Normative Organizations

Normative organizations (also called voluntary organizations) are those organizations in which membership is voluntary and which are joined in order for members to pursue a common interest or to gain personal satisfaction or prestige. Although in general, normative organizations offer individuals ways to pursue nonfinancial goals that they consider to be worthwhile, in actuality, normative organizations comprise a very heterogeneous classification of organizations. Although research has shown various demographic and social variables to be related to the probability of an individual joining a normative organization, the results are often inconclusive. It is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about such a wide range of organizations because of their distinctive natures. However, normative organizations are an integral part of American life. Better and consistent definitions are needed before meaningful research can be performed to better understand normative organizations.

Keywords Class; Economic Development; Formal Organization; Grassroots Movement; Normative Organization; Organization; Society; Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Normative Organizations

Overview

Over the course of our lives, most of us will be members of many organizations. Although some of these will be informal organizations, many 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 many psychiatric wards); and
• Utilitarian organizations that are voluntarily joined in order to gain a material reward (e.g., universities and business organizations).

Normative Organizations & Personal Identity

People join normative organizations in order to pursue nonfinancial goals that they consider to be worthwhile for any one of a variety of reasons. For example, people may join a normative organization for the prestige that it offers them (e.g., an exclusive men's club, or a sorority or fraternity). Many normative organizations, however, are service or charitable organizations. These organizations (also sometimes called voluntary organizations) may offer the member prestige, but their primary purpose is to accomplish an altruistic goal or to promote activism around a specific issue. Examples of this kind of normative organization include parent-teacher associations, religious organizations, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Another type of normative organization comprises civic organizations such as the League of Women Voters. In addition, there are political organizations (e.g., the National Organization of Women). Normative organizations comprise an interesting subset of formal organizations. Although one may be forced to join some type of utilitarian organization out of financial necessity or join a coercive organization against one's will, normative organizations reflect the philosophies, interests, and ambitions of the individual. In many ways, therefore, membership in normative organizations is an expression personal identity. By allowing members of society to express themselves in diverse ways through formal organization, normative organizations have become a conspicuous feature of American life.

Membership Variables

Gender

Membership in normative organization is often determined by gender, class, race, or ethnicity. For example, many normative organizations are only open to members of a particular gender. It has been estimated that approximately 50 percent of the normative organizations in the United States have all-female memberships and that approximately 20 percent have all-male memberships (Kendall, 2005). It has also been found that males are more likely than females to join normative organizations, although their time commitments tend to be similar. Further, men tend to be more likely to join instrumental groups such as professional associations, while women are more likely to join expressive groups including church-related organizations (Tomeh, 1973).

Socioeconomic Status

Further, people of lower socioeconomic status may be prohibited from joining some upper-class organizations not because the bylaws of the organization prohibit them from joining but because they simply cannot afford to join. In fact, research has found that individuals with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to participate in normative organizations than are individuals with lower socioeconomic status. However, grassroots movements often exist that meet the same needs and are open to all or to those who have been excluded from other organizations. In addition, individuals of different socioeconomic status tend to join different types of normative organizations. For example, historical societies and country clubs tend to be joined primarily by people of high socioeconomic status, civic groups and service organizations tend to be populated by individuals from the middle class, and fraternal organizations and veterans associations tend to attract individuals from the working class.

Race

Race is another demographic variable that has received a great deal of attention regarding its effect on membership in normative organizations—in particular, a comparison of the membership patterns of African Americans versus those of white Americans. Most theorists attribute the differences between membership rates of African Americans and white Americans in normative organizations as representative of socioeconomic status rather than of cultural or racial differences per se. This interpretation posits that because African Americans are overrepresented in lower socioeconomic groups, they are less likely to join normative organizations. However, this interpretation does not take into account membership rates of African Americans and white Americans at comparable socioeconomic levels. When the data are parsed in this manner, African American individuals have higher participation rates in normative organizations at all levels of social class.

Age

Another demographic variable that is frequently related to membership in normative organizations is age or life stage. For those organizations in which age is related to membership, there is typically a tendency toward an increasing membership from adolescence through middle adulthood, with a decline in old age. However, this relationship does not hold true for normative organizations, and the effect appears to be compounded by other factors (e.g., gender, social class).

Religious Preference

Another demographic veritable that appears to greatly affect the probability of an individual joining a normative organization is religious preference. For those with religious affiliations, Protestants tend to more frequently join normative associations (other than the church) than are Roman Catholics. Theorists believe that these differential rates of membership in normative organizations are due at least in part to the structure and ideology of the religions and the concomitant way in which they either encourage or discourage participation in such organizations. For example, Protestant churches tend to be more flexible than the Roman Catholic Church and often allow more individual freedom of inquiry and expression. In addition, the Protestant effect has been identified with individualistic and competitive patterns of both thought and action. This philosophy encourages participation and voluntary groups. In comparison, the Roman Catholic Church is relatively rigid and binds its membership to the authority of the church leaders. As opposed to Protestant churches, the Roman Catholic Church has historically been associated with collectivistic, working-class patterns of thought and action. This philosophy tends to impede participation in voluntary organizations. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church has a number of faith-based voluntary organizations that can meet individuals' needs to belong to normative organizations without going outside the Church.

Residential & Occupational Mobility

Another factor that has been associated with membership and normative organizations is residential and occupational mobility. However, the literature shows an inconsistent relationship between residential mobility and membership in normative organizations. As with the relationship of race to membership in normative organizations, these inconsistencies may be due to the way that the data are grouped for analysis. Tomeh (1973) suggests that when recent newcomers are differentiated from all other residents within the samples from similar underlying populations, research findings may be more consistent. Occupational mobility, on the other hand, appears to be only loosely related to membership in normative organizations. Finally, it has been suggested that the size of one's community and place of residence may also be factors in whether or not one joins a normative organization.

Applications

Voluntary Organizations & Modernization

According to Tomeh, voluntary organizations aid societies in the transition to urbanization and may, in fact, facilitate modernization by contributing to societal stability through the fostering of social units between the individual and the community in a general sense (i.e., commercial, industrial, familial, cultural, and other constituent units within a given habitat that together create a complex behavioral system). In this regard, voluntary organizations appear to be particularly effective in supporting social change by functioning to adapt the social structure to changing conditions. Some voluntary organizations support the normative order by reinforcing values, distributing power at the grassroots level, and helping the members of these organizations to control their environment. Other normative groups allow their members to express themselves and exchange knowledge, ideas, and experience within a limited period of interest (e.g., book clubs, fraternal organizations, hobby groups). Still other normative groups integrate business or professional interests that can help the members find self-expression (e.g., service clubs such as the Lions of the Rotary).

Membership in formal voluntary organizations appears to be related to the economic development and industrialization of a society. Further, there is a similarly close relationship between "interest articulation of associational groups" (i.e., the degree activity of voluntary pressure groups), with the number of people belonging to voluntary organizations as well as to industrialization and economic development. A positive relationship between membership in voluntary organizations and industrialization appears to be related to industrialization as characterized by high concentrations of urban centers, low to medium percentages of the population engaged in agriculture, a high or very high gross national product, higher literacy levels, and a higher proportion of the workforce working in industrialized jobs (Smith, 1972).

Theoretical Approaches to Normative Organizational Study

The following are two theoretical approaches to the study of normative organizations. The first of these focuses on the nature and the structure of the industrial society. In this approach, the emphasis is on the functions and pervasiveness of the group. Normative organizations are seen as contributing to society either through supporting the normative order or by seeking to change it in order to better accommodate important values. In this view, normative organizations may contribute to the stability of a society by being adaptive mechanisms for traditional institutions and may also play a role in various societal processes (e.g., distribution of power, decision making, opinion formation, and socialization). The second theoretical approach to studying normative organizations is social psychological in nature. In this approach, normative organizations are viewed as being integrative for the personality systems of their members. Therefore, normative organizations provide individuals with support and satisfaction that were formerly only available through traditional groups such as family and neighborhood. In this view, normative organizations also allow individuals to transcend their immediate, personal life situations and integrate them into the broader society. It has also been argued that normative organizations have a psychological effect on their members by counteracting feelings of alienation and other negative psychological responses that result from mass society. Further, this view posits that normative organizations offer their members a sense of belongingness, often considered to be one of the primary motivations of human beings.

Problems in Researching Normative Organizations

As discussed above, normative organizations comprise a heterogeneous category that includes a wide range of organizations. Unfortunately, this heterogeneity reflects the fact that there is little consensus among researchers and theorists regarding how best to operationally define normative groups. This makes performing and interpreting research problematic. The problems in performing research in this area include questions concerning the motivation of individuals for belonging to different kinds of normative organizations, changes in motivation over the course of a membership in different types of normative organizations, differences in the way various types of normative groups are structured, and changes in the structures of these groups over time. In addition, there is disagreement in the literature as to whether or not certain types of organizations (e.g., churches, labor unions, political associations) are properly classified as normative organizations.

Classification by Function

One topology that has been posited to account for differences in normative associations differentiates these groups based on the function they serve for either the individual or the community.

• Under this schema, expressive groups are those whose function is to control deviant behavior through socialization (e.g., hobby groups, recreational clubs, senior citizens groups). Expressive groups allow their members to engage in activities that provide them with immediate gratification and affective support.
• The second type of group under this schema comprises instrumental groups. These are organized to help their members better cope with the external environment (e.g., professional associations, business groups, labor unions, political organizations).
• Mixed groups provide both expressive and instrumental functions to their members (e.g., church or religious organizations, fraternal service groups).

"Pleasure through Performance"

This, however, is not the only topology of normative groups that has been posited in the literature. Another way to categorize normative groups is into those that provide their members with pleasure through performance (e.g., folk dance clubs, discussion groups, quilting groups), those that offer their members an opportunity to socialize with other members (e.g., happy hour clubs, social circles), those that offer ideological symbolism (e.g., churches and other religious organizations), and those that offer their members a means to produce (e.g., service clubs, the League of Women Voters, the Humane Society).

Conclusion

Normative organizations are an integral part of American life. Although in general, normative organizations offer individuals ways to pursue nonfinancial goals that they consider to be worthwhile, in actuality, normative organizations comprise a very heterogeneous classification of organizations. Although some organizations are joined in order increase an individual's prestige, others are joined in order to pursue personal interest. Still other normative organizations are joined in order to do service work or to pursue other action in the greater community or society. It is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about such a wide range of organizations because of their distinctive natures. The literature, for example, is ambivalent as to whether religious organizations or labor unions should be categorized as normative organizations despite the fact that they meet the general definition of the term. Better and consistent definitions are needed before meaningful research can be performed to better understand normative organizations.

Terms & Concepts

Church: Although originally used to refer to the building in which people met for worship, the term church is now used in several different ways. When capitalized, the term can refer to (a) the Christian religion in general (i.e., the Christian Church or the Church), (b) a major subcategory of the Christian Church (e.g., the Eastern Church or the Western Church), or (c) a denomination (e.g., the Lutheran Church or the Baptist Church). (d) The capitalized term can also be used as part of the name of a particular congregation. When in lower case, the term is used to refer to (e) a building in which a particular congregation meets, (f) the congregation that meets in that building, or (g) to a public worship or other service held by a congregation. (h) The lower case term can also be used to differentiate between ecclesiastic power and secular power (i.e., church and state). So, for example, one could talk about the difficulties within the Anglican Church (denomination) in which St. Mark's Church (a particular congregation) has decided to break away and there is discussion concerning to whom the church building belongs. The term church is generally used only in the Christian religion and not in Judaism or other religions.

Class: A group of people or stratum within society that shares a similar level of wealth and income and that have access to the same resources, power, and perceived social worth. Social class is the stratum of the group within the society (i.e., social stratification).

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.

Economic Development: The sustainable increase in living standards for a nation, region, or society. More than mere economic growth (i.e., a rise in output), economic development is sustainable and positively impacts the well-being of all members of the group members through such things as increased per capita income, education, health, and environmental protection. Economic development is progressive in nature and positively impacts the socioeconomic structure of a society.

Ethnicity: A social construct used to describe a relatively large group of people who share a common and distinctive culture such as a common history, language, religion, norms, practices, and customs. Although members of an ethnic group may be biologically related, ethnicity is not the same as race.

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.

Grassroots Movement: A movement that is initiated by the members of a community rather than from a formal center of major political activity. Grassroots movements tend to be natural and spontaneous rather than structured, as in the case of traditional organizations.

Industrialization: The use of mechanization to produce the economic goods and services within a society. Historically, industrialization is a society's transition between farm production and manufacturing production. Industrialization is associated with factory production, division of labor, and the concentration of industries and populations within certain geographical areas and concomitant urbanization.

Normative Organization: An organization in which membership is voluntary and 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 and are also referred to as a voluntary organization.

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

Race: A social construct that is used to define a subgroup of the human population illustrating common physical characteristics, ancestry, or language. Racial groups are often neither objectively defined nor homogenous, and racial categories may differ from culture to culture.

Secondary Group: A group of people who typically do not interact on a personal level and whose relationships are temporary rather than long-lasting. Secondary groups are typically established to perform functions, and the roles within the group may be interchangeable to some extent.

Society: A distinct group of people who live within the same territory, share a common culture and way of life, and are relatively independent from people outside the group. Society includes systems of social interactions that govern both culture and social organization.

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.

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.

Bolfíková, E., Hrehová, D., & Frenová, J. (2012). Normative institutionalism, institutional basis of organizing. Sociologija I Prostor / Sociology & Space, 50 , 89–108. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78048091&site=ehost-live

Kendall, D. (2005). Sociology in our times: The essentials (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Levine, J. (2011). Urban inequality and the geography of interorganizational resource networks. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, 1618. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85659146&site=ehost-live

Smith, D. H. (1972). Modernization and the emergence of volunteer organizations. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 13 , 113-134. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10463225&site=ehost-live

Tang, F., Carr Copeland, V., & Wexler, S. (2012). Racial differences in volunteer engagement by older adults: An empowerment perspective. Social Work Research, 36 , 89–100. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83060751&site=ehost-live

Tomeh, A. K. (1973). Formal voluntary organizations: Participation, correlates, and interrelationships. Sociological Inquiry, 43 (3/4), 89–122. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13759814&site=ehost-live

Zullo, R. (2011). Labor unions and charity. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 64 , 699–711. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=62543132&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Benson, J. K. & Hassinger, E. W. (1972). Organization set and resources as determinants of formalization in religious organizations. Review of Religious Research, 14 , 30–36. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24258864&site=ehost-live

Brager, G. (1969). Commitment and conflict in a normative organization. American Sociological Review, 34 , 482–491. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12919701&site=ehost-live

Fryer, M. (2011). Ethics and organizational leadership: Developing a normative model. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kleinbaum, A., Stuart, T., & Tushman, M. (2011). Discretion within the constraints of opportunity: Gender homophily and structure in a formal organization. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, 481. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85658009&site=ehost-live

Taft, J. K. (2004). Scouts and activists: A comparative analysis of girls' organizations. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association 2004 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1–20. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15929853&site=ehost-live

Taylor, M. G. (1975). Two models of social reform action in a normative organization. Sociological Analysis, 36 , 161–167. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19076636&site=ehost-live