines for which quality assessments are
available for 1964). Second, it excludes research reported in monographs and other important media. Finally, it includes only elite
journals, thus excluding other less prestigious
but important journals existing in almost all
disciplines. Despite these limitations, the correlation between the research and GrossGrambsch indexes is very high (.91), illustrating once again the prominent part played by
research in the modern university.
The present study also uses goal data col-

1 The research productivity index is discussed

more fully in Abbott and Barlow (1972:410-412).

lected through standard survey procedures by

Gross and Grambsch (1968) in their study of
American universities. They asked a sample of
faculty and administrators in the major American universities to report the goals of the particular institutions in which they served. The
sample consisted of 15,584 faculty members
and administrators. Data were collected in the
Spring of 1964. The response rate was 50.9
percent for the administrators and 40.4 percent
for the faculty (Gross, 1968:528). The rationale for selecting faculty and administrators is
that, as participating members of the institutions, they would be the most competent to
know what the inner workings and output of
the university are. The questionnaire was thus
designed, as one of its authors (Gross, 1968:
523) describes it, so that "it asks the respondents to serve as informants, as it were, and tell
the investigators how they see the university."
The 47 goals were of two types: perceived and
preferred, representing the "is-ought" distinction. Analysis in this paper is restricted to the
perceived goals listed in Table 3.
There are several factors that contributed to
error in collecting the goal data. The questionnaire actually used was quite long; some respondents reported taking three hours to complete it. Also, individual perceptions of goals
may vary depending upon length of service,
position in the university structure and commitment to the particular university. It is therefore appropriate to compare the survey results
with data obtained from other sources. Table 2
reports the correlations between three perceived
goals and objective indexes of selectivity as a
partial check on the validity of the goal data.
The broad scope of the goal data does not
allow complete validation. The two objective
measures of selectivity are the percent of the
freshman class that are from the top 20 percent
of their high school class and the percent freshman applicants accepted by the university.
These are intended respectively as measures of
high and low selectivity. Although not all the
intercorrelations are substantial, the directions
are consistent with the meanings of the measures. Percent of the freshman class from the
top 20 percent of their high school class is positively correlated (.68) with the goal of accommodating only good students, and is negatively
associated with the goals indicating low selec-

Prestige & Goals / 405

Table 2. Intercorrelations Among Objective

and Goals Pertaining to Selectivity
Selectivity

Indexes

1. Objective Index: Percent freshmen from top 20 percent of high

school class.*
2. Objective Index: Percent freshman applicants accepted.*
3. Perceived Goal: Accommodate
good students only.
4. Perceived Goal: Educate to utmost all students meeting legal
requirements to enroll.
5. Perceived Goal: Satisfy area
needs.

(3)

.68
-.67
1.00

Indexes
(4)

(5)

-.51

-.51

.65
-.88

.59
-.81

-.88

1.00

.84

-.81

.84

1.00

* Source: Cass and Birnbaum (1968).

Note: Analysis based on 65 cases.

tivity. The reverse pattern is observed between

the index of low selectivity and the three goals.
It is also pertinent to make internal comparisons
among the perceived goals as a check on response consistency. The goal of satisfying area
needs, for example, correlates highly (.84)
with the goal of educating to the utmost all students meeting basic legal requirements for admission, a related goal also indicating low selectivity. But the same goal is, as would be
with
expected, negatively associated (-.81)
the goal of accommodating only good students.
This latter goal is also negatively associated
(-.88) with the goal of educating to the utmost all students meeting legal requirements to
enroll.
PRESTIGE AND ADAPTIVE GOALS

A goal is adaptive if it manifestly serves to accommodate the university to its social environment. Six goals from the Gross-Grambsch
study that have this as a specific function are:
keeping costs down, satisfying area needs, effectively educating all high school students meeting basic entry requirements, assisting citizens
through extension programs and part-time adult
education programs, and preparing students for
useful careers. The correlations between university prestige and these adaptive goals are
reported in Table 3. Column 1 gives the simple
zero-order correlation between prestige and
adaptive goals. The correlations are all negative,
varying from -.49 to -.69. These findings
support the thesis that prestige is not associated
with adaptive goals.
Table 3 further tests this finding by con-

trolling for enrollment size, annual income,

ownership and financial dependence. (The control data were obtained from Cartter, 1964.)
Column 2 adjusts the correlations of column 1
by enrollment size. Despite the vast literature
on the impact of size on organizational phenomena, enrollment appears to have little effect on the original findings regarding prestige
and goals. Neither the direction nor the magnitude of the partials differ substantially from the
original relations: if there is an effect, adjusting for size appears to strengthen the original
relations. Annual gross university income is also
an alternative explanation of goal emphasis.
Accordingly, controlling for income should substantially influence the original findings regarding prestige and goals. In column 3 the effects
of annual income are considered. The partials
tend to be slightly lower than the original relations, but directionality is not at all affected.
Thus the differences resulting from controls by
size and income are not sufficiently substantial
to suggest an alternative interpretation of the
original findings.
Columns 4 and 6 compare the relations between adaptive goals and prestige among public
and private universities. Although directionality
is not affected by ownership, the magnitudes do
differ. The original relations between prestige
and goals are strengthened in private universities and weakened in the public universities.
What is it that differentiates private and public
universities? One of the most prominent differences between private and public institutions is
source of income. A substantial source of income in private institutions is revenue from
endowments. In private institutions the ratio of
gross annual income (or costs) to endowment
is thus more critical than in public institutions.
The greater this ratio, the greater the dependence on student fees, gifts, research grants and
contracts, and increasing endowments. Columns
5 and 7 indicate the differences between private
and public institutions in the relation between
the income-endowment ratio and adaptive
goals. Among private institutions there is a
greater tendency for this ratio to be linked to
adaptive goals than in public institutions. Certain goals in private institutions, such as considering area needs, educating all students who
meet minimal entry requirements and keeping
costs down are particularly affected. It is not

406 / SOCIAL FORCES / vol. 52, mar. 1974

Table 3. Prestige and Adaptive Goals in American Universities,

and Income-Endowment
Ratio
All
Universities
(n = 66)
(1)
(2)
Adaptive Goals
Satisfy area needs
Educate to utmost capacities every
high school graduate meeting basic entry requirements
Assist citizens through extension
programs
Prepare students for useful careers
Keep costs down
Provide special training for parttime adult students

(3)

by Size, Income, Ownership

Public
Universities
(n = 41)
(4)
(5)

Private
Universities
(n =25)
(7)
(6)
r12

rl2.5

-.86

.62

-.80

.06

-.82

.84

-.79

-.14
-.20
-.31

.13
.21
.17

-.75
-.74
-.61

.61
.52
.76

-.64
-.65
-.33

-.15

.00

-.63

.57

-.46

rl2.3

rl2.4

r12

-.69

-.78

-.61

-.46

.25

-.56

-.69

-.52

-.30

-.52
-.52
-.52

-.67
-.62
-.66

-.55
-.49
-.47

-.49

-.68

-.53

Notation: 1 = goal, 2 = prestige, 3 = enrollment (1962-1963), 4= annual

income-endowment
ratio. Pearson's r is the measure of correlation.

contended that only private institutions experience budgetary strain. The claim is, rather that
the income-endowment ratio seems a useful
measure of financial dependence in private institutions. (Another measure of financial dependence is needed in studying public institutions.) For private institutions such dependence
is a plausible explanation of adaptive goals.
Column 8 considers the relation between prestige and goals when economic dependence is
statistically controlled. The original relations
between prestige and goals are not generally
and substantially affected. Prestige remains
negatively linked to an emphasis on adaptive
goals. Only the correlation between prestige
and goals pertaining to cost reduction is reduced when financial dependence is controlled.
The failure for the relation between prestige
and adaptive goals to be affected after controlling for financial dependence is presumably
due to the reasonably high inverse relationship
(r25 -.57) between prestige and financial dependence. In sum, our findings do not lead to
the conclusion that prestige is linked to a focus
on adaptive goals in American universities.
SUMMARY

This article has examined the thesis that organizational prestige may require thG pursuit of
adaptive goals. Adaptive goals include any
policies and acts that are instrumental in dealing with an organizational environment. The
question is whether such an association between
prestige as an organizational characteristic and

(8)

rl5

r12

r15

income

of university

(1962-1963), 5 =

adaptation as an organizational process obtains

in universities. Seventy universities in the United
States that offered balanced graduate programs
in 1964 were initially selected for analysis. The
availability of data allowed the inclusion of 66
universities in the study. The analysis is based
on data from a larger study of American universities conducted by Gross and Grambsch in
1964. The Gross-Grambsch quality index, the
measure of prestige, was validated by determining its relation to the Gourman prestige indexes and other objective data. The goal data
are also from the Gross-Grambsch study. These
were collected through questionnaires submitted to a random sample of American academic administrators and faculty in the institutions in the sample. Although data on 47 goals
were collected, only those directly pertaining to
the present research problem were included in
the analysis.
Using Pearson's r as the measure of association, prestige is found to be negatively related
to adaptive goals in zero-order correlations.
This pattern is also maintained when enrollment, income and ownership are controlled.
Specifying by ownership groups makes it also
possible to measure the financial dependence
of a university. The income-endowment ratio
is a measure of financial dependence for private, but not necessarily public, universities. It
was found that income dependence is linked
positively with adaptive goals. When the relation between prestige and adaptive goals in private universities is statistically adjusted by finan-

Prestige & Goals / 407

cial dependence through partialling procedures,

however, the original relation is found to generally hold. Thus generalization that thus
emerges from this study is: the greater the
prestige of a university, the less the focus on
adaptive goals.

Hodgkinson, Harold L., and L. Richard Meeth.

1971. Power and Authority: Transformation of
Campus Governance. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.
Homans,

George C. 1950. The Human

Group.

New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Kahn, R. L., and D. Katz. 1953. "LeadershipPractices in Relation to Productivity and Morale."
In Dorwin Cartwrightand Alvin Zander (eds.),
REFERENCES
Group Dynamics. Evanston: Row, Peterson.
Abbott, W., and H. Barlow. 1972. "Stratification Kerr, C., and A. Siegel. 1954. "The Interindustry
Theory and Organizational Rank: Resources,
Propensity to Strike-An International ComFunctions and OrganizationalPrestige in Ameriparison.' In Arthur Kornhauser et al. (eds.),
can Universities."

Pacific Sociological

Review

15(October): 401-24.
Barnard, Chester I. 1938. The Functions of the

Executive. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Cartter, Allen M. 1964. American Universities and

Colleges. 9th ed. Washington: American Council on Education.

. 1966. An Assessment of Quality in Gradu-

ate Edlcation. Washington: American Council

on Education.
Cass, James, and Max Birnbaum. 1968. Comparative Guide to A mericani Colleges. New York:

Harper & Row.

Clark, Burton R. 1956. "OrganizationalAdaptation
and Precarious Values: A Case Study." American Sociological Review 21(June):327-36.
. 1962. Educating the Expert Society. San

Francisco: Chandler.
Dalton, M. 1950. "Conflicts Between Staff and
Line Managerial Officers." American Sociological Review 15(June):342-51.
Etzioni, Amitai W. 1961. A Comparative Analysis
of Complex Organizations. New York: Free

Press.
Goff, Jerry, et al. 1970. The Cluster College. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gourman,

Jack.

1967.

Industrial Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kruytbosch, Carlos E., and Sheldon Messinger.

The

Gourman

Report.

Washington: Continuing Education Institute.

Gross, E. 1968. "Universities as Organizations: A
Research Approach." American Sociological Re-

view 33(August) :518-44.

Gross, Edward, and Paul V. Grambsch. 1968.
University Goals and Academic Power. Wash-

ington: American Council on Education.

1970. The State of the University: Authority

and Change. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Michels, Robert. 1949. Political Parties (translated
by Eden Paul and Cedar Paul). Glencoe: Free
Press.
Parsons, T. 1956. "Suggestionsfor a Sociological
Approach to the Theory of Organizations, I."
Administrative Science Quarterly 1:63-85.

Perrow, C. 1961. "OrganizationalPrestige: Some

Functions and Dysfunctions." American Journal
of Sociology 66:335-41.

Riley, John W., Jr. (ed.). 1963. The Corporation

and Its Publics. New York: Wiley.

Roethlisberger, Fritz J., and William J. Dickson.

1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Selznick, Philip. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots.

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Stinchcombe, A. 1965. "Social Structure and Organizations." In James G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Ac-

tion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thompson, J. D., and W. J. McEwen. 1958. "Organizational Goals and Environment: GoalSetting as an Interaction Process." American
Sociological Review 23(February) :23-31.
Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and
Economic Organization (translated by A. Hen-

derson and Talcott Parsons). Glencoe: Free

Press.